We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
European Business Law Review
Search content button

Home > All journals > European Business Law Review > 35(3) >

ESG and Boundary Risks: A Social Welfare Approach

Cover image ofEuropean Business Law Review

$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$49.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
ESG and Boundary Risks: A Social Welfare Approach


European Business Law Review
Volume 35, Issue 3/4 (2024) pp. 551 – 576

https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2024031



Abstract

ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) engagement has become a standard practice for public companies, with global asset managers credited for driving this change. Opinions vary on its implications: some view it as crucial for risk management, especially regarding “boundary risks” – those risks occurring beyond a firm’s structural boundaries but involving its responsibility, such as labor/human rights abuses, environmental damage, and community impacts. Others argue that this engagement has a political connotation and gives rise to concerns about democratic accountability and legitimacy. In the meantime, ESG regulation is being introduced, both in Europe and several US states. 

In this Article I employ a social welfare approach to evaluate these opposite scholarly positions and examine the impact of ESG and boundary risk regulation. I show that due to heterogenous ESG preferences, tradeoffs affecting consumption choices and the prevailing, investor-driven conformity observed in ESG practices, these practices may not necessarily maximize social welfare. This conclusion has two key implications for the outstanding debate on ESG and boundary risks. First, the argument that current ESG engagement is inherently legitimate because it increases overall social welfare lacks theoretical support. Second, this suggests the desirability of regulation to enhance ESG legitimacy, though tradeoffs between legitimacy and regulatory efficiency may arise.


Keywords

ESG, boundary risks, sustainability, social welfare, asset managers, ESG regulation, legitimacy, ESG tradeoffs, European Commission Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence proposal, US states’ ESG regulation


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC