Reform priorities for corporate sustainability Environmental, social, governance, or economic performance?

Purpose - Most companies rarely work on sustainable development as a whole, which includes environmental, social, governance, and economic pillars. The purpose of this paper is to explore causal relationships between pillar scores and overall score of sustainability and identify the most critical pillar to which policy makers should allot limited resources with the highest priority. Design/methodology/approach - Based on Thomson Reuters ASSET4 database of global corporate sustainability, this paper examines the causal relations between pillar scores and overall score of sustainability by using the three-stage integrative methodology consisting of cluster analysis, data mining, and partial least square path modeling. Findings - This paper finds that each pillar has unequal effects on the overall corporate sustainability and that the overall score is affected by not only the direct effects from pillar scores but also the indirect effects from the causal interrelations among pillars. Moreover, the patterns of causal directions and the most critical pillar are sensitive to industries. Social performance is the most critical pillar for the majority of industries, followed by environmental performance, and economic performance, respectively. The governance performance, however, is not the most critical pillar in any industry. Practical implications - To construct a roadmap for reform priorities, policy makers should follow the top-down approach which involves hierarchical decisions. Using the three-stage methodology, the policy makers first decide on the most critical pillar score before selecting the most critical category score underneath. Originality/value - Relaxing traditional assumptions of simple average overall score of corporate sustainability, the three-stage integrative framework allows for causal interrelations among pillars and different weights on individual pillars.