Whose Sustainability Counts? Board Governance, ESG Ratings, and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence on the ESG–SDG Wedge

ABSTRACT Institutional investors increasingly rely on ESG ratings to evaluate financially material sustainability risks, while governments promote corporate alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because these frameworks differ substantially in capital market salience and monitoring intensity, board oversight may not uniformly enhance sustainability performance but instead reallocate attention across competing evaluative regimes. Drawing on institutional logics theory and the attention‐based view of the firm, we develop the ESG–SDG wedge, a novel measure capturing within‐industry‐year divergence between standardized ESG ratings and SDG alignment breadth. Using panel data on 951 publicly listed firms across US and European markets from 2018 to 2023 (4404 firm‐year observations), we estimate two‐way fixed effects (TWFE) models and implement staggered difference‐in‐differences designs around 173 CSR committee adoption events using the Sun and Abraham (2021) interaction‐weighted estimator combined with inverse probability weighting. We find that CSR committees are associated with ESG–SDG wedges 0.21 standard deviations larger than comparable peers, with causal estimates approaching 0.30 standard deviations under validated parallel trends. Board industry‐financial expertise exhibits similar patterns. Mechanism analyses reveal pronounced asymmetry: Governance structures relate substantially more strongly to ESG ratings than to SDG alignment. This divergence is concentrated among US firms relative to European counterparts and varies systematically across industries with differing ESG materiality profiles. These findings challenge the assumption that specialized oversight uniformly strengthens multidimensional sustainability performance. Board governance reallocates constrained attention toward criteria embedded in capital market processes, generating systematic divergence across sustainability frameworks—with important implications for corporate sustainability governance design, ESG investment strategy, and sustainable development policy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Business Strategy and the Environment
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.71183
Primary Topic
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Whose Sustainability Counts? Board Governance, ESG Ratings, and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence on the ESG–SDG Wedge

Mahmoud Zarea, Diego Prior, Mohamed Hegazy
Business Strategy and the Environment
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
article

Whose Sustainability Counts? Board Governance, ESG Ratings, and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence on the ESG–SDG Wedge

Mahmoud Zarea, Diego Prior, Mohamed Hegazy
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Institutional investors increasingly rely on ESG ratings to evaluate financially material sustainability risks, while governments promote corporate alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because these frameworks differ substantially in capital market salience and monitoring intensity, board oversight may not uniformly enhance sustainability performance but instead reallocate attention across competing evaluative regimes. Drawing on institutional logics theory and the attention‐based view of the firm, we develop the ESG–SDG wedge, a novel measure capturing within‐industry‐year divergence between standardized ESG ratings and SDG alignment breadth. Using panel data on 951 publicly listed firms across US and European markets from 2018 to 2023 (4404 firm‐year observations), we estimate two‐way fixed effects (TWFE) models and implement staggered difference‐in‐differences designs around 173 CSR committee adoption events using the Sun and Abraham (2021) interaction‐weighted estimator combined with inverse probability weighting. We find that CSR committees are associated with ESG–SDG wedges 0.21 standard deviations larger than comparable peers, with causal estimates approaching 0.30 standard deviations under validated parallel trends. Board industry‐financial expertise exhibits similar patterns. Mechanism analyses reveal pronounced asymmetry: Governance structures relate substantially more strongly to ESG ratings than to SDG alignment. This divergence is concentrated among US firms relative to European counterparts and varies systematically across industries with differing ESG materiality profiles. These findings challenge the assumption that specialized oversight uniformly strengthens multidimensional sustainability performance. Board governance reallocates constrained attention toward criteria embedded in capital market processes, generating systematic divergence across sustainability frameworks—with important implications for corporate sustainability governance design, ESG investment strategy, and sustainable development policy.

Business Strategy and the Environment
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES), Cairo University (EG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.