System analysis and corporate organization management based on the ESG-approach

The issues of strategic management of fuel and energy complex enterprises in accordance with the ESG approach are considered. The existing variants of measures used by Russian and foreign companies in the field of ESG policy are investigated. The analysis of existing methods has been carried out, unresolved scientific problems and prospects for further research have been identified. It is concluded that attracting new investors is one of the main reasons why companies pursue an active ESG policy. It is shown that a successful ESG policy helps to reduce the risk of a company's value falling in the market, which makes it more attractive to investors and shareholders. The features of the application of the ESG approach for fuel and energy companies are revealed. The features of ESG ratings are noted. It is demonstrated that an active policy in the field of ESG leads not only to an increase in financial indicators, but also to the adjustment of the company's market value. It is concluded that in order to integrate all ESG directions into a single platform solution based on ESG principles, joint actions of the state, rating agencies, companies, specialists in the field of sustainable development as well as investors are necessary. Moreover, the implementation of a simplified version of such solutions directly on the basis of companies brings low efficiency and will not allow achieving a comprehensive effect.

1. Alsayegh M.F., Abdul Rahman R., Homayoun S. Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3910. DOI:10.3390/su12093910.

2. Andersen I., Bams D. Environmental management: An industry classification. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;344:130853. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130853.

3. Avramov D. et al. Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics. 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009.

4. Baker E.D. et al. ESG government risk and international IPO underpricing. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021;67:101913. DOI:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101913.

5. Barber B.M., Morse A., Yasuda A. Impact investing. Journal of Financial Economics. – 2021;139(1):162–185. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.07.008.

6. Bardanov A.I., Vasilkov O.S., Pudkova T.V. Modeling the process of redistributing power consumption using energy storage system with various configurations to align the electrical loads schedule. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing. 2021;1753(1):012013. DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1753/1/012013.

7. Barros V. et al. M&A activity as a driver for better ESG performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021:121338. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121338.

8. Berg F. et al. Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings. Forthcoming Review of Finance. 2022. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3438533.

9. Bofinger Y. et al. Corporate social responsibility and market efficiency: Evidence from ESG and misvaluation measures. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2022;134:106322. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106322.

10. Boiral O., Heras-Saizarbitoria I., Brotherton M.C. Nature connectedness and environmental management in natural resources companies: an exploratory study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;206:227–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.174.

11. Bolton P., Kacperczyk M. Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics. 2021;142:517–549. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008.

12. Buonocore J.J. et al. Metrics for the sustainable development goals: renewable energy and transportation. Palgrave Communications. 2019;5(1):1–14. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0336-4.

13. Dye J., McKinnon M., Van der Byl C. Green gaps: Firm ESG disclosure and financial institutions’ reporting Requirements. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2021;3:1. DOI: 10.20900/jsr20210006.

14. Escrig-Olmedo E. et al. Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles. Sustainability. 2019;11:915. DOI:10.3390/su11030915.

15. Gao R. et al. Cloud-enabled prognosis for manufacturing. CIRP Annals. 2015;64:749–772. DOI: 10.1016/j.cirp.2015.05.011.

16. Perks C., Mudd G., Currell M. Using corporate sustainability reporting to assess the environmental footprint of titanium and zirconium mining. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2022;9:101034. DOI: 10.1016/j.exis.2021.101034.

17. Pradhan P. et al. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth's Future. 2017;5(11):1169–1179. DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000632.