Research Articles Open access Double-blind peer reviewed

The Role of ESG in Driving Firm Profitability

Implications for Stakeholder, Resource-Based View, and Triple Bottom Line Theories in Emerging Markets

Authors

  • Mubanga Lackson ChipimoORCID iD verified by the author (show author details)

    Mubanga Lackson Chipimo

    School of Postgraduate Studies, University of Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia

    0009-0006-5656-6160

    Corresponding author

    • Prof. John Bwalya (show author details)

      Prof. John Bwalya

      Dag Hammarskjöld Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, Copperbelt University, Zambia, Zambia

      • Prof. Joseph Katongo Kanyanga (show author details)

        Prof. Joseph Katongo Kanyanga

        Office of the Vice Chancellor, City University of Science and Technology, Zambia, Zambia

        Cite

        How to Cite

        Chipimo, M. L., Bwalya, J., & Kanyanga, J. K. (2025). The Role of ESG in Driving Firm Profitability: Implications for Stakeholder, Resource-Based View, and Triple Bottom Line Theories in Emerging Markets. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 8(1), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.33215/m1c78498

        More Citation Formats

        Download Citation

        Share

        Share

        • 2,367views
        • 2,174downloads

        Abstract

        Purpose- This study examines how Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices influence firm profitability and extend key strategic theories like the Stakeholder Theory, Resource-Based View (RBV), and the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) within Zambia’s food sector.
        Design/Methodology- Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analysed panel data from 2014 to 2024 for listed food companies in Zambia. Fixed effects regression with lagged ESG variables was applied to address endogeneity. Qualitative content analysis of corporate sustainability and governance reports complemented the quantitative findings.
        Findings- The regression model explains 55.6% of the variation in firm profitability, as indicated by the adjusted R². Among the ESG components, governance practices exhibited a statistically significant positive influence on profitability (coefficient = 23.39, p = 0.015). In contrast, environmental initiatives showed a significant short-term negative effect (coefficient = –32.60, p < 0.001), while social factors did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact.
        Practical Implications- Firms in emerging markets should embed ESG into core strategy, supported by robust governance. Policymakers must strengthen regulatory frameworks to facilitate sustainable business practices. Future studies are encouraged to further investigate ESG dynamics in resource-constrained settings.
        Originality/Value – This study contributes to ESG literature in emerging markets by integrating theoretical perspectives with empirical evidence, offering nuanced insights into how ESG performance shapes profitability and strategic outcomes.

        Keywords

        Categories

        License

        Copyright (c) 2025 Mubanga Lackson Chipimo, Prof. John Bwalya, Prof. Joseph Katongo Kanyanga

        Creative Commons License

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

        Published in

        Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025): SEISENSE Journal of Management View Issue

        Reads, last 12 months

        2025-122026-11

        Article history

        1. ReceivedMarch 1, 2025
        2. AcceptedApril 21, 2025
        3. Published April 25, 2025

        References

        Alsayegh, M.F., Rahman, R.A., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12(9), 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Aydoğmuş, M., Gülay, G., & Ergun, K. (2022). Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.11.006 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Bouguerra, A., Wood, G., & Morand, P. (2022). Linking entrepreneurial orientation to environmental collaboration: A perspective on the interplay of institutional pressures and resource alignment. British Journal of Management, 33(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12485

        Cantele, S., & Zardini, A. (2024). Measuring corporate sustainability in its multidimensionality: A formative approach to sustainability performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2842

        Chen, K. (2024). The strategic integration of ESG principles in corporate innovation: Theoretical foundations, mechanisms, and practical challenges. International Journal of Novel Research in Marketing Management and Economics, 11(2), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13589231

        Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analysing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Dangelico, R.M., Pujari, D., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017). Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capabilities perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Duong, H.L., Tran, P.T., Nguyen, T.P., & Bui, D.T. (2024). The relationship between social sustainability practices and performance outcomes in supply chains: A meta-analysis approach. Sustainability, 16(5), 250–269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16050250

        Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

        Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

        Giannopoulos, G., Kihle Fagernes, R.V., Elmarzouky, M., & Afzal Hossain, K.A.B.M. (2022). The ESG disclosure and the financial performance of Norwegian listed firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(6), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15060237 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Hart, S.L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390219 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Lee, C., Zhang, T., & Zhou, Z. (2024). The interplay of institutional pressures, digitalization capability, and ESG performance in manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2846

        López-Pérez, M.E., Melero, I., & Sese, F.J. (2018). Does specific CSR training for managers impact shareholder value? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1103–1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1525

        Majid, M.F., Meraj, M., & Mubarik, M.S. (2022). In the pursuit of environmental sustainability: The role of environmental accounting. Sustainability, 14, 6526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116526 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Roberson, Q.M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z

        Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondejar, L., & Davia, M.A. (2019). Eco-innovation by small and medium-sized firms in Europe: From end-of-pipe to cleaner technologies. Innovation and Development, 9(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2017.1377424

        Velte, P. (2021). Environmental performance, carbon performance and earnings management: Empirical evidence for the European capital market. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 42–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Wang, Y., Huang, Z., Tang, S., & Xie, C. (2023). Do Environmental Regulations Improve ESG Performance? Evidence from the Moderating Role of Retail Investor Attention. Sustainability, 15(15), 11818. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511818 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Westerholz, H.K., & Höhler, J. (2022). Corporate social responsibility reporting in the food industry—Comparison of co‐operatives and investor‐owned dairies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 211–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Xu, X., Zeng, S., & Tam, C.M. (2019). The impact of green innovation on corporate competitive advantage in manufacturing firms: The moderating role of environmental regulation. Sustainability, 11(8), 2315. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082315

        Zhao, C., Guo, Y., Yuan, J., Wu, M., Li, D., Zhou, Y., & Kang, J. (2018). ESG and corporate financial performance: Empirical evidence from China’s listed power generation companies. Sustainability, 10(8), 2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082607 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

        Similar articles

        Chosen by the keywords and the section they share with this article.

        Most read articles by the same author(s)