The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

Bogoviz, Aleksei V.; Lobova, Svetlana V.; Alekseev, Alexander N.

doi:10.3390/risks10060117

Open AccessArticle

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

by

Aleksei V. Bogoviz

^1,*

,

Svetlana V. Lobova

²

and

Alexander N. Alekseev

³

¹

Independent Researcher, 125284 Moscow, Russia

²

Department of Economics and Econometrics, Altai State University, 656049 Barnaul, Russia

³

Department of Systems Analysis in Economics, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 115093 Moscow, Russia

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Risks 2022, 10(6), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10060117

Submission received: 20 April 2022 / Revised: 19 May 2022 / Accepted: 23 May 2022 / Published: 2 June 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Managing Financial Risks Based on Corporate Social Responsibility for Sustainable Development)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

:

This paper aims to study the international experience (in the aspect and taking into account the specifics of regions of the world) integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies and to identify the following: (1) supported SDGs (UN standards); (2) implemented measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs and (3) approach from the positions of risks for profit. Based on a sample of 193 countries (seven regions of the world) from 2020–2021 (386 observations) based on the method of structural equation modelling (SEM), it was discovered that the SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies to a different extent in the different world regions, but, on the whole, they are strongly integrated into the corporate strategies in each region. The largest support of the SDGs from business is observed in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for profit are low (moderate in the OECD). The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is implemented in all regions of the world. The theoretical significance of the results consists in the fact that the discovered differences pointed at the necessity for and set the foundation for the transition from global to regional management of the integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies. The practical significance of the authors’ conclusions and developments consists in the fact that they allow increasing the effectiveness of risk management of the practices of corporate social responsibility for profit.

Keywords:

corporate social responsibility (CSR); integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies; risks for profit; regions of the world

JEL Codes:

D81; G32; Q01; M14; N30

1. Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a unique collective agreement of the modern time, which was concluded between government, society, and business at a global scale and which ensures outstanding progress in sustainable development. Society is the direct beneficiary of the SDGs, but bears the lowest expenditures for their implementation and, thus, supports them. The government protects society’s interests, and implementation of the SDGs is among its main responsibilities. Participation of business in the achievement of the SDGs is complex and contradictory, deserving special attention. It is no coincidence that the necessity for the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies is a part of the agenda in the Decade of Action (Casias et al. 2022; Karagiannis et al. 2022; Trzeciak 2021).

In most cases, support of the SDGs means losses for business (including a shortfall in profits—alternative costs), i.e., contradicts its financial interests. The existing scientific literature distinguishes three approaches to the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. The 1st—regulatory—approach is based on companies’ unpreparedness for voluntary losses, so the implementation of the SDGs is a “market gap”. That is the reason why the government does not provide companies with the choice and opportunity to voluntarily support the SDGs (expecting that this will not take place at the required scale). Instead of this, the government adopts and controls the observation of labour and ecological standards, as well as standards of corporate financial reporting (Batóg and Batóg 2021). On the one hand, this ensures wide support of the SDGs by entrepreneurship, but, on the other hand, government interference with the natural processes distorts the effect of the market mechanism and decreases the effectiveness of entrepreneurship (Hamed et al. 2022; Liu 2021).

The other two approaches are based on corporate social responsibility and are widely studied in the existing literature. A lot of scientific publications are devoted to the research of the interconnection between corporate social responsibility and the indicators of a company’s activity (Fontana 2017; Jaisinghani and Sekhon 2022; Kaul and Luo 2018; Schramm-Klein 2015).

A lot of studies undertook the testing of the interconnection between corporate social responsibility and the indicators of a company’s activity, including profitability, firm risk, stock liquidity, etc. (Akbar et al. 2021; Gennaro 2021; Zhang et al. 2021; Bednarczyk et al. 2021). Using the existing literature, the following two approaches are differentiated by the criterion of the risks of corporate social responsibility for profit.

The 2nd—non-commercial—approach to corporate social responsibility implies that companies have to voluntarily refuse their financial interests in favour of implementing the SDGs and accept high risks for profit. According to this approach, corporate social responsibility is associated with charity. As a matter of act, charity events, volunteering, and companies’ donations allow accelerating the progress in the achievement of the SDGs.

Many studies (in particular, Kuzey et al. 2022; Loor-Zambrano et al. 2022; Bu et al. 2022) provide arguments in favour of the idea that companies can “do well by doing good”. In other words, a company must experience a loss when it contributes to CSR, especially when stakeholders in the company appreciate the CSR practices.

However, in the background of non-profit activities lie commercial profits, while the widespread deprivation of companies of the principal opportunity to make a profit would lead to their bankruptcy (Chu and Fang 2021). Only the most successful and stable companies can accept large risks for profit. That is why the non-commercial approach to corporate social responsibility cannot be extended to entrepreneurship, on the whole, i.e., it has limited capabilities for scaling the practices of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies (Jackson 2021).

The 3rd—commercial—approach to corporate social responsibility means that, during its implementation, companies are guided by their main goal, which is connected to making a profit, and the achievement of the SDGs is the priority. This ensures low risks of corporate social responsibility for companies’ profit. This approach fits the nature of entrepreneurship in the market economy in the best way and thus has potential for wide practical use since it ensures the largest systemic profit for all interested parties in the long term (Ang et al. 2022; Song and Tao 2022; Xie et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2022).

The research question (RQ) of this paper is as follows: do companies implement corporate social responsibility in practice according to the recommendations given in the SDGs (UN standards)? How do they do this in different regions of the world? Which approach do they use? What are the risks for profit? The hypothesis of this research is as follows: companies actively implement corporate social responsibility in practice according to the recommendations given in the SDGs (UN standards) based on the commercial (3rd) approach, but the scale of this practice and its risks for profit are different depending on regions of the world.

The objective of this paper is to study the international experience (in the aspect and taking into account the specifics of regions of the world) of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies and to identify the following: (1) supported SDGs (UN standards); (2) implemented measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs and (3) the approach from the positions of the risks for profit.

2. Literature Review

This paper uses the theory of integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies, which describes and characterises in detail all three existing approaches to this integration. Their comparative analysis is given in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, the regulatory approach uses the mechanism of state regulation during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. With that, support for the SDGs is forced. Market implications of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies are linked to the slowdown of economic growth and development of the shadow economy, and the risks of support of the SDGs for profit are high (Pizzi et al. 2021; Rahman 2021; Raithatha and Shaw 2021).

The other two approaches use the mechanism of CSR during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. According to the non-commercial approach to CSR, support of the SDGs is voluntary. The market implications of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies are linked to the slowdown of economic growth and dysfunction of the market mechanism (but the risks of support of the SDGs for profit are also high Akopova et al. 2020; Mochales and Blanch 2022; Shayan et al. 2022; Sinkovics et al. 2021; Waheed and Zhang 2022; Wang et al. 2022).

The commercial approach to corporate social responsibility implies the voluntary support of the SDGs, which becomes a new form of “healthy” competition in the market (in addition to price competition and quality competition) (Medentseva 2017; Muhmad and Muhamad 2021; Petrovskaya et al. 2022; Roy et al. 2022; Vagin et al. 2022).

A serious drawback of the first two (regulatory and non-commercial) approaches is the high risks of support of the SDGs for profit (Kornieieva 2020; Lassala et al. 2021; Martí-Ballester 2020). The commercial approach is very different due to the low risks of support of the SDGs for profit. This is illustrated by the bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from the standpoint of financial risks in various distinguished approaches (Figure 1).

The scale in Figure 1 shows that the non-commercial approach to CSR and the regulatory approach stimulate the movement from point A to point B. In section BA, business suffers losses from the support of the SDGs, the size of which grows in the course of approach to point A.

The commercial approach to corporate social responsibility opens a perspective for the movement to the right (to point C) along the stretch BC. In the works of Battisti et al. (2022), Kong (2022), Quang et al. (2022), Wentzel et al. (2022), it is noted that the risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies are rather high for the risks on the whole.

The detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies in alternative approaches (based on the existing literature) are presented in Table 2.

As shown in Table 2, though CSR can support all SDGs at once, it is mostly focused on the following SDGs: SDG 5, SDG 8, SDG 13, and SDG 16. These SDGs have the potential for commercialisation.

Other SDGs belong to the sphere of charity (and the potential contribution of business to their practical implementation is less vivid), so they are not considered in this paper. The performed systematisation allowed distinguishing three key directions of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs: responsible human resource management (HRM), responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility), and responsible finance.

Let us present specific measures that are implemented in the above directions and provide a more detailed description of the CSR practices and their support for the SDGs. The measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards—on the stretch BC in Figure 1) include the following (from the positions of responsible human resources management (HRM)):

Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages (He and Kim 2021; Hirsu et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the creation of equal conditions for the professional activities of all employees, regardless of their gender. Additionally, a transparent and flexible approach to wages, which takes into account the individual results of each employee’s work, is used:

−: Stability or increase in jobs to support employment (Zhao et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the refusal of personnel cuts even amid a crisis, the formation of a personnel reserve for continuous filling of jobs, and the creation of additional jobs, apart from the satisfaction of the company’s main needs for personnel in the striving for the growth of the intensity of business processes in the connection to human resources.
−: Guarantee of labour rights (official employment) (Chanda and Goyal 2020; Ramos-González et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply providing employees with an expanded spectrum of social labour guarantees, which covers the basic obligations of employers, dictated by the labour law.
−: Provision of production safety (Rawshdeh et al. 2019). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply accelerated automatisation of the types of labour activities that are potentially dangerous for life and health and employees, with the preservation of jobs (employees perform the function of remote control over automatised business processes).

From the position of responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility):

−: Improving treatment systems for reducing environmental pollution (Han and Cao 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply a voluntary transition of companies to higher environmental standards of their activities and issued products (for example, automobile manufacturing) and implementation of ecological innovations.
−: Refusal to include ecological costs in the price (Setyowati et al. 2021). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply a voluntary refusal of companies of a part of the profit in favour of an increase in environmental friendliness of their activities.

From the position of responsible finance:

−: Business’s fight against corruption (Dela Cruz et al. 2020). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply the companies’ refusal to participate in corruption schemes and disclosure of these schemes.
−: Full-scale payment of taxes (official business) (Panos and Wilson 2020). Using this measure, the CSR practices in support of the SDGs imply companies’ refusal to participate in the schemes of tax evasion.

Despite the in-depth elaboration of the issues of the support of the SDGs with the help of corporate social responsibility, the following aspects remain poorly studied and unclear:

(1): Which SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world (research gap No. 1)?
(2): Which (of the list given in Table 2) measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world (research gap No. 2)?
(3): Which approach is used? What are the risks of support of the SDGs (UN standards) with the help of corporate social responsibility for profit (research gap No. 3)?

Based on the above gaps, the research question of this paper is formulated. This paper strives to fill in the research gap (and answer the research question) by studying the international experience of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies based on corporate social responsibility in isolation in each region of the world and to specify the cause-and-effect links of the support of the SDGs in entrepreneurship for its risks for profit.

3. Materials and Methods

To answer the research question (RQ), the discovered research gaps are consistently filled in and the research is conducted according to the following strategy (Table 3).

The research objects are 193 countries in 2021, for which the statistics of the achievement of the SDGs are collected and the Sustainable Development Index is calculated; in the multicriterial (given the criteria of geographical location, level of income, and economic integration) classification of the UN (2021), they are divided into the following categories:

−: Africa: 49 countries;
−: E. Europe and C. Asia: 27 countries;
−: East and South Asia: 21 countries;
−: LAC: 30 countries;
−: MENA: 17 countries;
−: Oceania: 12 countries;
−: OECD: 37 countries.

The choice of SDG 5, SDG 8, SDG 13, and SDG 16 is due to the fact that the current statistics on them reflect business’s contribution to the largest extent. Though there are no isolated statistics on how many companies support these SDGs and to what extent, this limitation of the existing statistics could be overcome by the study of the SDGs (the selected SDGs) in which an important (and even main) role belongs to a business. The studied indicators of the UN are obtained not at the level of companies but at the level of the economy on the whole. This allows receiving the unified statistics—compatible data at the level of all regions of the world: universal indicators and their values, without the number of companies and size of countries.

The sample is given in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2). Detailed definitions of the variables are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Table S11). The advantages of the considered sample are that it is the most detailed study of the experience of the global economic system on the whole and the possibility to specify the features of countries from various categories. The research is performed based on the 2021 data.

According to the research strategy (Table 3), to achieve the stated goal, this paper solves the following tasks.

The 1st task: determining the level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies. The following is done for this:

−: Determining the activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (α) with the help of the method of structural analysis by finding the ratio of the number of countries for which the values of the indicators of the support of the SDGs are non-zero (difference between the total number of countries and the number of zeroes for the column) to the total number of countries (in per cent): it must be above 50%.
−: Evaluating the regularity of the support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures (β), with the help of the method of analysis of variance (by column, in per cent): it must be below 80%.
−: Finding the ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (λ), with the help of the method of comparative analysis (in per cent): it must be above 50%.

The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for each selected SDG is determined according to the formula: (α+β+λ)/3. As a result, the aggregate integration of the selected SDGs in the corporate strategies is calculated as the arithmetic mean for all selected SDGs.

The 2nd task: determining the specific measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs, which are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world, through the comparison of the selected practices to the measures of corporate social responsibility from Table 2.

The 3rd task: qualitatively (high/low) evaluating the risks of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies for companies’ profit. To achieve the stated task, the consequences for various practices of corporate social responsibility for profit are identified with the help of the regression analysis method.

For this, the dependence between the indicator countries of the UN (2021) from Table 2 (let us denote them as CSR_SDG(1)–(9)) and the targeted result—shifted profits of multinationals (let us denote it as SPM, measured in USD billion)—is found (UN 2021). The economic essence of this econometric procedure consists in identifying the connections between the indicators of implementing the SDGs and companies’ profit (shifted profits of multinationals). The research model of this paper is as follows:

SPM = F(CSR_SDG(1)–(9)).

(1)

Model (1) is deliberately given in the generalised form (as a function), to allow the inclusion of the different number of factor variables—selected CSR practices (from 1 to all 9)—the connection of which with the resulting variable is reliable (checked with the help of the F test, to ensure the precision of the analysis results). Since the statistics for all variables from model (1) are not available for 2020 (no data for Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (SR_SDG(3)) and Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (SR_SDG(7)), for the full coverage of all selected indicators, model (1) is compiled based on the data for 2021 only—a rather large sample of 193 observations).

Apart from this, we compiled a structural equation model, which is reflected in the block diagram in Figure 1.

Figure 2 shows that targeted outcome (financial risk): shifted profits of multinationals depend on the factors of responsible HRM, responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility), and responsible finance, which are interconnected. The targeted outcome (financial risk): shifted profits of multinationals are also influenced by other (residual) factors that are unified into one error of the model (i.e., latent variable). All variables of the structural equation model have their variation (scatter of values: var).

To compile a structural equation model, we form an expanded (unified) sample, which includes the data not only for 2021 but also for 2020, due to which the aggregate array of data contains 386 observations. The sample for SEM is presented in Table S3. The choice of the method of structural equation modelling (SEM) is explained by it being one of the most precise methods of econometric statistics. It allows the following:

−: Including in the model any number of factor variables (CSR_SDG) and taking into account the systemic and isolated connection between each variable and the targeted outcome. Due to this, model (1) can have several mathematical expressions, which is important for this research, to obtain the most precise results and their correct treatment.
−: Taking into account and describing in detail the connections between the factor variables and the resulting variable and among each other. To ensure better visualisation of data, the connections between factors, instead of the reflection in the structural equation model, are presented separately in the form of the covariance matrix (which reflects the cross-correlation of factor variables).
−: Considering covariance of each variable with itself (a measure of its scatter) and the residual components that are not included in the interpretation and are moved beyond the limits of the analysed model (errors of the model). They are important since they ensure the model’s correctness for it is widely known that corporate social responsibility (support for the SDGs) is not the only, and not even the main, factor (set of factors in the context of the SDGs) of companies’ profit and its change (financial risks). Acknowledgement of the imperfection and limitations of the model improves its understanding and raises its practical usefulness.
−: Determining not only the general connection of indicators but also the regularity of the change in the targeted outcome depending on the change in the factor variables. Due to the determination of this regularity, model (1) will allow not only selecting the CSR practices that are closely connected to profit but also revealing their consequences for profit. This allows differentiating the CSR practices that ensure the contribution to the implementation of the SDGs without financial losses for business (low risk for profit) and the practices that cause losses for the business (high risk for profit). Differentiation between these practices is very important for the answer to the set RQ: explaining the stretch BC in Figure 1.

Then, based on the results of structural equation modelling (SEM) and using the method of logical analysis, we assess the consequences of the selected practices for profit in regions of the world: positive (low risks for profit) or negative (high risks for profit) consequences.

4. Results

Within the first research task, the representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in the distinguished regions of the world is determined (Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10).

According to Table 4, the following measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in Africa:

Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment.
−
The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (α): 97.96%.
−
Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures (β): 80.64%.
−
The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (λ): 95.22%.
−
Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (97.96 + 80.64 + 95.22)/3 = 90.94%.
Guarantee of labour rights (official employment).
−
The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (α): 63.27%.
−
Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures (β): 16.56%.
−
The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (λ): 91.69%.
−
Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (63.27 + 16.56 + 91.69) = 57.17%.
Business’s fight against corruption:
−
The activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (α): 100.00%.
−
Regularity of support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures (β): 39.23%.
−
The ratio of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs to the worldwide average value (λ): 75.01%.
−
Level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (100.00 + 39.23 + 75.01)/3 = 71.42%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) in the corporate strategies: (90.94 + 51.17 + 71.42)/3 = 73.18% (high).

Table 4. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of Africa in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	49	49	49	49	49	49	49	49	49
Number of 0	49	1	18	3	3	3	49	0	40
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	97.96	63.27	93.88	93.88	93.88	0.00	100.00	18.37
Average	0.00	8.41	0.54	0.23	71.62	22.87	0.00	32.31	54.85
Standard deviation	0.00	6.78	0.09	0.55	184.71	29.80	0.00	12.67	11.53
Variation, %	0.00	80.64	16.56	243.70	257.92	130.31	0.00	39.23	21.02
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	95.22	91.69	314.04	122.51	128.95	0.00	75.01	113.38

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 5, the following measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in E. Europe and C. Asia:

−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 75.43%.
−: Guarantee of labour rights (official employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 57.65%.
−: Business’s fight against corruption. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 67.25%.
−: Full-scale payment of taxes (official business). The level of integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 47.27%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (75.43 + 57.65 + 67.25 + 47.27)/4 = 61.90% (high).

Table 5. Representation of CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of E. Europe and C. Asia in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	27	27	27	27	27	27	27	27	27
Number of 0	27	4	11	0	0	0	27	4	18
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	85.19	59.26	100.00	100.00	100.00	0.00	85.19	33.33
Average	0.00	9.05	0.57	0.85	79.65	27.30	0.00	37.87	64.22
Standard deviation	0.00	4.76	0.10	2.09	111.23	27.12	0.00	10.85	7.47
Variation, %	0.00	52.60	16.84	245.95	139.66	99.33	0.00	28.64	11.64
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	88.49	96.86	83.62	110.16	108.01	0.00	87.93	96.84

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 6, the following measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in East and South Asia:

−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 115.16%.
−: Guarantee of labour rights (official employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 60.91%.
−: Business’s fight against corruption. The level of integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 49.79%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (115.16 + 60.91 + 49.79)/3 = 75.29% (high).

Table 6. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of East and South Asia in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21	21
Number of 0	21		6	2	1	1	21	0	19
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	100.00	71.43	90.48	95.24	95.24	0.00	100.00	9.52
Average	0.00	4.11	0.52	0.61	59.28	20.08	0.00	39.57	69.83
Standard deviation	0.00	2.09	0.12	1.49	90.30	20.76	0.00	15.62	16.30
Variation, %	0.00	50.75	22.62	243.09	152.33	103.37	0.00	39.48	23.34
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	194.73	88.68	115.64	148.01	146.86	0.00	91.88	89.06

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 7, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in LAC:

−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.86%.
−: Guarantee of labour rights (official employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.84%.
−: Business’s fight against corruption. The level of integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 73.82%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (69.86 + 69.84 + 73.82)/3 = 71.17 (high).

Table 7. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of LAC in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, WORST 0–100 best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	30	30	30	30	30	30	30	30	30
Number of 0	30	4	3	5	5	5	30	3	28
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	86.67	90.00	83.33	83.33	83.33	0.00	90.00	6.67
Average	0.00	10.24	0.60	0.72	150.96	37.26	0.00	41.00	85.89
Standard deviation	0.00	4.37	0.11	2.15	259.42	45.89	0.00	14.87	19.95
Variation, %	0.00	42.69	17.48	298.45	171.85	123.15	0.00	36.26	23.23
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	78.21	102.05	98.60	58.12	79.14	0.00	95.19	72.40

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 8, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in MENA:

−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 75.49%.
−: Guarantee of labour rights (official employment). The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 50.20%.
−: Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 101.69%.
−: Business’s fight against corruption. The level of integration of the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 77.56%.
−: Full-scale payment of taxes. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 35.16%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: (75.49 + 50.20 + 101.69 + 77.56 + 35.16)/5 = 68.02% (high).

According to Table 9, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in Oceania:

−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for each of the selected SDGs: 71.65% (high).

Table 8. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of MENA in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	17	17	17	17	17	17	17	17	17
Number of 0	17	0	9	0	0	0	17	0	15
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	100.00	47.06	100.00	100.00	100.00	0.00	100.00	11.76
Average	0.00	10.25	0.47	0.96	50.97	19.38	0.00	37.88	85.59
Standard deviation	0.00	4.96	0.11	1.56	64.64	10.26	0.00	16.94	18.02
Variation, %	0.00	48.34	23.24	162.22	126.81	52.92	0.00	44.71	21.06
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	78.13	80.30	73.64	172.13	152.15	0.00	87.96	72.66

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

Table 9. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of Oceania in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12	12
Number of 0	12	6	12	8	8	8	12	9	12
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	0.00	50.00	0.00	33.33	33.33	33.33	0.00	25.00	0.00
Average	0.00	3.92	0.00	0.20	277.79	14.57	0.00	37.33	0.00
Standard deviation	0.00	2.85	0.00	0.10	246.58	9.12	0.00	8.96	0.00
Variation, %	0.00	72.66	0.00	50.88	88.76	62.61	0.00	24.01	0.00
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	0	204.42	0.00	351.49	31.58	202.38	0.00	86.68	0.00

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 10, the following CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) are implemented in the OECD:

−: Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 71.65%.
−: Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 87.46%.
−: Guarantee of labour rights. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 72.27%.
−: Provision of occupational safety and health. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 79.59%.
−: Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 69.16%.
−: Refusal to include environmental costs in the price. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 77.87%.
−: Business’s fight against corruption. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 92.62%.
−: Full-scale payment of taxes. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies: 65.27%.

The systemic integration of the selected SDGs (UN standards) in corporate strategies: (71.65 + 87.46 + 72.27 + 79.59 + 69.16 + 77.86 + 92.62 + 65.27)/8 = 76.99 (very high).

Table 10. Representation of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) in countries of OECD in 2021.

	SDG 5, SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 8	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 13	SDG 16	SDG 16
	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work (Minutes/Day)	Unemployment Rate (% of the Total Labour Force)	Fundamental Labour Rights Are Effectively Guaranteed (Worst 0–1 Best)	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports (per 100,000 Population)	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions (kg/Capita)	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions (kg/Capita)	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, Worst 0–100 Best)	Corruption Perception Index (Worst 0–100 Best)	Corporate Tax Haven Score (Best 0–100 Worst)
Number of countries	37	37	37	37	37	37	37	37	37
Number of 0	8	0	8	0	0	0	0	0	12
The activity of the use of CSR measures, %	78.38	100.00	78.38	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	67.57
Average	123.33	7.12	0.71	1.19	82.68	45.41	40.86	66.92	59.73
Standard deviation	45.11	3.56	0.13	0.95	64.99	19.32	13.72	15.05	14.41
Variation, %	36.57	49.97	18.47	79.28	78.60	42.55	33.58	22.49	24.13
Arithmetic means for the world	123.33	8.01	0.59	0.71	87.74	29.49	40.86	43.07	62.19
Average/best value ratio, %	100.00	112.42	119.95	59.48	106.11	64.94	100.01	155.37	104.12

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

The detailed calculations for each category of countries are given in the pages with the corresponding titles in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S4–S10).

Within the second research task, the specific CSR measures to support the SDGs, which are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world, are identified through a comparison of the selected practices with the CSR measures from Table 2. The results are shown in Table 11 and Table 12.

Table 11. Specific measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs that are implemented in regions of the world.

Direction of CSR		Indicator of the UN (2021)	Africa	E. Europe and C. Asia	East and South Asia	LAC	MENA	Oceania	OECD
Responsible HRM	SDG 5, SDG 8	Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages	-	-	-	-	-	-	V
	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	V	V	V	V	V	V	V
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	V	V	V	V	V	-	V
	SDG 8	Provision of occupational safety and health	-	-	-	-	-	-	V
Responsible production	SDG 13	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution	-	-	-		V	-	V
Responsible production	SDG 13	Refusal to include environmental costs in the price	-	-	-	-	-	-	V
Responsible finance	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	V	V	V	V	V	-	V
Responsible finance	SDG 16	Full-scale payment of taxes (official business)	-	V	-	-	V	-	V

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

According to Table 11, the universal measures of corporate social responsibility that are implemented to support the SDGs (UN standards) are as follows: keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment; guarantee of labour rights (official employment); business’s fight against corruption.

Table 12. Specific CSR measures to support the SDGs and the scale of their implementation in regions of the world.

Category of Countries	CSR Measures to Support the SDGs	The Activity of the Use of CSR Measures to Support the SDGs, %	Regularity (Variation) of Support of the SDGs by Companies through CSR Measures, %	The Use of CSR Measures to Support the SDGs/the Worldwide Average Value Ratio, %
Africa	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	96.97	80.64	95.22
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	63.27	16.56	91.69
	Business’s fight against corruption	100.00	39.26	75.01
E. Europe and C. Asia	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	85.19	52.60	88.49
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	59.26	16.84	96.86
	Business’s fight against corruption	85.19	28.64	87.93
	Full-scale payment of taxes (official business)	33.33	11.64	96.84
East and South Asia	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	100.00	50.75	194.73
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	71.43	22.62	88.68
	Business’s fight against corruption	100.00	39.48	9.88
LAC	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	88.67	42.69	78.21
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	90.00	17.48	102.05
	Business’s fight against corruption	90.00	36.26	95.19
MENA	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	100.00	48.34	78.13
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	47.06	23.24	80.30
	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution	100.00	52.92	152.15
	Business’s fight against corruption	100.00	44.71	87.96
	Full-scale payment of taxes (official business)	11.76	21.06	72.66
Oceania	Keeping the stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	50.00	72.66	204.42
OECD	Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages	78.38	36.57	100.00
	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	100.00	49.97	112.42
	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)	78.38	18.47	119.95
	Provision of occupational safety and health	100.00	79.28	59.48
	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution	100.00	42.55	64.94
	Refusal to include environmental costs in the price	100.00	33.58	100.01
	Business’s fight against corruption	100.00	22.49	155.37
	Full-scale payment of taxes (official business)	67.57	24.13	104.12

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

Within the third task of this research, the goal is to determine the CSR practices that have a statistically significant effect on profit. The method of regression analysis is used (according to model (1)) to find the dependencies between all factor variables from Table 1 and the targeted result (Table 13).

Table 13. Regression statistics for all factor variables.

Multiple R		0.344616
R-square		0.11876
Adjusted R-square		0.07542
Standard error		17.39419
Observations		193
Analysis of variance
		df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression		9	7461.657	829.0731	2.740214	0.005033
Residue		183	55,368.07	302.5578
Total		192	62,829.73
		Coefficients	Standard error	t-Stat	p-Value	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Constant		−2.81524	3.249766	−0.86629	0.387466	−9.22706	3.596591
Regression coefficients of factor variables	CSR_SDG(1)	0.114364	0.040023	2.85747	0.004765	0.035398	0.193329
	CSR_SDG(2)	0.043308	0.240642	0.179968	0.857377	−0.43148	0.518098
	CSR_SDG(3)	12.53382	4.710172	2.661012	0.008483	3.2406	21.82705
	CSR_SDG(4)	−0.17002	1.282801	−0.13254	0.894702	−2.70101	2.360959
	CSR_SDG(5)	0.00278	0.008935	0.311144	0.756046	−0.01485	0.020409
	CSR_SDG(6)	−0.01079	0.060596	−0.1781	0.858842	−0.13035	0.108764
	CSR_SDG(7)	−0.37061	0.128804	−2.87731	0.004488	−0.62474	−0.11648
	CSR_SDG(8)	−0.00578	0.084358	−0.06853	0.945438	−0.17222	0.160658
	CSR_SDG(9)	−0.06763	0.05411	−1.24994	0.212919	−0.17439	0.039125

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

The results of the regression analysis from Table 11 show three-factor variables that are strongly connected to companies’ profit at the significance level of 0.05:

−: Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (CSR_SDG(1)): p-value is 0.004765.
−: Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (CSR_SDG(3)): p-value is 0.008483.
−: Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (CSR_SDG(7)): p-value is 0.004488.

This means that all other CSR measures to support the SDGs (UN standards) do not affect companies’ profits.

Specification of this connection allowed obtaining the following equation of multiple linear regression:

SPM = −3.27 + 0.11 × CSR_SDG(1) + 11.99 × CSR_SDG(3) − 0.43 × CSR_SDG(7).

According to the equation, the growth of the gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work by 1 minute/day increases companies’ profit by USD 0.11 billion—the effect of CSR on profit, in this case, is negative (the risk of support of the SDGs for profit is high).

The growth of the indicator “fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed” by 0.1 leads to an increase in shifted profits of multinationals by USD 11.99 billion—the effect of CSR on profit, in this case, is positive (risk of support of the SDGs for profit is low).

Growth of Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ by 1% reduces companies’ profit by USD 0.43 billion—the effect of CSR on profit, in this case, is negative (the risk of support of the SDGs for profit is high). Detailed regression statistics for the obtained model are given in Table 14.

The value of the correlation coefficient (0.3292) that was obtained for this equation in Table 12 shows that the change of the targeted result by 32.92% is explained by the selected factor variables (the close connection between the variables). R-square and adjusted R-square differ insignificantly (equalling 0.108382 and 0.094229, accordingly), which characterises the considered equation well.

Significance F equals 7.39 × 10^−0.5, and the model has successfully passed the F test; therefore, the equation is correct and reliable at the level of significance of 0.01. The confidence interval limits for the regression coefficients are in the range from 0.037795 to 0.19273 (for CSR_SDG(1)), from 3.546769 to 20.43144 (for CSR_SDG(3)), and from −0.64733 to −0.2216 (for CSR_SDG(7)) and are non-contradictory (both limits for each variable have the same sign), which also confirms the reliability of the regression equation. This proves the correctness and reliability of the results obtained and specifies the model (1).

For the systemic reflection of the connections of the studied indicators, we compile a structural equation model (Figure 2). For this, an expanded (unified) sample is formed, which contains the data for 2021 and 2020, due to which the aggregate data array has 386 observations.

As shown in Figure 3, the shifted profits of multinationals depend on the factors of responsible HRM, responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility), and responsible finance, which in their totality determine the targeted outcome (financial risk) by 30.13%. Accordingly, the remaining 69.87% are determined by other (residual) factors, which are united in the aggregate error of model (e).

The vivid factor variables are interconnected. The connection between responsible HRM and responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility) equals 21.16%, and with responsible finance—22.40%. The connection between responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility) and responsible finance is 22.97%. All variables of the structural equation model have their variation (scatter of values: var), which is very high in all cases.

For the full consideration and description of the ties between factor variables and the resulting variable and among factor variables, as well as for the better visualisation of data, let us present inter-factor ties—instead of demonstrating them in the structural equation model—separately in the form of the covariance matrix, which reflects the cross-correlation of the factor variables (Table 15).

The obtained results allowed qualitative (high/low) assessment of the risks of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies for companies’ profit:

−: In Africa, E. Europe and C. Asia, East and South Asia, LAC, and MENA, the only practice of corporate social responsibility that influences profit is the guarantee of labour rights (official employment)—since the influence of this practice on profit is positive, the risks of implementing the SDGs for profit are low.
−: In Oceania, the practice of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs (UN standards) does not influence companies’ profit (risks for profit are zero, they are absent).
−: In the OECD, the provision of gender-neutral jobs (fair wages) and refusal to include environmental costs in the price reduce profit to a certain extent, but the guarantee of labour rights (official employment) increases profit significantly. That is why the systemic influence of the CSR practices to support the SDGs (UN standards) on the risks for profit is moderate.

5. Discussion

This paper contributes to the development of the theory of integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies by specifying the features of support of the SDGs with the help of CSR in regions of the world, taking into account the risks for profit (Table 16).

This paper’s contribution to the literature is as follows:

−: SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world differently. In Oceania, only SDG 8 is supported through the only measure—keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment. In Africa, E. Europe and C. Asia, East and South Asia, and LAC, only SDG 8 and SDG 16 are supported. SDG 16 is also supported in MENA. In the OECD, all considered SDGs—5, 8, 13, and 16—are supported. This distinguishes this paper from other works with results on the problems of the SDGs: Chanda and Goyal (2020), He and Kim (2021), Hirsu et al. (2021), Rawshdeh et al. (2019), Ramos-González et al. (2021), and Zhao et al. (2021), in which the measures of integrating the SDGs in corporate strategies are considered in their totality and it is assumed that these measures are widely accessible and used in a complex manner by companies around the world.
−: CSR measures to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies with different levels of activity in different regions of the world. In Oceania, the result obtained (109.03%) is predetermined by a small number of implemented measures, in combination with which the level of business’s support of the SDGs in Oceania is qualitatively lower than in other regions of the world, but is still high. The highest level of business’s support of the SDGs is observed in the OECD (76.99%). This is the difference between this paper and the existing works on the topic of the integration of the SDGs in corporate strategies: Dela Cruz et al. (2020), Han and Cao (2021), Panos and Wilson (2020), and Setyowati et al. (2021), which elaborate on the global support for the SDGs and do not take into account the regional specifics of support for the SDGs in business.
−: Unlike Battisti et al. (2022), Kong (2022), Kornieieva (2020), Lassala et al. (2021), Martí-Ballester (2020), Medentseva (2017), Muhmad and Muhamad (2021), Petrovskaya et al. (2022), Pizzi et al. (2021), Roy et al. (2022), Rahman (2021), Raithatha and Shaw (2021), Quang et al. (2022), Vagin et al. (2022), and Wentzel et al. (2022), it is proved that the risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for profit are low (moderate in the OECD). The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is implemented in all regions of the world.

6. Conclusions

The following results were obtained in this paper. First, it was discovered that the SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world to a different extent, but, on the whole, they are highly integrated into the corporate strategies in each region. The largest support of the SDGs from business is observed in the OECD.

Second, it was proved that the CSR measures to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies with different levels of activity, depending on the region of the world. The universal measures of corporate social responsibility that are implemented to support the SDGs (UN standards) are as follows: keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment; guarantee of labour rights (official employment); business’s fight against corruption. Other measures differ among regions of the world.

Third, it was proved that the risks of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies for profit are low (moderate in the OECD). In all regions of the world, the commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is implemented.

The theoretical significance of the results obtained consists in the discovered differences showing the necessity for and setting the foundation for the transition from the global to regional management of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) in corporate strategies. This created a wide field for new studies of the experience of different regions of the world. The scientific value of the authors’ conclusions consists in proving the fact that despite the universal (global) formulation of the SDGs, their practical implementation requires the consideration of the specifics of each region of the world. The commercial approach to integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies is the most widespread approach in practice; thus, it deserves to be thoroughly studied.

The practical significance of the authors’ conclusions and developments is due to them allowing increasing the effectiveness of managing the risks of the CSR practices for profit. The dependencies discovered with the help of structural equation modelling (SEM) could be a guide for managing the risks for profit during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies for profit. The significance of the developed concept for society is due to the fact that it provided reliable evidence of low risks for profit during the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies, thus providing companies with a powerful stimulus to expand the CSR measures in business.

It should be acknowledged that the results obtained demonstrated the partial integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies. Therefore, this study made only one of the initial steps on the path to implementing the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The next step should be the development of applied recommendations to fill the gaps in the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies given the specifics of each region of the world. Future scientific works should be devoted to studying perspectives and developing recommendations for the systemic integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies based on the commercial approach and striving to preserve low risks for profit.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/risks10060117/s1. Table S1: Raw Data; Table S2. Raw Data (reg); Table S3. Raw Data (reg SEM); Table S4. Africa; Table S5. E. Europe & C. Asia; Table S6. East & South Asia; Table S7. LAC; Table S8. MENA; Table S9. Oceania; Table S10. OECD; Table S11. Codebook.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V.B. and S.V.L.; methodology, S.V.L.; investigation, A.V.B.; resources, A.N.A.; data curation, A.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.L.; writing—review and editing, A.V.B. and A.N.A.; visualization, A.N.A.; supervision, A.V.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Akbar, Ahsan, Minhas Akbar, Marina Nazir, Petra Poulova, and Samrat Ray. 2021. Does working capital management influence operating and market risk of firms? Risks 9: 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Akopova, Elena S., Natalia V. Przhedetskaya, Yuri V. Przhedetsky, and Ksenia V. Borzenko, eds. 2020. Marketing of Nonprofit Organizations in Business-Oriented Economy: New Challenges and Priorities. Marketing of Healthcare Organizations: Technologies of Public-Private Partnership. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Ang, Rui, Zhen Shao, Chen Liu, Changhui Yang, and Qingru Zheng. 2022. The relationship between CSR and financial performance and the moderating effect of ownership structure: Evidence from Chinese heavily polluting listed enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption 30: 117–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Batóg, Barbara, and Jacek Batóg. 2021. Regional government revenue forecasting: Risk factors of investment financing. Risks 9: 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Battisti, Enrico, Niccolò Nirino, Erasmia Leonidou, and Alkis Thrassou. 2022. Corporate venture capital and CSR performance: An extended resource based view’s perspective. Journal of Business Research 139: 1058–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bednarczyk, Teresa H., Ilona Skibińska-Fabrowska, and Anna Szymańska. 2021. An empirical study on the financial preparation for retirement of the independent workers for profit in Poland. Risks 9: 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bu, Xuelin, Jacob Cherian, Heesup Han, Ubaldo Comite, Felipe Hernández-Perlines, and Antonio Ariza-Montes. 2022. Proposing Employee Level CSR as an Enabler for Economic Performance: The Role of Work Engagement and Quality of Work-Life. Sustainability 14: 1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Casais, Beatriz, Andreia Teixeira, and Cristina Fernandes. 2022. Consumer perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) through retail brand labels disclosure. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 13: 290320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chanda, Udayan, and Praveen Goyal. 2020. A Bayesian network model on the interlinkage between Socially Responsible HRM, employee satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational performance. Journal of Management Analytics 7: 105–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chu, Jian, and Junxiong Fang. 2021. Economic policy uncertainty and firms’ labour investment decision. China Finance Review International 11: 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz, Chris Patel, Sammy Ying, and Peipei Pan. 2020. The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 26: 100299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fontana, Enrico. 2017. Strategic CSR: A panacea for profit and altruism: An empirical study among executives in the Bangladeshi RMG supply chain. European Business Review 29: 304–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gennaro, Alessandro. 2021. Insolvency risk and value maximization: A convergence between financial management and risk management. Risks 9: 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hamed, Ruba Subhi, Basiem Khalil Al-Shattarat, Wasim Khalil Al-Shattarat, and Khaled Hussainey. 2022. The impact of introducing new regulations on the quality of CSR reporting: Evidence from the UK. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 46: 100444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Han, Xiuyan, and Tianyi Cao. 2021. Study on corporate environmental responsibility measurement method of energy consumption and pollution discharge and its application in industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production 326: 129359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
He, Junqian, and Hyosun Kim. 2021. The effect of socially responsible HRM on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A proactive motivation model. Sustainability 13: 7958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hirsu, Lavinia, Zenaida Quezada-Reyes, and Lamiah Hashemi. 2021. Moving SDG5 forward: Women’s public engagement activities in higher education. Higher Education 81: 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jackson, Susan T. 2021. Risking sustainability: Political risk culture as inhibiting ecology-centered sustainability. Risks 9: 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jaisinghani, Dinesh, and Amritjot Kaur Sekhon. 2022. CSR disclosures and profit persistence: Evidence from India. International Journal of Emerging Markets 17: 705–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karagiannis, Ioannis, Panagiotis Vouros, Nikolaos Sioutas, and Konstantinos Evangelinos. 2022. Mapping the maritime CSR agenda: A cross-sectoral materiality analysis of sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 338: 130139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kaul, Aseem, and Jiao Luo. 2018. An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for-profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management Journal 39: 1650–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kong, Gaowen. 2022. Causal effects of corporate taxes on private firms’ earnings management: A regression discontinuity analysis. China Finance Review International. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kornieieva, Yuliia. 2020. Non-financial reporting challenges in monitoring SDG’s achievement: Investment aspects for transition economy. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration 8: 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kuzey, Cemil, Morgane M. C. Fritz, Ali Uyar, and Abdullah S. Karaman. 2022. Board gender diversity, CSR strategy, and eco-friendly initiatives in the transportation and logistics sector. International Journal of Production Economics 247: 108436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lassala, Carlos, Maria Orero-Blat, and Samuel Ribeiro-Navarrete. 2021. The financial performance of listed companies in pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 34: 427–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liu, Jingshan. 2021. Impact of uncertainty on foreign exchange market stability: Based on the LT-TVP-VAR model. China Finance Review International 11: 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Loor-Zambrano, Halder Yandry, Luna Santos-Roldán, and Beatriz Palacios-Florencio. 2022. Relationship CSR and employee commitment: Mediating effects of internal motivation and trust. European Research on Management and Business Economics 28: 100185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martí-Ballester, Carmen-Pilar. 2020. Financial performance of SDG mutual funds focused on biotechnology and healthcare sectors. Sustainability 12: 2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Medentseva, Evgenia V. 2017. The Legal Forms of Economic Relations and Their Transformation in the Modern Economic Conditions: Part Two: Legal Foundations of Corporate Control over the Financial and Economic Activities of Commercial Organizations in the Modern Economic Conditions. Economic and Legal Foundations of Modern Russian Society. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
Mochales, Gerardo, and Javier Blanch. 2022. Unlocking the potential of CSR: An explanatory model to determine the strategic character of CSR activities. Journal of Business Research 140: 310–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Muhmad, Siti Nurain, and Rusnah Muhamad. 2021. Sustainable business practices and financial performance during pre- and post-SDG adoption periods: A systematic review. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 11: 291–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Panos, Georgios A., and John O. S. Wilson. 2020. Financial literacy and responsible finance in the FinTech era: Capabilities and challenges. European Journal of Finance 26: 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Petrovskaya, Maria V., Vladimir Z. Chaplyuk, Raju Mohammad Kamrul Alam, Md. Nazmul Hossain, and Ahmad S. Al Humssi. 2022. COVID 19 and Global Economic Outlook. Current Problems of the World Economy and International Trade. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 42. [Google Scholar]
Pizzi, Simone, Francesco Rosati, and Andrea Venturelli. 2021. The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Business Strategy and the Environment 30: 404–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Quang, Phung Thanh, Ehsan Rasoulinezhad, Nguyen Nhat Linh, and Doan Phuong Thao. 2022. Investigating the determining factors of sustainable FDI in Vietnam. China Finance Review International. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rahman, Md. Lutfur. 2021. Institutional ownership and violations of mandatory CSR regulation. Economics Letters 206: 109967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Raithatha, Mehul, and Tara Shankar Shaw. 2021. Firm’s tax aggressiveness under mandatory CSR regime: Evidence after mandatory CSR regulation of India. International Review of Finance 22: 286–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ramos-González, María del Mar, Mercedes Rubio-Andrés, and Miguel Ángel Sastre-Castillo. 2021. Effects of Socially Responsible Human Resource Management (SR-HRM) on Innovation and Reputation in Entrepreneurial SMEs. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-020-00720-8 (accessed on 22 May 2022).
Rawshdeh, Zainab Ali, Zafir Khan Mohamed Makhbul, Najeeb Ullah Shah, and Perengki Susanto. 2019. Impact of perceived socially responsible-hrm practices on employee deviance behavior. International Journal of Business and Management Science 9: 447–66. [Google Scholar]
Roy, Partha P., Sandeep Rao, and Min Zhu. 2022. Mandatory CSR expenditure and stock market liquidity. Journal of Corporate Finance 72: 102158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schramm-Klein, Hanna, Dirk Morschett, and Bernhard Swoboda. 2015. Retailer corporate social responsibility: Shedding light on CSR’s impact on profit of intermediaries in marketing channels. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 43: 403–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Setyowati, Arum, Nasyiah Hasanah Purnomowati, Dinar Sari, and Endan Ramadhan. 2021. Does corporate environmental responsibility affect investor future goal in the energy sector firms? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 905: 012140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Shayan, Niloufar Fallah, Nasrin Mohabbati-Kalejahi, Sepideh Alavi, and Mohammad Ali Zahed. 2022. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Sustainability 14: 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sinkovics, Noemi, Rudolf R. Sinkovics, and Jason Archie-Acheampong. 2021. The business responsibility matrix: A diagnostic tool to aid the design of better interventions for achieving the SDGs. Multinational Business Review 29: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Song, Baobao, and Weiting Tao. 2022. Unpack the relational and behavioral outcomes of internal CSR: Highlighting dialogic communication and managerial facilitation. Public Relations Review 48: 102153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trzeciak, Mateusz. 2021. Sustainable risk management in it enterprises. Risks 9: 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
UN. 2021. The Sustainable Development Report 2021 and Supplementary Materials: Database. Available online: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/downloads (accessed on 19 April 2022).
Vagin, Sergei G., Elena I. Kostyukova, Natalia E. Spiridonova, and Tatiana M. Vorozheykina. 2022. Financial Risk Management Based on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Interests of Sustainable Development. Risks 10: 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Waheed, Abdul, and Qingyu Zhang. 2022. Effect of CSR and Ethical Practices on Sustainable Competitive Performance: A Case of Emerging Markets from Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 175: 837–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Yizhi, Brian Lucey, Samuel Alexandre Vigne, and Larisa Yarovaya. 2022. An index of cryptocurrency environmental attention (ICEA). China Finance Review International. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wentzel, Lance, Julius Ayodeji Fapohunda, and Rainer Haldenwang. 2022. The Relationship between the Integration of CSR and Sustainable Business Performance: Perceptions of SMEs in the South African Construction Industry. Sustainability 14: 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xie, Kefan, Shufan Zhu, and Ping Gui. 2022. A Game-Theoretic Approach for CSR Emergency Medical Supply Chain during COVID-19 Crisis. Sustainability 14: 1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhang, Qian, Bee Lan Oo, and Benson Teck Heng Lim. 2022. Linking corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and organizational performance in the construction industry: A resource collabouration network. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 179: 106113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhang, Shuang, Song Xi Chen, and Lei Lu. 2021. Inference for variance risk premium. China Finance Review International 11: 26–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhao, Hongdan, Qiongyao Zhou, Peixu He, and Cuiling Jiang. 2021. How and When Does Socially Responsible HRM Affect Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Toward the Environment? Journal of Business Ethics 169: 371–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Bi-directional vector scale of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies from the positions of risk for profit in various distinguished approaches. Source: authors.

Figure 2. The generalised block diagram of the structural equation model. Source: authors.

Figure 3. Detailed block diagram of structural equation model. Source: authors.

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the existing approaches to the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies.

Criterion of Comparison	Approach to Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies
Criterion of Comparison	Regulatory Approach	Non-Commercial Approach to CSR *	Commercial Approach to CSR *
Mechanism of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies	State regulation	Corporate social responsibility
Support of the SDGs	Yes, forced	Yes, voluntary
Market consequences of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies	Slowdown of economic growth, development of the shadow economy	Slowdown of economic growth, interruption of the market mechanism	Support of the SDGs becomes a new form of “healthy” competition
Risks of support of the SDGs for profit	High		Low
Existing literature in which the approach is presented	(Pizzi et al. 2021; Rahman 2021; Raithatha and Shaw 2021).	(Akopova et al. 2020; Mochales and Blanch 2022; Shayan et al. 2022; Sinkovics et al. 2021; Waheed and Zhang 2022; Wang et al. 2022).	(Medentseva 2017; Muhmad and Muhamad 2021; Petrovskaya et al. 2022; Roy et al. 2022; Vagin et al. 2022).

* CSR—CSR. Source: authors.

Table 2. Detailed characteristics of the integration of the SDGs into corporate strategies during the alternative approaches.

Direction of CSR	Indicator of the UN (2021)	Symbol	Supported SDGs—UN Standards	CSR Measures to Support the SDGs
Responsible HRM *	Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (minutes/day)	SR_SDG(1)	SDG5, SDG8	Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages
	Unemployment rate (% of the total labour force)	SR_SDG(2)	SDG8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment
	Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (worst 0–1 best)	SR_SDG(3)	SDG8	Guarantee of labour rights (official employment)
	Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population)	SR_SDG(4)	SDG8	Provision of occupational safety and health
Responsible production (corporate environmental responsibility)	Production-based SO₂ emissions (kg/capita)	SR_SDG(5)	SDG13	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution
	Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita)	SR_SDG(6)	SDG13
	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂ (%, worst 0–100 best)	SR_SDG(7)	SDG13	Refusal to include environmental costs in the price
Responsible finance	Corruption Perception Index (worst 0–100 best)	SR_SDG(8)	SDG16	Business’s fight against corruption
Responsible finance	Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst)	SR_SDG(9)	SDG16	Full-scale payment of taxes (official business)

* HRM—human resources management. Source: authors.

Table 3. The strategy of the research.

Research Gap	Research Task		Research Method	Research Logic
(1) Which SDGs (UN standards) are supported by companies in different regions of the world?	(1) Determining the level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies (α+β+λ)/3, %	Determining the activity of the use of CSR measures to support the SDGs (α)	Structural analysis	α must be above 50%
		Evaluating the regularity of the support of the SDGs by companies through CSR measures (β)	Analysis of variation	β must be below 80%
		Finding the use of CSR measures to support the SDG/worldwide average value (λ) ratio	Comparative analysis	λ must be above 50%
(2) Which measures of corporate social responsibility to support the SDGs are implemented in the practice of companies in different regions of the world?	(2) Comparing the selected practices to the measures of corporate social responsibility from Table 2		Logical analysis	Consideration of the differences among regions of the world
(3) Which approach is implemented—what are the risks of support of the SDGs (UN standards) with the help of corporate social responsibility for profit?	(3) Qualitatively (high/low) evaluating the risks of integrating the SDGs into corporate strategies for companies’ profit	Determining the consequences of various practices of corporate social responsibility for profit	Structural equation modelling (SEM)	Establishment of complex connections between the variables
		Assessing the consequences of the selected practices for profit in regions of the world	Logical analysis	Positive (low risks for profit) or negative (high risks for profit) consequences

Source: developed and compiled by the authors.

Table 14. Regression statistics for the factor variables that are connected to profit at the significance level of 0.05.

Multiple R		0.329213
R-square		0.108382
Adjusted R-square		0.094229
Standard error		17.21636
Observations		193
Analysis of variance
		df	SS	MS	F	Significance F
Regression		3	6809.582	2269.861	7.658024	7.39 × 10^−0.5
Residue		189	56,020.15	296.4029
Total		192	62,829.73
		Coefficients	Standard error	t-Stat	p-Value	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Constant		−3.2755	2.030823	−1.61289	0.108437	−7.28149	0.730494
Regression coefficients of factor variables	CSR_SDG(1)	0.115262	0.039272	2.934981	0.003749	0.037795	0.19273
	CSR_SDG(3)	11.98911	4.279812	2.801316	0.005619	3.546769	20.43144
	CSR_SDG(7)	−0.43446	0.107911	−4.02613	8.2 × 10⁻⁵	−0.64733	−0.2216

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

Table 15. The covariance matrix for the factor variables.

Cross-Correlation of the Factor Variables	Gender Gap in Time Spent Doing Unpaid Work	Unemployment Rate	Fatal Work-Related Accidents Embodied in Imports	Production-Based SO₂ Emissions	Production-Based Nitrogen Emissions	Corruption Perception Index	Corporate Tax Haven Score
Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
Unemployment rate	−0.00	1	-	-	-	-	-
Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports	0.13	−0.03	1	-	-	-	-
Production-based SO₂ emissions	−0.02	−0.02	0.32	1	-	-	-
Production-based nitrogen emissions	0.26	0.06	0.67	0.27	1	-	-
Corruption Perception Index	0.45	0.12	0.25	0.13	0.31	1	-
Corporate Tax Haven Score	0.33	−0.10	0.33	0.19	0.27	0.42	1

Source: authors.

Table 16. The level of integrating the SDGs (UN standards) into corporate strategies in regions of the world.

Category of Countries	Supported SDGs (UN Standards)	CSR Measures to Support the SDGs	Level of Integrating the SDGs (UN Standards) into Corporate Strategies, %
Category of Countries	Supported SDGs (UN Standards)	CSR Measures to Support the SDGs	In the Aspect of the SDGs	On Average
Africa	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	90.94	73.18
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights	57.17
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	71.42
E. Europe and C. Asia	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	75.43	61.90
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights	57.65
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	67.25
	SDG 16	Full-scale payment of taxes	47.27
East and South Asia	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	115.16	75.29
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights	60.91
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	49.79
LAC	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	69.86	71.17
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights	69.84
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	73.82
MENA	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	75.49	68.02
	SDG 8	Guarantee of labour rights	50.20
	SDG 13	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution	101.69
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	77.56
	SDG 16	Full-scale payment of taxes	35.16
Oceania	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	109.03	109.03
OECD	SDG 5	Provision of gender-neutral jobs and fair wages	71.65	76.99
	SDG 8	Keeping a stable number of jobs or increasing it to support employment	87.46
		Guarantee of labour rights	72.27
		Provision of occupational safety and health	79.59
	SDG 13	Improvement of treatment systems to reduce environmental pollution	69.16
	SDG 13	Refusal to include environmental costs in the price	77.86
	SDG 16	Business’s fight against corruption	92.62
	SDG 16	Full-scale payment of taxes	65.27

Source: calculated and compiled by the authors.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bogoviz, A.V.; Lobova, S.V.; Alekseev, A.N. The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit. Risks 2022, 10, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10060117

AMA Style

Bogoviz AV, Lobova SV, Alekseev AN. The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit. Risks. 2022; 10(6):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10060117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bogoviz, Aleksei V., Svetlana V. Lobova, and Alexander N. Alekseev. 2022. "The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit" Risks 10, no. 6: 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks10060117

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Strategies: International Experience and the Risks for Profit

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Materials and Methods

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI