Author
Listed:
- Zijing Guo
(School of Geography and Planning, China Regional Coordinated Development and Rural Construction Institute, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)
- Yutian Liang
(School of Geography and Planning, China Regional Coordinated Development and Rural Construction Institute, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)
- Ruilin Yang
(School of Economics, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)
- Jie Zhang
(School of Geography and Planning, China Regional Coordinated Development and Rural Construction Institute, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China)
Abstract
Geopolitical risk (GPR) poses a significant obstacle to the achievement of sustainable development goals, yet its nuanced impact on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance of multinational enterprises (MNEs) remains insufficiently examined. This study explores the influence of GPR on ESG performance by utilizing a comprehensive dataset of 12,699 subsidiaries of Chinese MNEs. The empirical results reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between GPR and ESG performance: at moderate levels of geopolitical risk, firms tend to proactively improve their ESG practices as a risk management strategy. However, as GPR intensifies beyond a certain threshold, this approach loses its effectiveness, leading to deteriorating ESG outcomes. Further investigation uncovers the moderating roles of firm-specific advantages (FSAs) and country-specific advantages (CSAs). Robust FSAs equip firms with a greater capacity to uphold ESG standards under rising geopolitical uncertainty, while high CSAs strengthen subsidiaries’ incentives to engage in ESG activities to buffer against external political threats. Subgroup analyses demonstrate that service-oriented MNEs, state-owned enterprises, and subsidiaries operating in high-income countries are particularly susceptible to the negative consequences of heightened GPR. By shedding light on the complex interplay between geopolitical risk and corporate sustainability, this study extends the ESG literature and provides practical implications for researchers, corporate strategists, and policymakers aiming to foster resilient and responsible global business operations.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:23:p:10748-:d:1807876. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.