Review Article

Vision
26(2) 163–171, 2022
Quantification of ESG Regulations: © 2021 MDI
Reprints and permissions:
A Cross-Country Benchmarking Analysis in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09722629211054173
journals.sagepub.com/home/vis

Monica Singhania1 and Neha Saini2

Abstract
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria mean investment in economic choices which, without interference with the
environment, are intended to promote long-term economic and social well-being. Due to high environmental and social awareness,
customers expect companies to devote time and efforts to such sustainable practices. This attitude has led to an overall rise in ESG dis-
closures and reporting instruments globally with a focus on influence of ESG disclosures on financial performance of companies. Many
European countries have already introduced mandatory disclosure of non-financial information. This transition from voluntary to man-
datory motivated other countries to adopt mandatory ESG disclosure practices for sustainable development. The practice of reporting
non-financial disclosures has been rising due to several reasons, such as increasing visibility, informing customers, avoiding the risk
associated with firm performance and achieving sustainability. Countries in the early stages of ESG disclosure need to understand the
benchmark practices used by countries with a well-developed ESG system. For preparing the ESG disclosure index and benchmarking
based on disclosure score, this study considers a set of developed and developing countries with their ESG disclosures. On the basis
of ESG disclosures, the countries have been classified into four different categories. We found Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland,
United Kingdom, Belgium and France, to have high ESG scores and have been classified as Countries with Well-Developed ESG Framework.
Germany, Italy, USA, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Brazil and South Africa have medium to high ESG scores and fall under the
category Rapidly improving ESG framework. While Singapore, India, China, Philippines, Malaysia and Argentina are categorized as coun-
tries with ESG framework at developing stage, Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria and Vietnam are classified as Countries with early-stage
framework due to low ESG scores.

Key Words
Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure, ESG Regulatory Framework, ESG Reporting, Corporate Social Responsibility,
Mandatory Disclosures, Voluntary Disclosures, Benchmarking

Introduction steps to align business activities with social and environ-

Corporate and country-level non-financial disclosures are
represented by the environmental, social and governance
(ESG) elements. The concern about ESG issues has grown
in the backdrop of climate change, depleting natural
resources, human rights violations, poor working conditions
for workers and corporate scandals. These dimensions lead
to society’s expectations of corporate environmental, social
and ethical responsibilities. Multiple stakeholders, includ-
ing investors, government and environmental organiza-
tions are increasingly becoming vocal about corporations’
contributions to sustainable growth and development as
per UN SDGs 2030. Companies are constantly being
encouraged to take social and environmental beneficial
mental protection values.
In 2005, the United Nations Principles for Responsible
Investment (UN PRI) was established by the United
Nations, to understand the principle of sustainability in
support of investment and ownership decisions, Sjåfjell
and Richardson (2015). The six principles of responsible
investing stress on ESG framework, its acceptance, imple-
mentation and further progression of sustainability goals.
The UN PRIs aim to comprehend the ramifications of ESG
factors to a large extent to assist investors in incorporating
the ESG elements into their financial and investment strat-
egies (UN PRI, 2015). Regulators globally are constantly
looking for new ways to enhance efficiency and achieve
even higher sustainability.

1 Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

2 Netaji Subhas University of Technology, Dwarka, New Delhi, India

Corresponding author:
Neha Saini, Netaji Subhas University of Technology, Dwarka, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
E-mail: nehasaini.phd@fms.edu
164
Benchmarking is one such popular technique. While it
may not be new, it has gained momentum of late and
figures prominently in its role in improving quality.
Benchmarking is the process of recognizing, learning and
incorporating best practices from companies globally to
help a company enhance its performance. It is a process
that looks outward for best practices and good perfor-
mance, and then evaluates real company activities against
those objectives (Kumar et al., 2006; Mahmood &
Azlan, 2020; Riva & Pilotti, 2021; Yaseen et al., 2018).
Benchmarking encompasses defining the most superlative
quality level for products, systems or services, and then
formulating as well as implementing the changes required
to meet the standards, basically called ‘best practices’. It is
an effective tool for bringing to focus the areas that require
attention within any organization.
The present research studies a sample of 28 countries
concerning 30 ESG regulations. We attempt to create an
ESG index based on select predetermined quantification,
already adopted as benchmark practices on the basis of vol-
untary and mandatory disclosures. Once the index is final-
ized, we compare the sample countries as per their
composite ESG score and individual scores of E, S and G,
respectively. This benchmarking framework helps in iden-
tifying the leaders, early adopters, late adopters and laggard
countries based on their composite score. Finally, we
propose a framework on how to improve country-level sus-
tainability performance through ESG regulatory measures.
The remaining sections of this study are laid out as
follows. The literature review is expounded in second
section and the research framework is explained in third
section of this study. The fourth section presents the find-
ings and analysis. Concluding thoughts and implications
derived from the study are presented in the fifth section and
the final sixth section lists the limitations of the study.
Literature Review
Since the 1970s, there has been a plethora of research on
corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate social per-
formance (CSP), corporate financial performance (CFP)
and their inter-relationship. According to Aggarwal (2013),
the first research on the CSP and CFP relationship was con-
ducted by Narver (1971). The mechanisms and implica-
tions of implementing the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) were investigated by Vigneau et al. (2015). They
discovered that GRI had a substantial effect on multina-
tional corporate activities, impacting both CSR monitoring
and management initiatives, as well as shaping organiza-
tional practices and CSR as an accountability exercise.
Lähtinen et al. (2014) examined how GRI guidelines incor-
porate cultural sustainability when evaluating forestry and
forest industry operations in a global sense. Duran and
Rodrigo (2018) studied ESG in the context of stakeholder
engagement and found that disclosing ESG information
helped in building the stakeholders’ relationship. With
Vision 26(2)
sufficient resources within any company, it may execute
engagement strategies such as informing, addressing or
involving stakeholders easily. The study also added that
stakeholder participation in good faith necessitates indi-
vidual and group consultation, negotiation and disclosure,
all of which may be used to build confidence, recognize the
commitment and foster collaboration among stakeholders
and corporations. Such an engagement approach and
reporting characteristics are influenced by communication
between an organization and its stakeholders. In addition to
adopting sustainable CSR and ESG practices, to achieve
higher sustainable development, benchmarking practices
need to be adopted. Existing literature supports the adop-
tion of benchmarking framework to compare non-financial
disclosures. Every investment may it be financial or non-
financial, requires benchmarking. Camp (1989) gave one
of the initial definitions of benchmarking as ‘Benchmarking
is the search for the best industry practices which will lead
to exceptional performance through the implementation of
these best practices’. Benchmarking is primarily a tool for
advancement through improvement, through comparison
with organizations that are considered the best in the field.
Andersen and Pettersen (1996) propose five benchmarking
stages, describing the relationships at work at each stage
and how these are interconnected. They emphasize recog-
nizing who is the best in class and then following in their
footsteps. According to Feigenbaum (1951), benchmarking
is a managerial tool that includes continuous analysis of
one’s business processes and evaluation for similar pro-
cesses in the industry’s leading organizations to acquire
knowledge that will aid the organization in identifying and
implementing improvements. Benchmarking, at its heart,
is the process of identifying critical performance indicators
and comparing them to similar performance indicators
used by best in class organizations. Benchmarking as a
management tool has been in use for a long time and across
a large number of fields. According to a survey, 65% of
Fortune 1000 firms employ benchmarking as a manage-
ment strategy to obtain a competitive edge over other firm
(Korpela & Tuominen, 1996). Graafland et al. (2004)
developed a benchmarking method to benchmark CSR
based on weighted and unweighted averages. Henderson-
Smart et al. (2006) used benchmarking to study the school-
ing and teaching practices in the field of academia and
developed a system for benchmarking.
Despite the wide scope of benchmarking activities and
the increased number of organizations adopting such prac-
tices to compare and improve their financial and non-
financial performances, as per Yasin (2002), the field of
benchmarking still requires a unifying principle and
theory to direct its growth. In addition, the development of
novel methodologies to direct benchmarking activities in
e-commerce, technology-based organizations and supply
chain management is encouraged.
As per the literature, studies on ESG regulations have
been limited to developed countries. Most studies consider
Singhania and Saini 165
firm-level ESG disclosures and their value relevance. Very
few studies consider the ESG index at a macro level. An
even greater paucity of research is observed in studying
ESG regulations across developed and developing coun-
tries together. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study
has used benchmarking to create a cross-country index for
ESG regulations. This study uses benchmarking to compare
ESG regulations across countries with different levels of
development concerning ESG frameworks. Previous
studies that used benchmarking in the ESG domain have
been at industry or company level. Utilization of bench-
marking to benchmark best practices at the country level in
the field of ESG is quite novel and unexplored.
Research Framework
We developed an ESG framework for sample countries,
termed as ESG regulation index, and used it as a bench-
mark tool to compare ESG regulations across sample coun-
tries. This index highlights the best practices in leading
countries so that developing and emerging countries with
varying levels of development in ESG regulations, may
also incorporate the practices by comparing and thereafter
adopting such sustainable practices.
Data and Sample Countries
The sample 28 countries include Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, the USA,
Singapore, Australia, UK, Japan, Germany, Belgium,
France, Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina,
Thailand, Italy, India, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa,
Vietnam and China, which are observed at different stages
of regulatory requirements on ESG disclosures practices.
There are 30 parameters, covering 10 parameters each for
environmental, social and governance. The benchmarking
of 28 sample countries is done based on 30 ESG parameters.
Further, we try to classify sample countries based on level of
development of ESG framework using ESG index scores
using unweighted disclosure index based on mandatory and
voluntary disclosures. The complete classification of coun-
tries can be found in Table A.1. For Social Progress Index
ranks of all sample countries, refer Table A.2. We study the
trends of 30 ESG regulations across 28 countries which are
at different levels in ESG framework development.
Benchmarking of ESG regulation may also be undertaken
on an industry level for a specific country in future studies.
The sample countries have been classified into four
groups1 namely, Countries with well-developed framework
comprising Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark,
Switzerland, Canada and New Zealand; Countries with
rapidly improving framework including USA, Singapore,
Australia, UK, Japan, Italy, Germany, Belgium and France;
Countries with developing stage framework including
Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina and South
Africa. The fourth group Countries with early-stage
framework includes India, Nigeria, Philippines, Vietnam,
Thailand and China. The objective of the study is to revisit
the country level benchmarking based on ESG quantifica-
tions in sample countries and rearrange them in a new
target group.
The data have been collected through various online
resources including the UN PRI Global Responsible
Investment Regulations, RobacoSam, Carrots and Sticks
and many more for 30 specific ESG parameters.
Research Methodology
This study has used a comparative approach based on the
ESG quantification index benchmarking. Benchmarking
can be done externally/internally and is of two types, first is
classified as performance benchmarking which entails col-
lecting and analysing quantitative data like key performance
indicators and measures while another one, that is, practice
benchmarking is the practice of collecting and comparing
qualitative data on how individuals, procedures and tech-
nologies are used to carry out business activities (George
et al., 2020; Klychova et al., 2017; Roberts, 1995, 2001).
This study has used external and practice benchmarking
for sample countries with respect to the ESG quantification
index. We adopted the following process of benchmarking
framework, first we select the countries to be benchmarked
classified according to ESG regulatory framework devel-
opment, then the data for sample countries concerning
practices and regulations for ESG factors respectively need
to be collected from different websites and other available
sources globally. We restrict to 10 regulations2 each for
environmental, social and governance for benchmarking
structure. After identifying the information about the ESG
quantification, we search for the implemented regulation in
all the countries through various sources available online.
After that scoring of disclosure has been done for each
regulation for sample countries. The basis of scoring
includes
• 3 points for mandatory/complete implementation of
a regulation.
• 2 points for voluntary/partial implementation of a
regulation.
• 1 point for forthcoming/under consideration
regulation.
• 0 point for absence of any regulation.
Based on ESG quantification and scoring method, the
maximum score comes out to be 90 for all factors, that is,
ESG comprehensively. The country score has been calcu-
lated by taking the sum of score for all regulations under
ESG framework. And finally, an overall ESG score was
calculated by taking the unweighted average of the total
E score, S score and G score. We further plot the heat map
for overall score3 with environmental, social and govern-
ance, respectively, for each group of countries.
166
Findings and Analysis
Based on country classification, the results were presented
for the set of ESG compositions in sample country. A
sample of 28 countries with 30 ESG indicators with group
classification based on country performance has been ana-
lysed.4 Figure 1 is displaying the environmental quantifica-
tion score of sample countries, based on the colour code of
ESG score the representation is made. We found that
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, UK, Belgium, France
are having ESG scores ranging from 28 to 30. Based on
their ESG quantification score they may be counted as the
Countries with Well-Developed ESG Framework. The next
group of countries involves Germany, Italy, USA, Australia,
Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Brazil and South Africa,
having ESG scores ranging from 24 to 27, and maybe
classified under countries with rapidly improving ESG
structure. Third group classified as countries with ESG
framework in developing stage includes Singapore, India,
China, Philippines, Malaysia and Argentina having ESG
score ranging from 20 to 23. And the fourth group is having
Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria and Vietnam, classi-
fied as countries having ESG framework in early stages
with the ESG score ranging from 16 to 19.
Figures 2–4 are displaying the heatmap for environmen-
tal, social and governance disclosure score with composite
ESG score, respectively. The red area is representing the
low scoring area, specifically representing the countries
having E/S/G and ESG framework in early stages, yellow
zone is representing the countries with E/S/G and ESG
framework in developing stage, blue framework is indicat-
ing the countries with rapidly improving E/S/G and ESG
framework and green zone is displaying the countries with
well-developed E/S/G and ESG framework.
Figure 1.  Heat Map Disclosing ESG Score of Sample 24 Countries
Source: The authors.
Vision 26(2)
The benchmarking score was found to be high for the
sample European countries studied. Asian countries scored
on the lower end of the spectrum except for Japan. There is
a need for large investors, such as insurance firms or
pension funds to be active and engaged investors in listed
companies, according to stewardship codes. Stewardship
operations, according to the United Kingdom regulator,
include: ‘monitoring and engaging with companies on
matters such as strategy, performance, risk, capital struc-
ture and corporate governance, including culture and remu-
neration’. The Singapore stewardship code includes tracking
and engagement on matters including: ‘the mandate for the
board, performance and performance management, risk
management, capital structure and corporate governance’.
As a result, stewardship has a wide scope and focuses on
the communication mechanism and process between busi-
nesses and their investors rather than specific subjects.
Many codes, however, apply to environmental and
social concerns, and the UK regulators report an increase
in discussion of these issues in stewardship statements of
late. This would encourage companies to establish a
company strategy emphasizing socially responsible and
sustainable activities, with increasing engagement between
investors and companies. Other self-proclaimed princi-
ples-based codes cite regulatory theories that state that in
complex situations, principles are more efficient than
exact rules. Many codes use a mechanism in which inves-
tors have the option to sign up for the code or not, and if
they do sign, the investors are then expected to disclose
some information about their investment policies. Similar
to corporate governance codes, signatories are asked to
comply or clarify with the stewardship code’s principles.
This means that an investor’s primary responsibility is to
be open about its stewardship policy instead of strict
Singhania and Saini 167

Figure 2.  Heatmap for Environmental Score Vs. Overall ESG Score
Source: The authors.

Figure 3.  Heat Map Disclosing Social Score Vs. Overall ESG Score
Source: The authors.

adherence to all the code’s principles. Voting policy, con- principles covered by stewardship codes. Investors are
flicts of interest, monitoring and engagement policies, col- asked to develop and enforce policies as well as publicly
lective action and voting activity reporting are common share information about them.
168
Figure 4.  Heatmap for Governance Score Vs. Overall ESG Score
Source: The authors.
Carbon markets seek to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions by allowing trading of emissions in units (carbon
credits). Carbon credits are certificates that signify emis-
sion reductions. The trading of carbon credits allows com-
panies that can mitigate greenhouse gases emissions at a
lower cost to be compensated by higher-cost emitters for
doing so. Carbon market mechanisms increase awareness
of the environmental and social costs of carbon pollution
by placing a price on carbon emissions, allowing investors
and customers to pursue lower-carbon alternatives. Carbon
markets are divided into two types: cap-and-trade and vol-
untary. Organizations that exceed the mandatory limit
(cap) on greenhouse gas emissions may buy excess allow-
ances to bridge the gap or pay a fine under cap-and-trade.
Compared to this, carbon credits may be traded on volun-
tary markets outside of the regulatory framework. Many of
the countries studied have emission trading protocols in
place while few countries such as Brazil, Indonesia,
Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines have a system under
consideration for implementation.
The presence of a dedicated section for green bonds on
stock exchanges was surprisingly found to be more in
countries with developing and rapidly improving ESG
frameworks (the USA, UK, Singapore, Japan, Italy, Russia,
China and South Africa). Code of practice for corporate
governance was present in numerous countries. And the
standards for increasing disclosure obligations towards
stakeholders are a prevalent practice observed mainly in
Vision 26(2)
countries with the developing level of regulations.
Disclosures from the developed country framework are
acting as a benchmark practice which is required to be
observed to benefit society at large.
Concluding Thoughts and
Recommendations
This study aimed at identifying practices that help in
improving the ESG framework and regulations in develop-
ing countries. Improvement in ESG frameworks would
have moved to the long-term sustainable benefits for not
only at countries’ level development but also assisted the
citizens to achieve environmental, social, economic and
governance benefits. An index was created for sample
countries using ESG regulations and the score was com-
pared within each group based on high, medium and low
category and accordingly benchmarking of scores was
undertaken. Benchmarking was chosen as a tool because at
its heart, benchmarking is the process of determining the
highest levels of quality in any area of an enterprise and
then executing the changes required to achieve those high-
quality standards, often called best practices. The key
objective of the study is to compare ESG regulations across
countries and highlight the best practices that countries in
the developing stage of ESG regulations may incorporate
within their policies. We categorized 28 countries into four
different categories based on the level of development
Singhania and Saini 169
of ESG regulations and thereafter compared the ESG regula-
tions across these countries. It was found that the bench-
marking score calculated, was large, following the
hypothesized categorization of countries using the social
progress indexing. Further, based on their disclosures, coun-
tries have been classified into four categories namely ESG
framework developed or rapidly improving and ESG frame-
work in early stages or developing stage. Norway was found
to have the highest score whereas Vietnam was found to
have the lowest score. The implications from the study
include identifying patterns in ESG regulations for countries
that scored high on the benchmarking scale and countries
that scored comparatively low. We found that countries that
scored low had less score in environmental and governance
factors and comparatively the social factors score was on the
higher side. Such findings indicate the need to focus more on
environmental and governance policy frameworks and regu-
lations for sample countries that have low scores. Especially
for developing countries where the ESG framework is in the
nascent stage of development and requires immediate atten-
tion and there is scope for further improvement. However,
the quantum of ESG reporting has seen enormous progress
in terms of voluntary disclosure and instruments of reporting
in developing countries such as Sweden, Norway, Italy, UK,
Denmark and Germany. Although the emphasis on social
factors in policy frameworks has been more prominent,
there is further need for companies to focus on the specific
ESG related elements that are most relevant to the genera-
tion of long-term benefits for businesses, their shareholders
and for society as a whole. We focus on developing ESG
index and adopting benchmarking practices to spot the areas
requiring future attention.
Appendix
Table A.1.  Classification of Countries Based on Updated Benchmarking Score
Well-developed ESG Rapidly Improving ESG
Framework Framework
(Score Range 28–30) (Score Range 24–27)
Norway Germany
Sweden Italy
Finland USA
Denmark Australia
UK Switzerland
Belgium Canada
France Japan
Brazil
South Africa
Source: The authors own compilations based on the classification of ESG framework discussed in methodology.
Note: ESG = environmental, social and governance.
Limitations of the Study
The study is not free from limitations. Firstly, it does not
take into consideration the micro and macroeconomic
factors that lead to the development of ESG regulations in
countries. Secondly, each country has its unique attributes
that legitimize some deviations in performance from the
benchmarks based on the regulatory and economic frame-
works of that country. Countries with higher regulatory
frameworks have mandated ESG practices, while countries
with low regulatory frameworks are in process of identify-
ing the regulations concerning ESG practices. Thirdly, we
have considered only 10 factors from each domain of ESG
based on careful examination of literature support, practi-
cal guidelines and most acceptable standards in sample
countries. However, there may be numerous components
that result in overall ESG quantification and reporting.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article:
This research is supported by funding under the project scheme
IMPRESS-1492 of ICSSR, New Delhi, India.
ORCID iDs
Neha Saini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8133-674X
Monica Singhania https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2655-2685
ESG Framework at ESG Framework at
Developing Stage Early Stage
(Score Range 20–23) (Score Range Below 20)
Singapore Russia
India Indonesia
China Thailand
New Zealand Nigeria
Philippines Vietnam
Malaysia
Argentina
170 Vision 26(2)

Table A.2.  Social Progress Index Rankings of Countries Studied

Social Progress Social Progress Social Progress Social Progress

Rapidly ESG Framework
Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking Index Ranking
Well-Developed Improving ESG at Developing ESG Framework
ESG Framework (1–7) Framework (8–30) Stage (31–90) at Early Stage (85–150)
Sweden 5 USA 28 Brazil 61 India 117
Norway 1 Singapore 29 Malaysia 48 Nigeria 136
Finland 3 Australia  8 Russia 69 Philippines  98
Denmark 2 UK 20 Indonesia 84 Vietnam  88
Switzerland 6 Japan 13 Argentina 41 Thailand  89
Canada 7 Italy 23 South Africa 82 China 100
New Zealand 4 Germany 11
Belgium 16
France 18
Source: https://www.socialprogress.org/index/global/results
Notes: For preliminary benchmarking, Table A.2 is the basis of country classification. ESG = environmental, social and governance.

Table A.3.  Regulations Studied for Creating Benchmarking Index Score

S. No. Environmental Regulations (E)
 1 Carbon pricing system
 2 Dedicated section on stock exchange for
green bonds
 3 Corporate reporting on impact on
surrounding environment
 4 Greenhouse gas emissions and energy
reporting regulation
 5 Solid/Hazardous waste management
reporting
 6 Law for fight against food waste
 7 Sustainability code/standards
 8 Corporate reporting on environmental
performance with regard to water pollution
 9 Vehicular emission standards
10 Green labelling scheme
Source: The authors.
Notes: Above ESG benchmark practices are chosen after careful scanning of literature, theoretical background, practical guidelines and acceptance
among the sample countries. ESG = environmental, social and governance.
Social Regulations (S)
Reporting on workplace gender
equality
Reporting of social matters by
companies
Annual reporting on companies’
actions to address modern slavery in
their operations
Reporting on business integration of
corporate social responsibility
Prohibition of discrimination based on
origin, nationality, language, opinion,
political activity, age, trade union
activity, family life, sexual orientation,
health, religion, disability or any other
personal characteristics
Employment standards and regulations
Occupational safety and health
regulation
Access to information regulation
Regulation against human trafficking
Data privacy protection
Governance Regulations (G)
Standards for increasing disclosure
obligations towards stakeholder
Code of practice for corporate
governance
Stewardship code
Reporting on anti-corruption
behaviour
Shareholders rights regulation
Corporate governance reporting
Pension fund ESG regulation
Green/Sustainable finance standards
Integration of ESG considerations into
insurance-based investment products
Separation of CEO and Chairman role

Notes Andersen, B., & Pettersen, P.-G. (1996). The benchmarking

1. Based on Social Progress Index Rankings, Table A.2.
2. Complete list of regulations benchmarked can be found in
Table A.3.
3. A table was prepared as per the scoring scheme for each regu-
lation and for every country.
4. Table A.1.
References
Aggarwal, P. (2013). Sustainability reporting and its impact on
corporate financial performance: A literature review. Indian
Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 4(3), 51–59.
handbook. Chapman & Hall.
Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best
practices that lead to superior performance. ASQC Quality
Press.
Duran, I. J., & Rodrigo, P. (2018). Why do firms in emerging
markets report? A stakeholder theory approach to study the
determinants of non-financial disclosure in Latin America.
Sustainability, 10(9), 3111.
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1951). Quality control: Principles, prac-
tice and administration: An industrial management tool for
improving product quality and design and for reducing oper-
ating costs and losses. McGraw-Hill.
Singhania and Saini 171
George, B., Verschuere, B., Wayenberg, E., & Zaki, B. L. (2020).
A guide to benchmarking COVID-19 performance data.
Public Administration Review, 80(4), 696–700.
Graafland, J. J., Eijffinger, S. C., & SmidJohan, H. (2004).
Benchmarking of corporate social responsibility:
Methodological problems and robustness. Journal of Business
Ethics, 53(1), 137–152.
Henderson-Smart, C., Winning, T., Gerzina, T., King, S., & Hyde,
S. (2006). Benchmarking learning and teaching: developing a
method. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2), 143–155.
Klychova, G. S., Ziganshin, B. G., Zakirova, A. R., Valieva, G.
R., & Klychova, A. S. (2017). Benchmarking as an efficient
tool of social audit development. Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, 12(19), 4958–4965.
Korpela, J., & Tuominen, M. (1996). Benchmarking logistics
performance with an application of analytic hierarchy pro-
cess. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 43(3),
323–333.
Kumar, A., Antony, J., & Dhakar, T. S. (2006). Integrating qual-
ity function deployment and benchmarking to achieve greater
profitability. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(3),
290–310.
Lähtinen, K., Myllyviita, T., Leskinen, P., & Pitkänen, S. K.
(2014). A systematic literature review on indicators to assess
local sustainability of forest energy production. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40(2014), 1202–1216.
Mahmood, W. H. W., & Azlan, U. A. A. (2020). QFD approach
in determining the best practices for green supply chain man-
agement in composite technology manufacturing industries.
Malaysian Journal on Composites Science & Manufacturing,
1(1), 45–56.
Narver, J. C. (1971). Rational management responses to external
effects. Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 99–115.
Riva, A., & Pilotti, L. (2021). Benchmarking for sustainable
touristic development: The Case of Pavia (Lombardy, Italy).
Economia Aziendale Online, 12(2), 241–261.
Roberts, E. B. (1995). Benchmarking the strategic management
of technology—I. Research-Technology Management, 38(1),
44–56.
Roberts, E. B. (2001). Benchmarking global strategic manage-
ment of technology. Research-Technology Management,
44(2), 25–36.
Sjåfjell, B., & Richardson, B. J. (Eds.). (2015). Company law and
sustainability. Cambridge University Press.
UN PRI. (2015). Annual report 2015 from awareness to impact.
Principles for Responsible Investment. https://www.unpri.
org/download?ac=3965
Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M., & Moon, J. (2015). How do firms
comply with international sustainability standards? Processes
and consequences of adopting the global reporting initiative.
Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 469–486.
Yaseen, M. M., Sweis, R. J., Abdallah, A. B., Obeidat, B. Y.,
& Sweis, N. J. (2018). Benchmarking of TQM practices in
the Jordanian pharmaceutical industry (a comparative study).
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(9), 4058–4083.
Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking:
Then and now. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
9(3), 217–243.
About the Authors
Monica Singhania (monica@fms.edu) is a professor of
Accounting & Finance at Faculty of Management Studies,
University of Delhi. She is a graduate from Shri Ram
College of Commerce, postgraduate from Delhi School of
Economics and a fellow member (FCA) of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of India with All India Rank of
22nd in merit list. She has been awarded PhD in the area
of corporate finance and taxation from the University of
Delhi. She writes in leading journals on multidisciplinary
themes including accounting, finance and sustainability.
Neha Saini (nehasaini.phd@fms.edu) has completed her
PhD in the area of Finance and International Business from
Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi. She
has done her graduation from Keshav Mahavidyalaya and
postgraduation from RDIAS (GGSIPU). With the rich cor-
porate and academic experience, she has participated in
various national and international paper presentations,
including IIMs, IISc, IBS-Hyderabad, Delhi School of
Economics, Department of Commerce (DU), etc., includ-
ing some best paper awards as well. Besides this, her pub-
lication list includes the leading journals in the area of
finance, international business and sustainability.