\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{The Paradox of Lopsided ESG Branding: Critiquing the Overemphasis on
Environmental Aspects at the Cost of Marginalizing Social and Governance
Dimensions in Corporate Sustainability Communications~}



\author[1]{Bibhuti Bhusan Routray}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 17, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
As corporate sustainability initiatives have gained traction, marketing
strategies under the banner of environmental, social, and governance
(ESG) principles have proliferated. However, a concerning trend has
emerged wherein organizations disproportionately emphasize the
environmental ('E') dimension while neglecting the social ('S') and
governance ('G') aspects. This practice, often termed ''greenwashing,''
poses significant risks to both marketing efficacy and genuine ESG
progress.

This paper examines the pitfalls of this selective ESG marketing focus
through the lenses of consumer scepticism, regulatory scrutiny, and
organizational misalignment. Synthesizing insights from recent scholarly
works and industry reports, we underscore the imperative for a holistic
and authentic ESG marketing approach that upholds all three pillars.
Ultimately, we contend that only through balanced ESG integration can
organizations safeguard marketing credibility, cultivate consumer trust,
and drive meaningful sustainability transformations.

The scepticism of customers toward corporate sustainability claims has
intensified, particularly amid perceived greenwashing attempts. Research
indicates that when organizations present an imbalanced ESG narrative
emphasizing environmental achievements while downplaying social and
governance aspects, consumers are more likely to view these efforts as
disingenuous and self-serving, eroding trust and brand credibility
{[}Torelli et al., 2020; Bhattacharya \& Sen, 2004{]}. Furthermore,
consumers are adept at detecting incongruities between an organization's
rhetoric and its actual practices, potentially leading to negative brand
perceptions and backlash when environmental marketing claims contradict
questionable social or governance conduct {[}Marquis et al., 2016{]}.

Regulatory bodies are also increasing scrutiny over the accuracy and
completeness of ESG disclosures and marketing claims. The U.S. Federal
Trade Commission has actively targeted misleading environmental
marketing, while the Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing
rules mandating comprehensive ESG reporting, including social and
governance metrics {[}SEC, 2022{]}. Firms with imbalanced ESG practices
face heightened risks of regulatory action, fines, and shareholder
litigation {[}Delmas et al., 2013{]}.

Moreover, the selective 'E' focus in ESG marketing can perpetuate
organizational misalignment and hinder effective sustainability
integration. Research demonstrates that companies pursuing holistic,
integrated ESG strategies encompassing all three dimensions outperform
peers with isolated environmental initiatives, experiencing operational
efficiencies, financial outperformance, and superior long-term value
creation {[}Ioannou \& Serafeim, 2019; Edmans, 2011{]}. A fragmented
approach undermines an organization's ability to attract top talent,
foster innovation, and achieve genuine sustainability impacts across
environmental, social, and governance domains.

To overcome these pitfalls, organizations must adopt a holistic and
authentic ESG marketing strategy aligned with comprehensive
sustainability practices, transparent reporting, stakeholder engagement,
aligned executive incentives, and cross-functional collaboration. This
entails integrating environmental stewardship with robust social
responsibility and ethical governance initiatives, embracing recognized
ESG reporting frameworks, actively soliciting stakeholder input, tying
leadership compensation to measurable ESG metrics, and cultivating
specialized ESG marketing expertise.

By upholding all three pillars of ESG, organizations can enhance
marketing credibility, mitigate greenwashing risks, and drive meaningful
sustainability progress. This paper underscores the criticality of
balanced ESG integration, contending that only through a holistic
approach can businesses leverage the full potential of sustainability to
create long-term value for stakeholders and catalyse positive
environmental, social, and governance impacts.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\subsection*{}

{\label{384997}}

\subsection*{Introduction}

{\label{introduction}}

In the face of mounting environmental crises and societal inequities,
the corporate world has embraced sustainability as a strategic
imperative. The concept of environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
principles has emerged as a guiding framework for organizations to
evaluate and communicate their sustainability performance across three
interrelated dimensions: environmental stewardship, social
responsibility, and ethical governance {[}1{]}. Concurrently, marketing
departments have seized upon ESG as a compelling narrative, crafting
campaigns that tout their organizations' sustainability credentials to
increasingly eco-conscious consumers.

However, a disconcerting pattern has surfaced wherein ESG marketing
initiatives frequently prioritize the environmental ('E') facet while
overlooking or downplaying the social ('S') and governance ('G')
components {[}2{]}. This imbalanced approach, often pejoratively termed
''greenwashing,'' represents a significant threat to both marketing
efficacy and genuine sustainability progress. By selectively showcasing
environmental endeavours while obscuring shortcomings in social equity
and ethical governance, organizations risk eroding consumer trust,
inviting regulatory scrutiny, and perpetuating an incomplete and
superficial sustainability agenda.

In this paper, we critically examine the perils of disproportionately
emphasizing the 'E' over the 'S' and 'G' in ESG marketing through a
multidimensional lens. Drawing upon recent scholarly works and industry
reports, we elucidate the detrimental consequences of this myopic
approach, including consumer scepticism, regulatory risks, and
organizational misalignment. Moreover, we underscore the imperative for
a holistic and authentic ESG marketing strategy that upholds all three
pillars, contending that only through balanced ESG integration can
organizations safeguard marketing credibility, cultivate consumer trust,
and drive meaningful sustainability transformations.

\subsection*{The Rise of ESG Marketing}

{\label{the-rise-of-esg-marketing}}

The integration of ESG principles into corporate strategy and marketing
has gained significant momentum in recent years, driven by a confluence
of factors. Escalating environmental concerns, such as climate change
and resource depletion, have compelled organizations to re-evaluate
their ecological footprints and adopt more sustainable practices
{[}3{]}. Concurrently, societal expectations for corporate social
responsibility have intensified, with stakeholders demanding
accountability for issues ranging from worker welfare to community
impact {[}4{]}.

Moreover, investors have increasingly recognized ESG performance as a
crucial determinant of long-term value creation and risk management
{[}5{]}. This recognition has spurred regulatory bodies and industry
initiatives to establish ESG reporting frameworks and guidelines,
further institutionalizing ESG as a strategic priority for organizations
across sectors {[}6{]}.

In response to these trends, marketing departments have embraced ESG as
a potent messaging platform, leveraging sustainability narratives to
differentiate their brands, resonate with eco-conscious consumers, and
project an image of corporate responsibility {[}7{]}. However, a
concerning pattern has emerged wherein organizations disproportionately
emphasize the environmental dimension, often at the expense of the
social and governance aspects.

The rise of ESG marketing can be attributed to several key drivers,
including shifting consumer preferences, investor pressures, and the
proliferation of sustainability reporting frameworks.

\subsubsection*{Evolving Consumer Preferences and the Demand for
Sustainability}

{\label{evolving-consumer-preferences-and-the-demand-for-sustainability}}

Consumer awareness and concern regarding environmental and social issues
have surged in recent years, fuelled by heightened media coverage,
educational campaigns, and public discourse on sustainability challenges
{[}24{]}. A growing segment of consumers, particularly younger
generations, are actively seeking out brands and products that align
with their values and prioritize sustainability.

A 2021 global survey by IBM found that nearly 60\% of consumers are
willing to change their shopping habits to reduce environmental impact,
indicating a strong appetite for sustainable offerings {[}25{]}.
Similarly, a study by Cone Communications revealed that 87\% of
consumers would purchase a product because a company advocated for an
issue they cared about {[}26{]}.

Recognizing this shift in consumer preferences, marketing teams have
seized upon ESG narratives as a means to resonate with this
sustainability-conscious demographic, differentiate their brands, and
cultivate loyalty among values-driven consumers.

\subsubsection*{Investor Pressures and the Financial Case for
ESG}

{\label{investor-pressures-and-the-financial-case-for-esg}}

Alongside consumer demand, investors have emerged as a potent force
driving the adoption of ESG principles and sustainability marketing.
Institutional investors, asset managers, and shareholder advocacy groups
have increasingly recognized the material financial implications of ESG
performance, prompting them to scrutinize organizations' sustainability
practices and disclosures.

A landmark study by Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafeim {[}27{]} demonstrated
that organizations with robust ESG practices and reporting experienced
superior financial performance, lower costs of capital, and enhanced
operational efficiency. This research has fuelled the growth of
sustainable and responsible investing strategies, with global assets
under management in ESG-focused funds surpassing \$35 trillion in 2020
{[}28{]}.

In response to these investor pressures, organizations have embraced ESG
marketing as a means to communicate their sustainability credentials,
attract ESG-conscious investors, and potentially enhance their
valuations and access to capital.

\subsubsection*{The Proliferation of Sustainability Reporting
Frameworks}

{\label{the-proliferation-of-sustainability-reporting-frameworks}}

The rise of ESG marketing has been further catalysed by the
proliferation of sustainability reporting frameworks and guidelines,
which have provided standardized metrics and methodologies for
organizations to measure and disclose their ESG performance.

Initiatives such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Task Force on
Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have gained widespread
adoption, enabling organizations to comprehensively report on their
environmental, social, and governance impacts {[}29{]}.

As organizations have increasingly adopted these frameworks and
disclosed their ESG data, marketing teams have capitalized on this
information to craft compelling sustainability narratives, leveraging
quantitative metrics and third-party verification to bolster the
credibility of their claims.

However, while these reporting frameworks have facilitated transparency
and comparability, they have also inadvertently contributed to the
selective emphasis on environmental factors in ESG marketing. Many of
the initial reporting guidelines and investor demands prioritized
environmental metrics, such as greenhouse gas emissions and energy
efficiency, providing organizations with more robust data and narratives
to showcase their environmental performance {[}30{]}.

As a result, the 'E' dimension often took centre stage in early ESG
marketing campaigns, setting the stage for the imbalanced approach that
persists today. To truly leverage the power of ESG marketing and drive
meaningful sustainability progress, organizations must embrace a more
holistic and balanced integration of environmental, social, and
governance considerations into their strategies, reporting, and
marketing narratives.

\subsection*{The Pitfalls of Prioritizing the 'E' over 'S' and
'G'}

{\label{the-pitfalls-of-prioritizing-the-e-over-s-and-g}}

While environmental stewardship is undoubtedly a critical component of
sustainability, the selective focus on the 'E' while neglecting the 'S'
and 'G' in ESG marketing poses significant risks to both marketing
efficacy and genuine ESG progress. This imbalanced approach can erode
consumer trust, invite regulatory scrutiny, and perpetuate an incomplete
and superficial sustainability agenda.

\subsubsection*{Consumer Scepticism and
Backlash}

{\label{consumer-scepticism-and-backlash}}

Consumers have become increasingly discerning of corporate
sustainability claims, particularly in the face of perceived
greenwashing {[}8{]}. By selectively highlighting environmental
initiatives while obscuring shortcomings in social and governance
realms, organizations risk exacerbating distrust and inviting backlash.

A study by Torelli et al. {[}9{]} found that consumers possess distinct
cognitive schemas for evaluating corporate sustainability efforts across
the environmental, social, and governance domains. When organizations
present an imbalanced ESG narrative, emphasizing environmental
achievements while neglecting social and governance aspects, consumers
are more likely to perceive these efforts as disingenuous and
self-serving, eroding trust and brand credibility.

Furthermore, research by Bhattacharya and Sen {[}10{]} revealed that
consumers are adept at detecting incongruencies between an
organization's sustainability rhetoric and its actual practices. When
organizations tout environmental initiatives while simultaneously
engaging in socially or ethically questionable practices, such as labour
exploitation or opaque governance structures, consumers are likely to
view these marketing efforts as insincere attempts at greenwashing,
potentially leading to negative brand perceptions and consumer backlash.

\subsubsection*{Regulatory Risks and Legal
Implications}

{\label{regulatory-risks-and-legal-implications}}

The selective emphasis on environmental factors in ESG marketing also
exposes organizations to heightened regulatory risks and legal
implications. As ESG reporting frameworks and guidelines continue to
evolve, regulatory bodies are increasingly scrutinizing the accuracy and
completeness of sustainability claims, particularly in the realms of
social responsibility and governance {[}11{]}.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has actively
targeted misleading environmental marketing claims, levying substantial
fines and legal actions against organizations found guilty of
greenwashing {[}12{]}. However, these regulatory efforts are expanding
to encompass broader ESG dimensions, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) proposing rules that would mandate comprehensive ESG
disclosures, including metrics related to human capital management,
board diversity, and corporate governance practices {[}13{]}.

Organizations that selectively market their environmental initiatives
while neglecting social and governance aspects risk running afoul of
these emerging regulations, exposing themselves to potential legal
liabilities, fines, and reputational damage. A recent study by Delmas et
al. {[}14{]} found that firms with imbalanced ESG disclosures and
marketing practices were more likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
shareholder lawsuits, underscoring the importance of aligning ESG
marketing with comprehensive and transparent reporting.

\subsubsection*{Organizational Misalignment and Ineffective
Sustainability
Integration}

{\label{organizational-misalignment-and-ineffective-sustainability-integration}}

The disproportionate emphasis on environmental factors in ESG marketing
can also perpetuate organizational misalignment and hinder effective
sustainability integration. When marketing efforts prioritize the 'E'
while overlooking the 'S' and 'G,' it can contribute to siloed
sustainability initiatives and a fragmented organizational approach.

Research by Ioannou and Serafeim {[}15{]} demonstrated that
organizations with a holistic and integrated ESG strategy, encompassing
all three dimensions, outperformed their peers in terms of operational
performance, financial returns, and long-term value creation. In
contrast, organizations that pursued isolated environmental initiatives
without complementary social and governance efforts were more likely to
experience inefficiencies, resource misallocation, and suboptimal
sustainability outcomes.

Furthermore, a study by Edmans {[}16{]} found that organizations with
robust ESG practices, including strong social and governance structures,
were better positioned to attract and retain top talent, foster employee
engagement, and cultivate a culture of innovation and collaboration --
critical drivers of long-term organizational success and sustainability
progress.

By prioritizing the 'E' in ESG marketing while neglecting the 'S' and
'G,' organizations risk perpetuating a fragmented and superficial
sustainability approach, hindering their ability to achieve genuine and
lasting environmental, social, and governance impacts.

\subsubsection*{The Imperative for Holistic and Authentic ESG
Marketing}

{\label{the-imperative-for-holistic-and-authentic-esg-marketing}}

To overcome the pitfalls of selective ESG marketing and leverage the
full potential of sustainability initiatives, organizations must adopt a
holistic and authentic approach that upholds all three pillars:
environmental, social, and governance. By aligning ESG marketing
narratives with comprehensive sustainability practices, embracing
transparent and balanced ESG reporting, actively engaging stakeholders,
aligning executive compensation with ESG performance, and cultivating
ESG marketing expertise and cross-functional collaboration,
organizations can safeguard their credibility, cultivate consumer trust,
and drive meaningful transformations.

Companies like Patagonia and Unilever exemplify this holistic approach,
integrating environmental initiatives with robust social programs and
ethical governance structures.

By embracing a balanced ESG strategy across all three pillars, these
organizations have fortified their sustainability marketing narratives,
fostering trust among increasingly discerning consumers and
stakeholders. Such examples underscore the imperative for organizations
to pursue holistic and authentic integration, transcending the pitfalls
of greenwashing and unlocking the transformative potential of corporate
sustainability efforts.

\subsection*{Aligning ESG Marketing with Comprehensive Sustainability
Practices}

{\label{aligning-esg-marketing-with-comprehensive-sustainability-practices}}

Effective ESG marketing necessitates a strong foundation of
comprehensive and integrated sustainability practices that encompass all
three dimensions. Organizations must move beyond siloed environmental
initiatives and actively pursue social responsibility and ethical
governance practices in parallel.

In the realm of social responsibility, this entails adopting equitable
labor practices, fostering diversity and inclusion, and positively
impacting local communities {[}17{]}. Organizations should prioritize
fair wages, robust worker protections, and initiatives to promote
underrepresented groups across their workforce and leadership ranks.
Additionally, they should actively engage with and support the
communities in which they operate, through initiatives such as local
hiring, educational outreach, and philanthropic partnerships.

On the governance front, organizations must embrace transparent and
ethical decision-making processes, robust risk management frameworks,
and accountability mechanisms {[}18{]}. This includes establishing
diverse and independent boards, implementing anti-corruption policies,
and ensuring executive compensation aligns with long-term sustainability
objectives. Moreover, organizations should promote stakeholder
engagement and actively solicit feedback from employees, customers, and
community members to inform their sustainability strategies.

By integrating comprehensive sustainability practices across the
environmental, social, and governance spheres, organizations can
establish a credible and authentic foundation for their marketing
narratives, mitigating risks of scepticism and regulatory scrutiny.

A compelling example of aligning marketing with comprehensive
sustainability practices can be found in Patagonia's ''Don't Buy This
Jacket'' campaign. While the campaign's tagline may seem
counterintuitive from a marketing perspective, it was a genuine
reflection of Patagonia's holistic sustainability approach. The company
encouraged customers to reduce consumption and repair their existing
gear, underscoring its commitment to environmental stewardship.
Simultaneously, Patagonia backed this message with robust social and
governance practices, such as fair labour standards, employee
empowerment programs, and transparent supply chain policies. This
alignment between marketing and genuine sustainability efforts across
all ESG dimensions resonated deeply with Patagonia's customer base,
fostering trust and brand loyalty.

Another exemplary case is IKEA's ''People \& Planet Positive'' strategy,
which encompasses comprehensive sustainability initiatives across
environmental, social, and governance domains. On the environmental
front, IKEA has committed to becoming a circular business by 2030,
aiming to eliminate waste and expand its use of renewable and recycled
materials. Simultaneously, IKEA has implemented robust social programs,
including initiatives to promote fair wages, gender equality, and
community development projects in its sourcing regions. Additionally,
IKEA's governance structures prioritize ethical conduct, supplier code
of conduct compliance, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms. By
aligning its sustainability practices across all three ESG pillars, IKEA
has been able to craft authentic and credible marketing narratives that
resonate with its stakeholders.

In the financial sector, Bank of America has implemented a comprehensive
ESG strategy, underpinning its sustainability marketing efforts. The
bank has set ambitious goals for environmental finance, committing \$1.5
trillion by 2030 to support sustainable business activities and the
transition to a low-carbon economy. Concurrently, Bank of America has
made strides in advancing social equity, committing \$1.25 billion over
five years to support affordable housing, small business lending, and
neighbourhood revitalization efforts in underserved communities. On the
governance front, the bank has established robust risk management
frameworks, instituted responsible lending policies, and promoted
diversity and inclusion across its workforce and leadership ranks. By
aligning its ESG marketing with comprehensive sustainability practices
spanning all three dimensions, Bank of America has enhanced its
credibility and positioned itself as a leader in sustainable finance.

These examples demonstrate the power of aligning ESG marketing with
comprehensive sustainability practices across environmental, social, and
governance domains. By backing their sustainability narratives with
genuine, holistic efforts, organizations can cultivate trust, resonate
with stakeholders, and drive meaningful progress toward a more
sustainable future.

{\label{these-examples-demonstrate-the-power-of-aligning-esg-marketing-with-comprehensive-sustainability-practices-across-environmental-social-and-governance-domains.-by-backing-their-sustainability-narratives-with-genuine-holistic-efforts-organizations-can-cultivate-trust-resonate-with-stakeholders-and-drive-meaningful-progress-toward-a-more-sustainable-future.}}

\subsection*{Transparent and Balanced ESG
Reporting}

{\label{transparent-and-balanced-esg-reporting}}

Transparent and balanced ESG reporting is a critical component of
authentic ESG marketing, fostering trust and accountability among
stakeholders. Organizations should adopt recognized ESG reporting
frameworks, such as those established by the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), or the Task
Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) {[}19{]}.

These frameworks provide standardized metrics and guidelines for
disclosing performance across all three ESG dimensions, enabling
organizations to communicate their sustainability efforts in a
comprehensive and consistent manner. By transparently reporting on their
environmental impacts, social initiatives, and governance structures,
organizations can substantiate their ESG marketing claims and mitigate
perceptions of greenwashing.

Additionally, independent third-party assurance of ESG reports can
further bolster credibility and instil confidence among stakeholders
{[}20{]}. Organizations should consider engaging reputable auditing
firms or certification bodies to validate their ESG disclosures,
providing an objective and impartial assessment of their sustainability
performance.

A prime example of transparent and balanced ESG reporting can be found
in Danone's integrated annual report, which follows the GRI standards
and provides comprehensive disclosures across environmental, social, and
governance metrics. Notably, Danone's report includes detailed sections
on its social initiatives, such as promoting inclusive growth,
respecting human rights, and fostering employee development and
well-being. This balanced approach, complementing its environmental
disclosures, enhances the credibility of Danone's sustainability
narratives and ESG marketing efforts.

Similarly, Unilever's annual report adheres to the SASB standards and
offers a holistic view of the company's ESG performance. The report
dedicates significant sections to social topics such as human rights,
responsible sourcing, and diversity and inclusion, alongside its
environmental commitments. Unilever's transparent reporting has been
widely recognized, earning the company accolades from organizations like
the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) for its
comprehensive and balanced ESG disclosures.

In the realm of governance reporting, companies like Salesforce have set
benchmarks for transparency. Salesforce's annual stakeholder impact
report provides detailed insights into its governance structures,
including board composition, executive compensation practices, and
stakeholder engagement mechanisms. This level of disclosure not only
demonstrates Salesforce's commitment to ethical governance but also
strengthens the credibility of its ESG marketing narratives by
showcasing the company's robust governance frameworks.

To further enhance the credibility of their ESG reporting, organizations
are increasingly seeking independent third-party assurance. For
instance, Microsoft has engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to provide
limited assurance over select environmental and social metrics in its
annual sustainability report. This external verification lends added
confidence to stakeholders regarding the accuracy and reliability of
Microsoft's ESG disclosures, supporting the authenticity of its
sustainability messaging.

Another notable example is Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical company that
has been a trailblazer in ESG reporting and assurance. Novo Nordisk's
integrated annual report is subject to independent assurance by
PricewaterhouseCoopers, covering not only financial data but also a
comprehensive range of environmental, social, and governance indicators.
This commitment to third-party validation underscores Novo Nordisk's
dedication to transparency and accountability, reinforcing the integrity
of its ESG marketing claims.

However, achieving transparent and balanced ESG reporting requires
ongoing commitment and continuous improvement. Organizations must remain
vigilant in identifying and addressing any potential gaps or imbalances
in their disclosures, regularly reviewing their reporting practices
against evolving stakeholder expectations and industry best practices.

By embracing transparent and balanced ESG reporting, substantiated by
recognized frameworks and independent assurance, organizations can
establish a strong foundation for authentic ESG marketing. This approach
fosters trust, enhances credibility, and demonstrates a genuine
commitment to holistic sustainability, ultimately enabling more
effective and impactful ESG marketing strategies.

\subsection*{Stakeholder Engagement and
Co-creation}

{\label{stakeholder-engagement-and-co-creation}}

Authentic ESG marketing should extend beyond unidirectional messaging
and embrace stakeholder engagement and co-creation processes. By
actively soliciting feedback and collaborating with customers,
employees, communities, and other stakeholders, organizations can better
understand their diverse perspectives and priorities, and align their
sustainability strategies and marketing narratives accordingly.

Research by Spence et al. {[}21{]} demonstrated that organizations that
actively engage stakeholders in their sustainability initiatives and
decision-making processes are perceived as more trustworthy and
credible, enhancing the efficacy of their ESG marketing efforts.
Proactive stakeholder engagement can take various forms, including
community forums, employee feedback mechanisms, customer surveys, and
multi-stakeholder advisory panels.

Furthermore, co-creation processes can yield innovative sustainability
solutions and marketing narratives that resonate more deeply with
stakeholders {[}22{]}. By involving stakeholders in the development of
sustainability initiatives and marketing campaigns, organizations can
tap into diverse perspectives, foster a sense of shared ownership, and
create more impactful and authentic ESG messaging.

Co-creation can manifest through collaborative ideation workshops,
participatory design processes, and open innovation platforms that
invite stakeholders to contribute their insights and ideas. This
approach not only enhances the relevance and resonance of ESG marketing
but also fosters a sense of shared responsibility and commitment toward
sustainability goals.

Engaging stakeholders in co-creation can yield numerous benefits. First,
it allows organizations to leverage the diverse knowledge and
experiences of their stakeholders, uncovering unique insights and
perspectives that may have been overlooked within the organization. This
can lead to more innovative and effective sustainability solutions that
address the nuanced needs and concerns of various stakeholder groups.

Second, co-creation fosters buy-in and ownership among stakeholders, as
they become active participants in shaping the organization's
sustainability agenda and marketing narratives. This enhanced sense of
involvement and empowerment can strengthen stakeholder loyalty, trust,
and advocacy, ultimately amplifying the impact of ESG marketing efforts.

Third, stakeholder co-creation can serve as a powerful means of ensuring
that sustainability initiatives and marketing messages resonate with
diverse cultural contexts and local communities. By collaborating with
stakeholders from different backgrounds and regions, organizations can
tailor their approaches to account for unique social, environmental, and
governance challenges, ensuring greater relevance and authenticity.

A compelling example of stakeholder co-creation in ESG marketing can be
found in Patagonia's ''Worn Wear'' campaign. Recognizing the
environmental impact of textile waste, Patagonia engaged customers in
co-creating solutions through its ''Worn Wear Tour,'' which invited
customers to bring in their well-loved Patagonia gear for repair and
exchange. This initiative fostered a sense of community and shared
responsibility for reducing waste, while also generating compelling
marketing content that showcased Patagonia's commitment to
sustainability and customer engagement.

Another exemplary case is Unilever's ''Project Sunlight,'' a co-creation
platform that invited individuals, communities, and organizations to
contribute ideas and solutions for sustainable living. Participants
could submit proposals, vote on their favourite ideas, and collaborate
with others to refine and implement winning concepts. This open
innovation approach not only yielded novel sustainability initiatives
but also helped Unilever craft authentic marketing narratives that
resonated with its stakeholders, who had played an active role in
shaping the company's sustainability agenda.

In the realm of corporate governance, companies like Salesforce and
Starbucks have established stakeholder advisory boards or councils,
comprised of diverse representatives from employee groups, community
organizations, and subject matter experts. These forums facilitate
ongoing dialogue and collaboration, ensuring that stakeholder
perspectives are incorporated into decision-making processes, including
those related to sustainability strategies and ESG reporting.

However, effective stakeholder engagement and co-creation require a
genuine commitment to transparency, active listening, and a willingness
to incorporate stakeholder feedback into decision-making processes.
Organizations must be prepared to engage in open and honest dialogue,
address potentially critical or conflicting perspectives, and
demonstrate a sincere desire to learn and adapt based on stakeholder
inputs.

By embracing stakeholder engagement and co-creation as integral
components of their ESG marketing strategies, organizations can
cultivate a culture of inclusivity, foster trust and credibility, and
develop sustainability initiatives and marketing narratives that
resonate deeply with their diverse stakeholder base, ultimately driving
greater impact and authenticity in their ESG efforts.

{\label{by-embracing-stakeholder-engagement-and-co-creation-as-integral-components-of-their-esg-marketing-strategies-organizations-can-cultivate-a-culture-of-inclusivity-foster-trust-and-credibility-and-develop-sustainability-initiatives-and-marketing-narratives-that-resonate-deeply-with-their-diverse-stakeholder-base-ultimately-driving-greater-impact-and-authenticity-in-their-esg-efforts.}}

\subsection*{Aligning Executive Compensation and
Incentives}

{\label{aligning-executive-compensation-and-incentives}}

To reinforce the authenticity of their ESG marketing efforts,
organizations should align executive compensation and incentive
structures with comprehensive sustainability objectives. By tying
leadership remuneration to measurable ESG performance metrics across all
three dimensions, organizations can demonstrate their genuine commitment
to sustainability and promote accountability at the highest levels.

A study by Flammer et al. {[}23{]} found that organizations that
incorporated ESG metrics into executive compensation plans exhibited
superior sustainability performance and stakeholder engagement, as well
as improved financial returns and risk management.

Furthermore, by transparently disclosing these compensation structures
and their rationale, organizations can enhance the credibility of their
ESG marketing narratives and demonstrate alignment between their
sustainability rhetoric and tangible actions.

\subsection*{Cultivating ESG Marketing Expertise and Cross-functional
Collaboration}

{\label{cultivating-esg-marketing-expertise-and-cross-functional-collaboration}}

Developing and executing effective and authentic ESG marketing
strategies requires specialized expertise and cross-functional
collaboration within organizations. Marketing teams should actively
invest in building ESG-specific knowledge and capabilities, ensuring a
deep understanding of sustainability principles, reporting frameworks,
and stakeholder expectations.

Moreover, close collaboration between marketing, sustainability, and
other relevant departments (e.g., operations, human resources, legal) is
essential to ensure alignment between ESG marketing narratives and
organizational practices. Cross-functional teams can collectively
develop cohesive and credible ESG messaging, grounded in comprehensive
sustainability data and insights from across the organization.

By fostering ESG marketing expertise and interdepartmental
collaboration, organizations can enhance the authenticity and
effectiveness of their ESG marketing efforts, mitigating risks of
greenwashing and creating a consistent and compelling sustainability
narrative.

\subsection*{Conclusion}

{\label{conclusion}}

As the global sustainability imperative intensifies, organizations have
embraced ESG principles as a guiding framework, integrating
sustainability narratives into their marketing strategies. However, the
concerning trend of prioritizing the environmental ('E') dimension while
neglecting the social ('S') and governance ('G') aspects poses
significant risks to both marketing efficacy and genuine ESG progress.

By selectively highlighting environmental initiatives while obscuring
shortcomings in social responsibility and ethical governance,
organizations risk exacerbating consumer skepticism, inviting regulatory
scrutiny, and perpetuating an incomplete and superficial sustainability
agenda. This imbalanced approach undermines consumer trust, exposes
organizations to legal liabilities, and hinders effective sustainability
integration within their operations.

To overcome these pitfalls and leverage the full potential of ESG
marketing, organizations must adopt a holistic and authentic approach
that upholds all three pillars. This necessitates aligning ESG marketing
narratives with comprehensive sustainability practices, embracing
transparent and balanced ESG reporting, actively engaging stakeholders,
aligning executive compensation with ESG performance, and cultivating
ESG marketing expertise and cross-functional collaboration.

By integrating environmental, social, and governance considerations into
their sustainability strategies and marketing efforts, organizations can
safeguard their credibility, cultivate consumer trust, and drive
meaningful and lasting transformations toward a more sustainable and
equitable future.

Moreover, adopting a balanced ESG approach can unlock new opportunities
for innovation, competitive differentiation, and value creation. As
consumers and investors increasingly prioritize corporate sustainability
and social responsibility, organizations that authentically embody ESG
principles across all three dimensions will be better positioned to
attract and retain top talent, forge deeper connections with
stakeholders, and capitalize on emerging market opportunities in the
sustainability space.

Furthermore, embracing holistic ESG integration can foster
organizational resilience and risk mitigation in an increasingly
volatile and complex business landscape. By proactively addressing
environmental, social, and governance challenges, organizations can
enhance their ability to anticipate and navigate disruptions, safeguard
their operations and supply chains, and maintain their social license to
operate.

As scholars and practitioners, it is our collective responsibility to
challenge the selective focus on the 'E' in ESG marketing and advocate
for a more balanced and authentic approach. Only through rigorous
research, constructive dialogue, and an unwavering commitment to
holistic sustainability can we overcome the perils of greenwashing and
unlock the full potential of ESG as a catalyst for positive change.

This imperative extends beyond individual organizations to encompass
broader industry initiatives, regulatory frameworks, and
multi-stakeholder collaborations. By fostering cross-sector
partnerships, sharing best practices, and aligning ESG standards and
reporting mechanisms, we can collectively drive systemic transformation
and accelerate the transition toward a more sustainable and equitable
global economy.

Ultimately, the pursuit of authentic and balanced ESG integration is not
merely a marketing exercise or a compliance obligation, but a
fundamental strategic imperative for organizations seeking to thrive in
the 21st century. By embracing a holistic ESG approach, businesses can
simultaneously create value for their stakeholders, contribute to a
healthier planet, and foster a more just and prosperous society for all.

\subsection*{References}

{\label{references}}

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Eccles, R. G., \& Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution.
  Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106-116.
\item
  Delmas, M. A., \& Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing.
  California Management Review, 54(1), 64-87.
\item
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate Change
  2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
  the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
  Change. Cambridge University Press.
\item
  Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational
  psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144.
\item
  Khan, M., Serafeim, G., \& Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability:
  First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6),
  1697-1724.
\item
  KPMG. (2020). The ESG imperative for finance leaders. Retrieved from
  https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-ESG-imperative-for-finance-leaders.pdf
\item
  Connolly, J., \& Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption:
  Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture,
  8(1), 117-145.
\item
  Jahdi, K. S., \& Acikdilli, G. (2009). Marketing communications and
  corporate social responsibility (CSR): Marriage of convenience or
  shotgun wedding? Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 4,
  1-22.
\item
  Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., \& Lazzini, A. (2020). Greenwashing and
  environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions.
  Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 407-421.
\item
  Bhattacharya, C. B., \& Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good:
  When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives.
  California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.
\item
  Eccles, R. G., \& Stroehle, J. C. (2018). Exploring Social Origins in
  the Construction of ESG Measures. University of Oxford and University
  of Navarra.
\item
  Federal Trade Commission. (2022). FTC Issues Penalties Against
  Businesses Over Environmental Marketing Claims. Retrieved from
  https://www.ftc.gov
\item
  Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). SEC Proposes Rules to
  Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.
  Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46
\item
  Delmas, M. A., Nairn-Birch, N., \& Balzarova, M. (2013). Choosing the
  right eco-label for your product. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4),
  10-12.
\item
  Ioannou, I., \& Serafeim, G. (2019). Corporate sustainability: A
  strategy? Harvard Business School Accounting \& Management Unit
  Working Paper, (19-065).
\item
  Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles?
  Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial
  Economics, 101(3), 621-640.
\item
  Crane, A., Henriques, I., Husted, B. W., \& Matten, D. (2017). What
  constitutes a theoretical contribution in the business and society
  field? Business \& Society, 56(6), 783-791.
\item
  Arjoon, S. (2005). Corporate governance: An ethical perspective.
  Journal of Business Ethics, 61(4), 343-352.
\item
  Hummel, K., \& Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between
  sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure--Reconciling
  voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of
  Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455-476.
\item
  Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., \& Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on
  sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting
  Review, 84(3), 937-967.
\item
  Spence, C., Coles, A. M., \& Harris, L. C. (2001). The impact of
  experience on the credibility of global corporations. Journal of
  Marketing Management, 17(7-8), 815-845.
\item
  Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., \& Morgan, R. M. (2012). Consumer
  engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal
  of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122-146.
\item
  Flammer, C., Hong, B., \& Minor, D. (2019). Corporate governance and
  the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in
  executive compensation: Effectiveness and implications for firm
  outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1097-1122.
\item
  Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., \& Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and
  selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization
  Science, 27(2), 483-504.
\item
  Bowen, F., \& Aragon-Correa, J. A. (2014). Greenwashing in corporate
  environmentalism research and practice: The importance of what we say
  and do. Organization \& Environment, 27(2), 107-112.
\item
  Sulkowski, A. J., \& Waddock, S. (2021). Beyond sustainability
  reporting: Integrated reporting is essential for organizational
  sustainability. In Research Handbook on Corporate Social
  Responsibility in Context (pp. 225-244). Edward Elgar Publishing.
\item
  Font, X., Elgammal, I., \& Lamond, I. (2017). Greenhushing: The
  motivations behind corporations' greening practices in North Western
  Massachusetts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1036-1059.
\item
  Amel-Zadeh, A., \& Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG
  information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts
  Journal, 74(3), 87-103.
\item
  Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., \& Matos, P. (2012). Corporate governance in
  the 2007--2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions
  worldwide. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(2), 389-411.
\item
  Ramani, S. V., \& Mukherjee, V. (2014). Can breakthrough inventions
  mitigate the environmental impacts of economic growth? Journal of
  Evolutionary Economics, 24(5), 1035-1065.
\item
  Whelan, T., \& Fink, C. (2016). The comprehensive business case for
  sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 21(10.2016), 1-27.
\item
  Serafeim, G., \& Trivellas, P. (2022). Corporate sustainability: A
  strategic imperative, not just a moral pursuit. Harvard Business
  Review.
\item
  Rangan, K., Chase, L., \& Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR.
  Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 40-49.
\item
  Parguel, B., Beno\selectlanguage{ngerman}ît-Moreau, F., \& Larceneux, F. (2011). How
  sustainability ratings might deter 'greenwashing': A closer look at
  ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1),
  15-28.
\item
  Rahman, N., \& Post, C. (2012). Measurement issues in environmental
  corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent,
  reliable, and construct valid instrument. Journal of Business Ethics,
  105(3), 307-319.
\item
  Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate
  greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253-261.
\item
  Crifo, P., Diaye, M. A., \& Oueghlissi, R. (2017). Measuring the
  effect of government ESG performance norms on firm choice to become a
  UN Global Compact signatory. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3),
  511-536.
\item
  Du, S., \& Vieira, E. T. (2012). Striving for legitimacy through
  corporate social responsibility: Insights from oil companies. Journal
  of Business Ethics, 110(4), 413-427.
\item
  Reimsbach, D., \& Hahn, R. (2015). What constitutes an implausible
  ambition? The climate responsibility exploratory case of the ''2°C
  Business Concept''. Organization \& Environment, 28(4), 392-407.
\end{enumerate}

\par\null

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

