BARRIERS AND ENABLERS OF ESG ADOPTION: A CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE
ANA HÎRBU
PhD Student, ASEM Doctoral School, Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova
ORCID: 0009-0000-3193-666X
Email: harbuana22@gmail.com
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/cike2025.25
Pages: 198–208
Abstract
The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) adoption has evolved from a peripheral concern to a strategic imperative in contemporary organizational practice. While the discourse around ESG has matured, the lived reality of implementation remains fragmented, often shaped by a shifting constellation of regulatory pressures, cultural constraints, market expectations, and internal capacity. This article explores ESG integration not as a linear process but as a dynamic, adaptive negotiation – marked by both friction and momentum. Drawing on insights from institutional theory, organizational behaviour, and strategic management, the study maps the interplay between key barriers – such as regulatory ambiguity, financial constraints, data insufficiencies, and organizational inertia – and emerging enablers including digital innovation, leadership commitment, stakeholder pressure, and policy scaffolding. Rather than presenting a prescriptive framework, this work foregrounds the interpretive processes through which firms navigate the ESG complexity. It highlights the conditions under which ESG initiatives are resisted, reframed, or embedded into core strategy. In doing so, the article contributes a more nuanced, systems-aware understanding of ESG adoption across contexts. Implications are outlined for policymakers, who are urged to offer clearer regulatory signals and financial mechanisms; for researchers, who are encouraged to examine ESG integration through longitudinal, sector-specific, and micro-level lenses; and for practitioners, who are challenged to align ESG ambition with operational reality. Ultimately, the findings underscore that ESG transformation is not guaranteed by mandates or market signals alone, but shaped by how firms interpret, improvise, and institutionalize sustainability under conditions of uncertainty.
Keywords: Corporate Culture, Social Responsibility, Corporate Finance and Governance, Organizational Behaviour, Sustainability
JEL Classification: M14, O16, D23, Q56
References
- Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.
- Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
- Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
- Grumann, L., Madaleno, M., & Vieira, E. (2024). The green finance dilemma: No impact without risk–a multiple case study on renewable energy investments. Green Finance, 6(3), 457-483.
- Kher, P. (2022). Green Finance in Emerging Markets: How Can Multilateral Development Banks Help? IMF Working Paper No. 2022/182. International Monetary Fund.
- Leuz, C. (2010). Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: How jurisdictions differ and why. Accounting and Business Research, 40(3), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2010.9663398
- Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). “Creating Shared Value.” Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.
- Tang, K., & Greenwald, C. (2017). Long‑termism versus short‑termism: Time for the pendulum to shift? S&P Dow Jones Indices.
- White, K., Cakanlar, A., Sethi, S., & Trudel, R. (2025). The past, present, and future of sustainability marketing: How did we get here and where might we go? Journal of Business Research, 187, 115056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115056
- World Bank. (2023). Challenges of Green finance: Private sector perspectives from developing countries.
