Purpose This study aims to investigate the relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability rankings in higher education institutions. It explores the existence of a bidirectional relationship, assessing how sustainability performance influences ranking outcomes and how rankings, in turn, affect institutional behavior and performance. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected external sustainability data from Italian universities and applied the Granger causality test to examine whether a bidirectional relationship exists with the UI GreenMetric ranking. Subsequently, the authors used dynamic panel models to investigate the determinants of this relationship. Findings The findings reveal a bidirectional relationship between sustainability rankings and sustainability performance: rankings not only reflect institutional outcomes but also actively shape them. On the one hand, rankings effectively capture certain dimensions of performance; on the other, they are associated with improvements in the metrics they measure, while other sustainability dimensions may decline or receive less attention. Practical implications University managers should critically assess how rankings influence strategic decisions to avoid prioritizing short-term ranking gains over long-term sustainability goals. Social implications University rankings are widely used by policymakers as proxies for performance in funding allocation and policy design. However, uncritical reliance on these tools may lead to suboptimal decisions and incentivize strategic manipulation, highlighting the need for greater public oversight, more transparent methodologies, and the development of shared and reliable sustainability metrics. Originality/value Sustainability rankings have emerged alongside traditional rankings to assess institutional quality in this area. Originally created to measure university quality, rankings can also influence institutional priorities. However, while traditional rankings and their effects have been widely studied, sustainability rankings remain relatively unexplored.
Purpose Mobilizing private capital toward sustainable development requires understanding how sustainability-related information influences individual investment decisions. While prior research has examined investors’ sustainable preferences, less attention has been paid to how such information is mediated in practice. This study aims to investigate the role of financial advisors as key informational intermediaries between corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures and private wealth allocation. Design/methodology/approach Using survey data from 800 Italian high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), the study analyses actual portfolio holdings across five asset classes, including sustainable investment products. Logistic regression models examine the determinants of SI ownership, complemented by mediation analyses assessing how advisor interactions and sustainability-related information shape trust and perceived effectiveness. Findings Sustainable investment adoption among HNWIs depends not only on sustainability orientation, but critically on perceptions of credibility and effectiveness of sustainability claims. Financial advisors play a central role in shaping these perceptions by mediating sustainability information. Regulatory-driven disclosures increase exposure to sustainable products, while richer and discretionary sustainability communication is more strongly associated with sustainable portfolio allocation. Practical implications Enhancing advisors’ ESG competencies and improving the clarity and transparency of sustainability ratings can enhance effective communication with private investors. Social implications By clarifying how sustainability information is translated into investment decisions, the study informs efforts to reorient private wealth toward sustainable development goals. Originality/value The study contributes to sustainability accounting, management and sustainable finance research by highlighting financial advisors as organizational intermediaries linking ESG disclosure to private capital allocation.
Purpose This study aims to explore how fintech influences corporate strategic environmental, social and governance (ESG) behaviour (CSB), which refers to strategic inconsistencies between ESG disclosure and actual practices, including greenwashing and brownwashing. Design/methodology/approach Using panel data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2023, this study constructs a CSB index and applies fixed effects, mediation and threshold models to examine the impact of fintech on CSB and the impact mechanisms. Findings Fintech significantly suppresses CSB. While its inhibitory effect on greenwashing is particularly pronounced, its impact on brownwashing remains empirically tentative. Mechanism analyses reveal that this effect operates through both funding and governance channels. Fintech also helps correct the structural mismatches inherent in traditional finance and serves a gap-filling function in regions with underdeveloped financial infrastructure. Furthermore, the impact of fintech on CSB is non-linear, with the strongest effect under moderate regulation and low competition. Practical implications The results indicate that fintech serves as a critical governance tool for increasing the credibility of ESG disclosure and decreasing strategic misreporting. Firms should leverage fintech to enhance disclosure authenticity and ESG risk management. Financial institutions and regulatory bodies can use digital technologies to enable more accurate green credit allocation and dynamic regulatory oversight. Social implications By enhancing transparency and traceability, fintech promotes ESG information fairness and environmental governance justice, improves the efficiency of capital allocation and contributes to the restoration of social trust and sustainable development foundations. Originality/value This study integrates greenwashing and brownwashing within a unified CSB framework, revealing institutional arbitrage risks in ESG disclosure. By introducing the lens of “fintech empowerment”, this study advances the understanding of the role of fintech in curbing sustainability manipulation, and it contributes to the broader literature on digital governance and sustainable finance.
Purpose The aim of this contribution is to offer an economist’s perspective on multi-capital accounting development. The author reflects on the use of multi-capital models in his own experience and stresses the areas of multi-capital accounting that are still in contention. Design/methodology/approach The author reviews four streams in the literature to emphasise the characteristics that multi-capital accounting should have. The author then reviews four representative models along the weak–strong sustainability continuum to reflect on their current limits and perspectives. The author finally offers some criticism of multi-capital accounting and stresses the direction it could take. Findings The author observes that there is a great variety of multi-capital accounting models that offer diverging perspectives on sustainability. Issues related to the role of physical stocks, physical limits, sustainability paths and valuation are treated differently across models. As a result, multi-capital models are not fit for every institutional context and might be better suited for regional-level or ecosystem accounting. Research limitations/implications The author suggests that authors from the pragmatic and critical schools of accounting could usefully work together to overcome the limitations of existing models, notably the joint accounting of the cost of action and the cost of inaction. Practical implications Authors of multi-capital models should work together on efforts to scale up their method in suitable contexts. More work could also be done on altering financial accounting in line with sustainability accounting. A necessary first step here would be the compilation of a science-based database for asset, liabilities, impact and dependencies valuation. Social implications Multi-capital accounting could be applied to new bodies in charge of physical stock management. Governments aiming for the development of multi-capital accounting should consider models fit for their own goals. Multi-capital accounting could also support global coalitions for stewardship of critical ecosystems involving diverse stakeholders. Originality/value This paper offers an original viewpoint on multi-capital accounting.
