The state of ESG implementation among listed companies in Southeast Asia during 2015 - 2024: Improvement trends and divergence

Abstract

This study examines the implementation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices among 901 listed companies in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand during the 2015 - 2024 period. The study compares the full sample with a balanced group of 170 companies for which complete data are available over the entire ten-year period in order to isolate the effects of changes in sample composition. The results show that the average ESG score of the full sample declined after 2019; however, this decline was attributable to the expansion of the sample to include newly rated companies with relatively low initial scores. In contrast, the average ESG score of the balanced group increased continuously from 41.33 to 62.16 points. Thailand recorded the highest ESG scores, while Singapore and the Philippines showed the greatest improvements in the full sample. Malaysia exhibited the most pronounced divergence between long-established listed companies and newly rated companies. Formal governance mechanisms dedicated to ESG remain relatively uncommon. Based on these findings, the study provides implications for companies, investors, and regulatory authorities.
Keywords
ESG listed companies Southeast Asia sustainability governance Tobin’s Q

References

1.
Nguyễn Thị Trúc Anh. (2025). Tác động của môi trường, xã hội và quản trị doanh nghiệp (ESG) đến giá trị doanh nghiệp: Bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các nước đang phát triển ở khu vực ASEAN. Tạp chí Kế toán & Kiểm toán, https://tapchiketoankiemtoan.vn/tac-dong-cua-moi-truong-xa-hoi-va-quan-tri-doanh-nghiep-esg-den-gia-tri-doanh-nghiep-bang-chung-thuc-nghiem-tai-cac-nuoc-dang-phat-trien-o-khu-vuc-asean-d4418.html
2.
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. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2
3.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304-1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1980
4.
El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. (2017). Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3), 360-385. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.4
5.
Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001
6.
Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, Article 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889
7.
Refinitiv. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores from Refinitiv [Methodology document]. Refinitiv, an LSEG business.
8.
Samosir, I. B. H. (2025). The role of corporate governance and executive compensation towards company greenwashing behavior in ASEAN (Version 1) [Data set]. Mendeley Data. https://doi.org/10.17632/cp4xd5hbtb.1
9.
Securities Commission Malaysia. (2017). Malaysian code on corporate governance. https://www.sc.com.my/regulation/corporate-governance
10.
Singapore Exchange. (2016). Practice note 7.6: Sustainability reporting guide. SGX Mainboard Rules. https://rulebook.sgx.com/rulebook/practice-note-76-sustainability-reporting-guide
11.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331