Corporate Communication, Corporate Governance and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive of the European Union

Комуникация в международни институции и корпорации

Communication in International Institutions and Corporations

DOI 10.55206/PINQ4392

 

Georgi Tonev

University of National and World Economy

E-mail: Gtonev_2421217@unwe.bg

 

Abstract: Corporate governance pertains to the underlying mechanisms, procedures, and concepts that govern the direction and management of corporations. The concept encompasses a complex interaction between the company’s executives, its board of directors, shareholders, and other interested parties. The fundamental tenets of corporate governance, including accountability, openness, fairness, and responsibility, constitute the foundation for establishing governance structures that foster ethical decision-making, manage risks, and improve business performance. The first aim is to explore the complex and diverse aspects of corporate governance by examining its theoretical underpinnings and assessing their practical significance in modern company operations. The second aim is to fill this vacuum by analyzing the several theoretical views that form the foundation of corporate governance, such as agency theory, stakeholder theory, stewardship theory, transaction cost economics, and resource dependence theory. Each of these theories provides unique perspectives on the motives, behaviors, and interactions of the many stakeholders in corporate governance.

Keywords: corporate communication, corporate governance, corporate suitability, European Union.

Board Duties & Corporate Purpose

The European Union’s latest set of corporate responsibility legislation seek to fundamentally transform the role of corporations in society. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) would establish legal grounds for holding companies directly accountable for any breaches of due diligence committed inside their “value chains.” The CSRD would mandate that the major European corporations implement net zero transition plans and link CEO compensation to the achievement of the climate objectives, which is of the utmost importance. The CSRD is now progressing through the EU political process; nonetheless, it is premature to forecast its ultimate configuration and influence (Segal 2023). [1] The United Kingdom has implemented mandatory corporate net zero targets. Large asset managers and listed corporations have been instructed to develop plans before the Financial Conduct Authority completes its comprehensive transition plan guidelines.

In the United States, it is improbable that corporation law would see a comparable comprehensive restructuring of corporate purpose by top-down legislation. However, as the tangible consequences of climate change increase, causing harm not only to individuals but also to businesses, criticism of the existing system also grows. The existing corporate law faces climate-related issues due to both ongoing emissions and the failure of private industries to adjust to severe weather conditions (Kovvali & Macey 2023). [2] The subsequent sections explore the impact of climate change on discussions surrounding board responsibilities and business objectives.

Board Duties

Delaware, being the site where many of the world’s largest companies are located, has a significant influence on the decisions made by corporate boards. Andrew Winden asserts that Delaware courts should emulate other common law countries that impose liability on boards for their failure to oversee business risks (Winden 2023). [3] The restriction of Caremark’s responsibility to only cover “mission critical” instances of legal non-compliance implies that Delaware directors are not adequately focused on one of the most significant dangers faced by companies, which is climate change. Undoubtedly, business leadership should acknowledge that climate change poses a possible operational and enterprise risk (Mychasuk 2023). [4] The recent incident where UPS successfully averted a significant walkout at the last moment highlights how climate change may also pose challenges in terms of human resources and union relations. The financial press is increasingly discussing the subject of supply chain risk due to climate change. Major corporations are already restructuring their whole business strategy to prioritize resilience. Nevertheless, according to the existing legislation in Delaware, directors are not considered to be in violation of their duty if they fail to oversee non-legal business risks.

However, it has been noted by scholars and legal professionals that climate change does not need a significant overhaul of fiduciary duties in order for it to influence the responsibilities of boards within the framework of current legal obligations (Barker, Williams & Cooper 2021). [5] As climate change increasingly influences many sectors of the economy, and as climate legislation expand, firms will face a broader range of climate-related reporting obligations. Boards may face entity-specific compliance risk not just from climate-specific disclosures, but also from a variety of financial reporting obligations. In addition, the number and variety of litigation against firms that produce pollutants are consistently increasing (Clark 2023). [6] Defendants include not just oil and gas firms, but also industrial manufacturers and utilities. Aside from the nuisance and tort actions aiming to get compensation for climate-related damages, plaintiffs have also lodged claims pertaining to consumer protection, securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, and failure to adapt. While several methodologies have seen swift failures, necessitating their re-filing in a different manner on a later occasion, others have progressed gradually through the judicial system (LaCroix 2023). [7]

Insurance companies offering liability coverage to directors and officers are aware that the opportunities for climate-related liability are growing. They caution that firms might face responsibility not simply for neglecting to address climate change, but also for making exaggerated claims about their climate progress or failing to fulfill climate-related commitments. In 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s newly established Climate and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Enforcement Task Force resolved its first case. The task force accused the Vale mining company of deliberately misrepresenting the safety of a tailings dam that collapsed in Brazil in 2019, resulting in the deaths of several individuals. This information is sourced from Sidley Insight 2023. European companies and directors have far less shareholder litigation compared to their American counterparts, mostly due to EU legislation and the structure of shareholdings. This may elucidate why European authorities are more at ease adopting a “reveal now, we will resolve the specifics subsequently” approach. Only time will reveal the impact of these reporting obligations on significant U.S. corporations who are concurrently subject to shareholder and state securities lawsuits in their home country.

 

Corporate Purpose

The statement refers to a broader rejection of “classical liberal economic theory” as the fundamental ideology of corporate governance theory (Kahan & Rock2023). [8] The increasing doubt over the effectiveness of markets is demonstrated by the decision to link CEO compensation incentives to factors other than stock price, and to use “non-financial” measures in trading decisions. Similarly, in the domain of U.S. politics, the Inflation Reduction Act and other expenditure packages that focus on certain industries are seen as signaling the end of neoliberalism in the U.S. and the revival of industrial policies from a previous period. The emphasis is placed on capital stock and capital investment in certain industries and technologies, rather than relying on a carbon tax that relies on price signals to reform the energy system (Amarnath, Brusseler, Gabor, Lala & Mason 2023). [9]

Nevertheless, if we are indeed on the cusp of a new epoch of corporate governance, the underlying principles that will shape it remain ambiguous. Historical industrial policies were based on the collaboration of the government, workforce, and the business community, specifically corporate leaders. The era of managerialism was superseded by a faith in markets, emphasizing the maximizing of share prices and minimizing government intervention in directing business objectives. However, as reports of the financial industry’s lack of knowledge and incorrect valuation of climate risk have increased, so have concerns about the effectiveness of markets as a means of managing the future. The influence of institutional investor voice is of the utmost importance in our society (Braun 2022). [10] For many individuals, the capacity to manage and synchronize organizations offers hope for surpassing the disorderly market dynamics that have brought us to this point.

Simultaneously, some individuals warn that private money by itself is insufficient to adequately address the climate crisis. In addition to their inherent shortcomings, markets are not very effective in providing some environmentally friendly products. Seawalls and mangrove forests, although they offer distributed advantages in the form of storm protection, do not directly create revenue streams (Farooqui & Sahay 2021). [11] The first endeavor requires a significant amount of initial investment, whereas the second one arguably requires safeguards against financial resources. Within the European Union, there is a strong ideological drive to promote the financialization of mangrove forests, which involves facilitating investment in and safeguarding the various benefits provided by these ecosystems, known as “ecosystem services”. However, demanding financial returns from essential public infrastructure that is intended to avoid harm rather than facilitate development is incongruous.

Academics have observed the similarity between the current Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) cultural warfare and past discussions on the objective of corporations. There is a suggestion to remove the term “ESG” from the discussion of climate change. This would make it clearer and perhaps bring people together, since it would be simpler to argue that an investment decision was made primarily on financial worth rather than personal beliefs. (Gordon 2022). [12] However, this fails to comprehend the requirements and challenges involved in the transition and adaptation process. What is the most effective approach to achieve the shift – should we alone migrate from combustion engine automobiles to electric vehicles, or should we also embark on extensive public transportation initiatives and enhance the pedestrian-friendliness of our cities? What is the compromise between the widespread adoption of electricity and the necessity of creating new mines? To what extent should we depend on technology carbon dioxide removal in our planning? What is the status of geoengineering? These questions pertain to politics, yet their answers are not limited to domestic politics alone. For certain individuals, the transnational firm, which has extensive supply chains spanning several nations and emits a significant amount of greenhouse gases, appears to be an appropriate setting for political transfor­mation (Barzuza, Curtis, & Webber 2023). [13] Others perceive the worldwide financial system as being one level higher.

As of the summer of 2023, scientists have recently released fresh evidence suggesting that a significant Atlantic Ocean circulation current is projected to disappear within this century, maybe within a few decades. A further study predicts that a significant portion of the water stored in the Tibetan Plateau would vanish, leading to the evaporation of the water supply for about 2 billion individuals (Li Xueying et al., 2022). [14] NASA expresses concern on the diminishing agricultural output. However, while logging in to review my Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund, I saw a tiny increase in the balance throughout the summer. Due to the United States’ approach to its retirement system, the fund was automatically assigned to me as a result of a previous employment. A portion of my wage is now invested in stocks and bonds in corporate America. Tim Buckley, who oversees the voting rights of the stocks, explicitly states that he is not responsible for considering whether the valuations in my portfolio align with the expected future of climate change according to scientific findings.

As we move further into the 21st century, the global strategy for reducing carbon emissions will increasingly need to adapt to severe disasters and disruptions in supply chains. This adaptation is crucial as climate change continues to escalate, bringing with it more frequent and intense natural disasters that can wreak havoc on supply chains and global trade. Retail investors are beginning to express doubts about the economic outlook, questioning the long-term viability of traditional investment strategies in the face of such instability (Gordon 2022). [15] One such investor argues that reallocating funds from her retirement account towards resilience initiatives – public goods designed to protect against the inevitable and chaotic future – would be a more beneficial use of her money.

These resilience initiatives include investments in infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather events, technologies that reduce carbon footprints, and community programs that enhance local preparedness and recovery capabilities.

The process of converting a collection of business equities into climate resilience projects is intricate and encompasses more than simply altering corporation regulations. It necessitates a fundamental change in investing attitudes and priorities. This move involves more than just redirecting capital; it involves promoting a wider ideological shift among the investing sector. Investors, legislators, and business executives should initiate a more extensive dialogue on the involvement of finance and companies in tackling the climate catastrophe. This discussion aims to examine the methods by which financial resources might be gathered to promote sustainable behaviors, decrease emissions, and enhance resilience in the face of climate-related effects.

At present, we are just at the initial phases of this revolutionary process. Given the pressing nature of the climate catastrophe, it is imperative that we expedite our endeavors to incorporate sustainability into all facets of the economy. Corporations must embrace stricter environmental standards and enhance openness when disclosing their climate consequences. Investors must prioritize environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations when making investment decisions. Governments will have a crucial role in formulating legislation and providing incentives to encourage sustainable corporate practices and resilience planning.

To achieve climate resilience, it is necessary to develop new and creative financial tools and investment options that can effectively draw investment towards sustainable initiatives. Green bonds, climate funds, and public-private partnerships are tools that might help attract funding for resilience programs. These instruments can facilitate the connection between conventional financial markets and the evolving requirements of a climate-resilient economy.

Enhancing public awareness and education on the significance of climate resilience is imperative alongside financial and business changes. It is important for individuals to comprehend the importance of their financial decisions and how they might contribute to a sustainable future. Community involvement and cooperation will be crucial in developing resilience at the local level, where the effects of climate change are frequently experienced most intensely.

Although we are still in the first phases of tackling the climate catastrophe by means of financial and organizational changes, it is clear that a holistic solution is required. This strategy necessitates in-depth deliberations on the significance of finance, corporate accountability, and the allocation of resources towards the goals of sustainability and resilience. By incorporating these components, we can establish a strong and comprehensive structure that not only reduces the negative impacts of climate change but also fosters a more environmentally friendly and adaptable global economy.

Discussion

A comprehensive investigation of corporate governance (CG) has been conducted, analyzing its theoretical foundations, evaluating its practical consequences, and discussing the evolving difficulties it encounters in the modern business landscape. With the increasing complexity of corporate structures and the rising demands for openness and accountability from stakeholders, the significance of strong governance processes becomes even more crucial. This conclusion consolidates the main discoveries from both the theoretical and practical investigations of corporate governance, emphasizing the crucial insights and implications for future application and study.

The thorough analysis of corporate governance yielded a full comprehension of the mechanisms, procedures, and tenets that regulate and oversee organizations. Theoretical investigation established the foundation by providing insights into the intricate interaction of elements that impact corporate governance. Theoretical underpinnings have provided a detailed framework for comprehending the motives, behaviors, and interactions of different stakeholders in CG. This framework has paved the way for the practical applications addressed in the following chapters.

A key discovery in this paper is the acknowledgment of the crucial significance of corporate governance in promoting ethical decision-making, reducing risks, and improving company performance. The concepts of accountability, openness, justice, and responsibility are fundamental in establishing governance structures that encourage these results. Nevertheless, the theoretical research also uncovered the difficulties involved in attaining these principles, especially in the lack of a globally acknowledged theoretical framework or a widely established model for corporate governance procedures.

The empirical component of this paper looks at the tangible implementation of these theoretical viewpoints in actual corporate governance procedures, specifically in relation to present-day obstacles such as climate change and the emergence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment. The growing emphasis on sustainability and the incorporation of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations into corporate plans have fundamentally transformed the field of corporate governance. As a result, there is a need for novel methodologies and frameworks to effectively tackle these rising challenges.

There has been a notable transition towards environmentally conscious corporate governance, motivated by increasing apprehensions over the ecological consequences of company operations and the necessity for sustainable economic strategies. Key topics of attention were the increasing prominence of climate-related investing, legal measures designed to improve climate risk disclosure, and the changing responsibilities of corporate boards in response to climate hazards. This reform demonstrates a wider acknowledgment that corporate governance has to adapt in order to tackle the urgent issues presented by climate change and sustainability.

Investing in climate-related initiatives and practicing responsible management of shareholders’ interests: The investigation indicated that climate-related investing is becoming more prominent, as investors are increasingly considering the environmental consequences of their investments. Shareholder stewardship has emerged as a crucial mechanism for promoting corporate action on climate change, as investors leverage their voting authority to shape business policies and practices. Nevertheless, the efficacy of these endeavors is frequently impeded by the intricate interaction of market dynamics, regulatory frameworks, and business tactics.

The increasing inclination towards climate-related investing highlights the expanding recognition among investors of the financial perils linked to climate change. Investors are progressively considering the possibility of climate-related disasters causing disruptions to corporate operations, influencing supply networks, and impacting market stability. This growing awareness is causing a change in investing methods, with a focus on companies that have a stronger ability to handle and reduce these risks. Shareholder stewardship, which is actively engaging and voting on climate-related matters, has become a potent means of influencing company conduct. This trend emphasizes the increasing significance of investor activism in advocating for sustainable corporate practices.

Regulatory modifications and the disclosure of climate-related risks: The paper emphasizes notable regulatory modifications designed to improve the disclosure of climate risk. The purpose of these modifications is to furnish investors with enhanced data on the climate-related hazards encountered by companies, thereby facilitating more knowledgeable investment choices. The regulatory environment is undergoing fast changes, as various areas implement diverse strategies for disclosing climate-related risks. An in-depth analysis was conducted on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) of the European Union and the proposed climate disclosure standards of the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This analysis highlighted the contrasting regulatory philosophies and the resulting effects on corporate governance.

The climate risk disclosure regulatory framework is characterized by a fragmented collection of activities implemented at the national, regional, and international levels. The purpose of this legislation is to improve openness and accountability by mandating enterprises to declare their level of vulnerability to climate-related hazards and their methods for mitigating these risks. The CSRD, for example, requires detailed reporting on sustainability and climate-related matters, going beyond conventional financial measures. The standards proposed by the SEC, albeit not as extensive, signify a noteworthy advancement in incorporating climate risk into conventional financial reporting. Regulatory initiatives play a vital role in equipping investors with the necessary information to make well-informed decisions and in fostering a corporate environment characterized by openness and accountability.

The major focus of discussion was the changing fiduciary duty of corporate boards in response to climate issues. The paper examined the growing expectation for boards to include climate risks into their strategic planning and risk management procedures. This includes the establishment and supervision of net-zero transition plans, guaranteeing adherence to regulatory obligations, and handling the wider strategic ramifications of climate change. The importance of boards in promoting company sustainability and resilience was emphasized as a crucial element of efficient corporate governance.

The notion of fiduciary obligation is progressing to incorporate a wider array of factors, including as environmental and social hazards. Boards of directors are now required to actively identify and handle climate-related hazards, making sure that these risks are incorporated into the company’s comprehensive risk management framework. This entails formulating and supervising the execution of policies aimed at attaining net-zero emissions. This process necessitates substantial alterations in corporate processes, investment in novel technology, and active involvement with stakeholders. Boards must moreover guarantee that their organizations adhere to expanding regulatory mandates and are ready to address the growing examination from investors, authorities, and the general public. The changing role of corporate boards highlights the significance of efficient governance in fostering long-term sustainability and resilience.

The practical examples and case studies demonstrate how firms are effectively using governance measures to handle climate risks in practice. The instances emphasized the need of regulatory authorities, shareholder activism, and internal controls in guaranteeing accountability and ethical behavior. The analysis emphasized the significance of having comprehensive and integrated governance frameworks that are in line with the corporation’s strategic objectives and meet the expectations of stakeholders.

Examinations of prominent companies have shown that implementing strong governance processes may result in substantial enhancements in sustainability performance. Companies that have incorporated climate risk management into their strategic planning processes have demonstrated improved ability to foresee and address climate-related difficulties. These organizations have established strong internal measures to monitor and regulate their environmental effect, have actively interacted with stakeholders to comprehend their worries and expectations, and have formulated comprehensive sustainability programs that are in line with their long-term commercial goals. These examples emphasize the crucial significance of corporate governance in promoting sustainable business practices and emphasize the necessity for a comprehensive approach to governance that takes into account all stakeholders’ interests.

Strategic management and long-term sustainability: The paper explores the ways in which corporate governance might be utilized to advance long-term sustainability. The text highlights the importance of boards in establishing strategic goals, in supervising management, and in promoting a culture of ethical corporate conduct. Emphasizing the alignment of company plans with larger sustainability goals was identified as a crucial factor in generating long-term value and resilience.

The strategic significance of corporate governance in fostering long-term sustainability encompasses several essential elements. Boards of directors are required to establish explicit strategic goals that give priority to sustainability and are in line with a company’s overarching mission and values. This entails incorporating sustainability factors into every facet of corporate operations, ranging from product creation and supply chain management to marketing and consumer involvement. Boards must also guarantee that management is held responsible for attaining these objectives and that there are strong systems in place to monitor progress and provide reports on performance. Promoting sustainability requires the establishment of a culture that prioritizes ethical business practices. This culture guarantees that all individuals involved, including workers and stakeholders, are dedicated to the company’s sustainability objectives. By integrating business strategy with overarching sustainability objectives, organizations may generate enduring value for their shareholders and contribute to a more sustainable and robust future.

This paper has made a useful contribution to the continuing discussion on corporate governance by providing insightful perspectives that may be used to design more effective and sustainable governance systems. The results emphasize the crucial significance of corporate governance in promoting sustainable and accountable business behaviors in a more intricate and linked global environment.

Exploring the theoretical underpinnings and real-world implementations of corporate governance has shown that no one theory can comprehensively encompass its complex character. However, a synthesis of many ideas offers a more all-encompassing comprehension of the multitude of elements that impact corporate governance processes. The presence of several theoretical perspectives is crucial in order to create strong governance frameworks that can effectively adjust to the evolving corporate landscape.

The empirical investigation revealed that corporate governance is currently at a critical juncture, with substantial obstacles and prospects within the framework of climate change and sustainability. The transition towards environmentally conscious corporate governance is a hopeful advancement, but it necessitates collaborative endeavors from all parties involved, such as firms, investors, regulators, and politicians, in order to accomplish significant and enduring transformation.

As the business environment undergoes changes, the principles and practices of corporate governance need to adjust to address new issues and take advantage of emerging opportunities. This paper aims to enhance comprehension of the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementations of CG. It establishes a basis for future study and practice, which can facilitate the sustainable and ethical governance of organizations in the present century and beyond.

Ultimately, corporate governance is a crucial foundation in the structure of contemporary businesses, playing a vital role in guaranteeing their long-term viability and ethical administration. The knowledge obtained from this thorough investigation emphasizes the necessity for a flexible and responsive approach to governance, which incorporates many theoretical viewpoints and successfully addresses current issues such as climate change and ESG concerns. This paper seeks to enhance our comprehension of corporate governance and its practical implementations, with the goal of fostering the creation of governance frame­works that not only satisfy present requirements but also proactively address and prepare for future issues. By conducting ongoing research, fostering conversation, and promoting collaboration among all parties involved, the pursuit of stronger, more transparent, and accountable corporate governance standards may contribute to the long-term success of organizations worldwide.

As we consider the future, it is evident that corporate governance will have a growing significance in tackling the global issues that await us. Incorporating sustainability into corporate governance processes is not only a passing fad, but rather a need for ensuring the enduring survival of companies in the long run. Companies which do not adjust to this new model are at risk of lagging behind their more innovative competitors and may encounter greater scrutiny from regulators, investors, and other stakeholders.

The results of this paper further emphasize the significance of ongoing enhancement in governance procedures. As novel difficulties and prospects arise, governance frameworks must include adaptability and responsiveness. This necessitates a dedication to continuous learning and adjustment, as well as readiness to interact with diverse groups of individuals involved in order to comprehend their changing requirements and anticipations.

Conclusion

To summarize, this paper is based on an in-depth and thorough examination of corporate governance, including its theoretical foundations and practical implementations. The findings acquired from this research emphasize the crucial significance of efficient governance in advancing ethical, sustainable, and resilient company practices. As the worldwide business landscape undergoes changes, the concepts and methods of corporate governance need to be adjusted in order to address new issues and take advantage of emerging possibilities. This paper seeks to enhance comprehension of the intricacies and subtleties of corporate governance in order to advance the creation of stronger and more efficient governance structures that may propel the long-term prosperity of organizations in the 21st century and beyond. By engaging in ongoing research, open communication, and cooperation among all parties involved, the process of developing transparent, responsible, and long-lasting corporate governance standards will inevitably progress, influencing the future of business for future generations.

References

[1] Segal, M. (2023). EU Parliament Votes to Require Companies to Introduce Climate Transition Plans, ESG TODAY.

[2] Kovvali, A., & Macey,  J. C. (2023). The Corporate Governance of Public Utilities.

Cf. Ann Lipton, Not Everything is About Investors: The Case for Mandatory Stakeholder Disclosure, 37 YALE J. REG. 499 (2020).

[3] Winden, A. (2023). Caremark’s Climate Failure, 74 U.C. HASTINGS L. J. 1167, 1169–1220.

[4] Mychasuk, E. (2023). Climate Change Turns up the Heat on Supply Chains, FIN. TIMES (Jul. 21, 2023).

[5] Barker, S., Williams, C., & Cooper, A. (2021). Fiduciary Duties and Climate Change in the United States (Commonwealth and Climate Law Initiative Oct. 2021).

[6] Clark, L. (2023). “Tipping Point”: Asbestos, Opioid Lawyers Enter Climate Fray, E&E NEWS (Jul. 12, 2023).

[7] LaCroix, K. (2023). English Court Rejects Climate Change Case Against Shell Board, D&O Diary.

[8] Kahan, M., & Rock, E. B. (2023). Corporate Governance Welfarism. Journal of Legal Analysis, 15, 108–156.

[9] Amarnath, S., Brusseler, M., Gabor, D., Lala, C., & Mason, J. W. (2023). Varieties of Derisking. Phenomenal World.

[10] Braun, B. (2022). Exit, Control, and Politics: Structural Power and Corporate Governance under Asset Manager Capitalism. Politics & Society, 50(4), 630–658.

[11] Farooqui, A., & Tim Sahay, J. (2021). Investment and Decarbonization: Rating Green Finance, Phenomenal world (May 13, 2021).

[12] Gordon, J. N. (2022). Systematic Stewardship. Journal of Corporation Law, 47, 627–667.

Hansen, R. G., & Lott Jr., J. R. (1996). Externalities and Corporate Objectives in a World with Diversified Shareholder/Consumers. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(1), 43–68.

[13] Barzuza, M., Curtis, Q., & Webber, D. H. (2023). The Millennial Corporation: Strong Stakeholders, Weak Managers, Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance, 2023.

European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working Paper No. 687/2023, 51 Pages. 

[14] Li, X., Long, D., & Scanlon, B. R. et al., 2022). Climate change threatens terrestrial water storage over the Tibetan Plateau, August 2022, Nature Climate Change 12(9), DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01443-0.

[15] Gordon, J. N. (2022). Systematic Stewardship. Journal of Corporation Law, 47, 627–667.

 

Bibliography

Amarnath, S., Brusseler, M., Gabor, D., Lala, C., & Mason, J. W. (2023). Varieties of Derisking. Phenomenal World.          
Kovvali, A., & Macey, J. C. (2023). The Corporate Governance of Public Utilities.

Cf. Ann Lipton, Not Everything is About Investors: The Case for Mandatory Stakeholder Disclosure, 37 YALE J. REG. 499 (2020).

Barker, S., Williams, C., & Cooper, A. (2021). Fiduciary Duties and Climate Change in the United States (Commonwealth and Climate Law Initiative Oct. 2021).

Barzuza, M., Curtis, Q., & Webber, D. H. (2023). The Millennial Corporation: Strong Stakeholders, Weak Managers, Stanford Journal of Law, Business, and Finance, 2023.

European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working Paper No. 687/2023, 51 Pages. 

Braun, B. (2022). Exit, Control, and Politics: Structural Power and Corporate Governance under Asset Manager Capitalism. Politics & Society, 50(4), 630–658.

Farooqui, A., & Tim Sahay, J. (2021). Investment and Decarbonization: Rating Green Finance, Phenomenal world (May 13, 2021).

Clark, L. (2023). “Tipping Point”: Asbestos, Opioid Lawyers Enter Climate Fray, E&E NEWS (Jul. 12, 2023).

Gordon, J. N. (2022). Systematic Stewardship. Journal of Corporation Law, 47, 627–667.

Kahan, M., & Rock, E. B. (2023). Corporate Governance Welfarism. Journal of Legal Analysis, 15, 108–156.

LaCroix, K. (2023). English Court Rejects Climate Change Case Against Shell Board, D&O Diary.

Li, X., Long, D., & Scanlon, B. R. et al., 2022). Climate change threatens terrestrial water storage over the Tibetan Plateau, August 2022, Nature Climate Change 12(9), DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01443-0.

Mychasuk, E. (2023). Climate Change Turns up the Heat on Supply Chains, FIN. TIMES (Jul. 21, 2023).

Segal, M. (2023). EU Parliament Votes to Require Companies to Introduce Climate Transition Plans, ESG TODAY.

Winden, A. (2023). Caremark’s Climate Failure, 74 U.C. HASTINGS L. J. 1167, 1169-1220.

Georgi Tonev holds a Bachelors degree in International Economic Relations with a major in English and a Masters degree in International Business with a major in English and works at the Situation Centre Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria. Tonevs research interests focus on the economic efficiency of renewable energy, innovation and investment in the renewable energy sector, and crisis management strategies.

Manuscript was submitted: 12.11.2024.

Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 13.11.2024 till 15.12.2024.

Accepted: 16.12.2024.

Брой 62 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“ (януари 2025 г.) се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП6/48 от 04 декември 2024 г.

Issue 62 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (January 2025) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP6/48 of December 04, 2024.