Journal of Finance and Accounting

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Examining ESG Factors and Theoretical Frameworks Under the Corporate Fraud Context

Stakeholder interest in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting is growing. ESG reporting on climate change, the energy problem, and the rise in the cost of living shows that corporate adoption of ESG will be critical in the coming years. On the other hand, companies need to rapidly adapt ESG components as ESG is linked to their sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and business ethics. This research uses the Scopus database for our bibliometric analysis to collect our sample. We use R-Studio and Biblioshiny, which employs data mining to determine the frequency of co-occurrence of keywords in articles and to facilitate keyword linkage. Our study is limited to the years 2008 to 2022. We considered articles published in the English language. Our sample includes four hundred and seventy-one documents. According to our analysis, the results show that the ESG framework in academic research is associated with the key concepts of sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), ESG disclosure, corporate financial performance (CFP), sustainability reporting (SR), and ESG factors. The findings highlight the increasing importance of ESG reporting in academic research and emphasize the role of ESG in addressing major global issues and its link to corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and ethics. From our results, we can conclude that the ESG framework in academic research is associated with corporate sustainability and social responsibility, as well as several ESG factors. Moreover, the concepts of fraud triangle and agency theory do not seem to have significant relationships with ESG framework. This information can be valuable for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers interested in understanding the current state of research in the field and identifying potential areas for future investigation. Future research can therefore explore and interpret the components of the fraud triangle with ESG factors. We also conclude that the three components of ESG have not been studied simultaneously. Future research can therefore examine the effects of the three components of ESG reporting in different ways and using different bibliographic techniques.

ESG, Fraud Triangle, Agency Theory, Sustainability

Chimonaki Christianna, Papadakis Stelios, Lemonakis Christos. (2023). Examining ESG Factors and Theoretical Frameworks Under the Corporate Fraud Context. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 11(5), 164-178.

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. ACFE and Grant Thornton, “Managing fraud risks in an evolving ESG environment” 2022.
2. Abhayawansa, S., & Adams, C. (2022). Towards a conceptual framework for non-financial reporting inclusive of pandemic and climate risk reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30 (3), 710–738.
3. Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65 (10), 4451–4469.
4. AlRyalat, S. A. S., Malkawi, L. W., & Momani, S. M. (2019). Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), 152, e58494.
5. Alsayegh, M. F., Abdul Rahman, R., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12 (9), 3910.
6. Arora, A., & Alam, P. (2005). CEO compensation and stakeholders’ claims. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22 (3), 519–547.
7. Baldi, F., & Pandimiglio, A. (2022). The role of ESG scoring and greenwashing risk in explaining the yields of green bonds: A conceptual framework and an econometric analysis. Global Finance Journal, 52, 100711.
8. Batra, S., Saini, M., Yadav, M., & Aggarwal, V. (2023). Mapping the intellectual structure and demystifying the research trend of cross listing: A bibliometric analysis. Managerial Finance, 49 (6), 992–1016.
9. Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.
10. Barney, J. B. (2018). Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39 (13), 3305–3325.
11. Beck, C., Frost, G., & Jones, S. (2018). CSR disclosure and financial performance revisited: A cross-country analysis. Australian Journal of Management, 43 (4), 517–537.
12. Buckley, L. (2022). The foundations of governance: Implications of entity theory for directors’ duties and corporate sustainability. Journal of Management and Governance, 26 (1), 29–53.
13. Chen, D., Wang, F., & Xing, C. (2021). Financial reporting fraud and CEO pay-performance incentives. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 6 (2), 197–210.
14. Chintrakarn, P., Jiraporn, P., & Treepongkaruna, S. (2021). How do independent directors view corporate social responsibility (CSR) during a stressful time? Evidence from the financial crisis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 143–160.
15. Comyns, B., Figge, F., Hahn, T., & Barkemeyer, R. (2013). Sustainability reporting: The role of “Search”,“Experience” and “Credence” information. Accounting Forum, 37 (3), 231–243.
16. Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement.
17. Datta, P., Gopalakrishna-Remani, V., & Bozan, K. (2015). The impact of sustainable governance and practices on business performance: An empirical investigation of global firms. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 7 (2), 97–120.
18. Daub, C.-H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (1), 75–85.
19. Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholde expectations: And their implication for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 185–193.
20. DeBacker, J., Heim, B. T., & Tran, A. (2015). Importing corruption culture from overseas: Evidence from corporate tax evasion in the United States. Journal of Financial Economics, 117 (1), 122–138.
21. De Villiers, C., & Molinari, M. (2022). How to communicate and use accounting to ensure buy-in from stakeholders: Lessons for organizations from governments’ COVID-19 strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35 (1), 20–34.
22. de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. (2012). New Zealand shareholder attitudes towards corporate environmental disclosure. Pacific Accounting Review, 24 (2), 186–210.
23. De Villiers, C., & Van Staden, C. J. (2010). Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison. The British Accounting Review, 42 (4), 227–240.
24. Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., & Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D. (2022). Sustainability and finance: Environment, social, and governance (ESG). A Guide to Sustainable Corporate Responsibility: From Theory to Action, 189–206.
25. Dong, S., & Burritt, R. (2010). Cross-sectional benchmarking of social and environmental reporting practice in the australian oil and gas industry. Sustainable Development, 18 (2), 108–118.
26. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
27. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57–74.
28. Fatemi, A., Fooladi, I., & Tehranian, H. (2015). Valuation effects of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 59, 182–192.
29. Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38 (9), 1827–1847.
30. Gao, S., Meng, F., Gu, Z., Liu, Z., & Farrukh, M. (2021). Mapping and clustering analysis on environmental, social and governance field a bibliometric analysis using Scopus. Sustainability, 13 (13), 7304.
31. Gelb, D. S., & Strawser, J. A. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 1–13.
32. Guenther, E., Hoppe, H., & Poser, C. (2006). Environmental corporate social responsibility of firms in the mining and oil and gas industries: Current status quo of reporting following GRI guidelines. Greener Management International, 53, 7–25.
33. Gupta, V. K., Mortal, S., Chakrabarty, B., Guo, X., & Turban, D. B. (2020). CFO gender and financial statement irregularities. Academy of Management Journal, 63 (3), 802–831.
34. Kim, Y. H. A., Park, J., & Shin, H. (2022). CEO facial masculinity, fraud, and ESG: evidence from South Korea. Emerging Markets Review, 53, 100917.
35. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), 193–206.
36. Hao, J., & He, F. (2022). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and green innovation: Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 48, 102889.
37. He, F., Du, H., & Yu, B. (2022). Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 82, 102201.
38. Heese, J., Pérez-Cavazos, G., & Peter, C. D. (2022). When the local newspaper leaves town: The effects of local newspaper closures on corporate misconduct. Journal of Financial Economics, 145 (2), 445–463.
39. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 383–396.
40. Hsu, Y.-L., & Yang, Y.-C. (2022). Corporate governance and financial reporting quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102778.
41. Huang, K., Sim, N., & Zhao, H. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, corporate financial performance and the confounding effects of economic fluctuations: A meta-analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis, 70, 101504.
42. Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W., & Ko, S.-H. (2018). How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 153, 629–644.
43. Jain, J., Walia, N., Singh, S., & Jain, E. (2021). Mapping the field of behavioural biases: A literature review using bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 1–33.
44. Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47 (4), 409–424.
45. Lokuwaduge, C. S. D. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (4), 438–450.
46. Lourenço, I. C., Callen, J. L., Branco, M. C., & Curto, J. D. (2014). The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 17–28.
47. Popescu, D. V., Dima, A., Radu, E., Dobrotă, E. M., & Dumitrache, V. M. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of the green deal policies in the food chain. Amfiteatru Economic, 24 (60), 410–428.
48. Ren, L., Zhong, X., & Wan, L. (2021). Missing analyst forecasts and corporate fraud: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–24.
49. Salvioni, D. M., & Gennari, F. (2017). CSR, sustainable value creation and shareholder relations. Salvioni, DM & Gennari, F.(2017). CSR, Sustainable Value Creation and Shareholder Relations, Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 36–49.
50. Shi, J., Duan, K., Wu, G., Zhang, R., & Feng, X. (2020). Comprehensive metrological and content analysis of the public–private partnerships (PPPs) research field: A new bibliometric journey. Scientometrics, 124, 2145–2184.
51. Wagner, R., & Seele, P. (2017). Uncommitted deliberation? Discussing regulatory gaps by comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a political CSR perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 333–351.
52. Wowak, A. J., Mannor, M. J., & Wowak, K. D. (2015). Throwing caution to the wind: The effect of CEO stock option pay on the incidence of product safety problems. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (7), 1082–1092.
53. Yadav, M., & Saini, M. (2023). Environmental, social and governance literature: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 15 (2), 231–254.
54. Zaman, R., Atawnah, N., Baghdadi, G. A., & Liu, J. (2021). Fiduciary duty or loyalty? Evidence from co-opted boards and corporate misconduct. Journal of Corporate Finance, 70, 102066.
55. Zainuldin, M. H., & Lui, T. K. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of CSR in the banking industry: A decade study based on Scopus scientific mapping. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40 (1), 1–26.
56. Zhao, C., Guo, Y., Yuan, J., Wu, M., Li, D., Zhou, Y., & Kang, J. (2018). ESG and corporate financial performance: Empirical evidence from China’s listed power generation companies. Sustainability, 10 (8), 2607.
57. Zhang, J. (2018). Public governance and corporate fraud: Evidence from the recent anti-corruption campaign in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 148 (2), 375–396.
58. Zhou, F., Zhu, J., Qi, Y., Yang, J., & An, Y. (2021). Multi-dimensional corporate social responsibilities and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 78, 101928.
59. Zolotoy, L., O’Sullivan, D., Martin, G. P., & Wiseman, R. M. (2021). Stakeholder agency relationships: CEO stock options and corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Management Studies, 58 (3), 782–814.