S + ESG as a New Dimension of Resilience: Security at the Core of Sustainable Business Development

Abstract

This study introduces the SESG (Security, Environmental, Social, Governance) framework as a necessary evolution of traditional ESG, aimed at enhancing societal and corporate resilience in the face of hybrid threats, war, and climate crises. By integrating a security dimension, SESG responds to the growing inadequacy of classical ESG models in high-risk environments, particularly for countries like Ukraine. The research combines theoretical analysis with empirical data, including a nationwide survey of Ukrainian professionals across business, government, and civil society sectors. The findings reveal overwhelming support—over 90%—for incorporating security into ESG, especially in sectors such as IT, energy, and logistics. The article proposes a matrix of qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess SESG performance and highlights business-led contributions to national defense. The results demonstrate that security is not just a governmental concern but a key factor in corporate responsibility, investor trust, and sustainable development. The study concludes that SESG offers both a scientific reframing of resilience and a practical tool for policy and strategy, particularly under conditions of geopolitical and environmental instability. It urges cross-sector collaboration, standardization, and awareness building to embed SESG as a core principle in global sustainability agendas.

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been a deepening confrontation between democratic and authoritarian regimes in the context of preserving the foundations of international law and the stability of the global order. Authoritarian regimes, operating outside democratic decision-making frameworks, have demonstrated the ability to coordinate their actions through mutual resource support and the unification of political approaches. This is manifested both in large-scale geopolitical conflicts and in acts of hybrid aggression, including cyberattacks, economic pressure, and interference in electoral processes.

As a result, security (S) has acquired critical importance for global resilience and development. However, contemporary understandings of security extend far beyond military dimensions. It has become clear that ensuring long-term stability requires a systemic approach in which security is integrated with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions, forming a comprehensive SESG framework. This integration is essential not only for responding to direct physical threats but also for addressing structural challenges that expose the vulnerabilities of democratic societies in an increasingly globalized world [1,2,3].

Recent scholarship has emphasized the shift from viewing security as purely state-centered toward a distributed and adaptive model of resilience. For instance, Barbosa et al. (2023) highlight that the integration of ESG components into corporate strategies must be matched with responsiveness to geopolitical and ecological risks to be effective [4]. OECD also notes that ESG assessments often overlook strategic security vulnerabilities, especially in regions exposed to war or autocratic pressure [5].

In this context, the revision of security resilience strategies becomes highly relevant and includes the following priorities:

• Reducing economic dependence on authoritarian states by diversifying sources of critical resources and relocating production to secure jurisdictions;
• Modernizing the economic policies of democratic countries by involving the private sector in the financing of security initiatives;
• Establishing a new level of corporate responsibility, in which companies integrate security considerations into their sustainability strategies [6,7].

Horlinskyi defines security as a value-based category that serves not merely as a protective mechanism but as a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable societal development. Security encompasses not only physical survival (vital security) but also social order, environmental balance, informational and spiritual resilience, and economic and political stability. As Horlinskyi notes: “The security of human existence is a condition, an inherent quality, and a component of sustainable human development, while the sustainability of processes is an indicator of the long-term, relatively secure existence of social systems” [8].

According to White Paper [9], security is not merely the absence of threats but rather an active system of risk management and the protection of fundamental rights, infrastructure, the environment, and social order. It is a systemic category, encompassing legal, social, informational, cyber, energy, environmental, and humanitarian dimensions. Key types of security outlined in this framework include:

• Physical security—protection of life, health, and critical infrastructure;
• Cybersecurity—safeguarding digital systems, assets, and personal data;
• Information security—countering disinformation, propaganda, and fake news;
• Environmental security—preventing ecological disasters and controlling environmental impact;
• Social security—ensuring justice, mitigating inequality, and supporting vulnerable groups;
• Economic security—market stability and protection of investments;
• Institutional/governance security—transparency, administrative stability, and trust in public institutions;
• Cultural/humanitarian security—protection of identity, language, and traditions in the face of global threats.

UNDP Special Report “New Threats to Human Security in the Anthropocene” [1] presents an in-depth analysis of how perceptions of security are evolving in the 21st century. Despite major global achievements in healthcare, life expectancy, and economic growth, people’s sense of security is steadily declining. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 6 out of 7 people worldwide felt insecure—including in countries with the highest Human Development Index (HDI). The pandemic further intensified this feeling by undermining key pillars of well-being such as health, education, the economy, and social stability. For the first time in a decade, the HDI suffered a significant drop.

At the core of the report is the realization that humanity has entered the Anthropocene—an era in which humans have become the primary drivers of planetary change. The traditional focus on economic growth, without sufficient attention to equity and environmental sustainability, has led not only to social inequality but also to climate change, biodiversity loss, the rise of pandemics, and food insecurity [10,11]. In this context, the concept of security must be redefined: it should account not only for the protection of individuals but also for the interdependence between people and the planet [4]. The table below summarizes key studies that inform and support the SESG model as a response to these challenges (

Table 1. Foundational Literature Supporting the SESG Framework.

Source	Main Topic/Contribution	Key Findings/Relevance to SESG
Horlinskyi, V. (2011) [8]	Security as a value-based dimension of sustainable development	Argues that security is a core condition of sustainability
Antoniuk et al. (2018) [9]	A systemic security model for Ukraine	Expands the definition of security: infrastructure, social, informational
UNDP (2022) [1]	Human security in the Anthropocene	Security as human-planet interdependence
World Economic Forum (2024) [2]	Global risks: cyber threats, climate instability	Rising pressure on ESG from global systemic risks
OECD (2025) [5]	ESG ratings and risk assessment gaps	ESG neglects critical security risks in conflict zones
Barbosa et al. (2023) [4]	ESG and corporate resilience	Security is integral to ESG in fragile regions
Humenna & Shchur (2025) [6]	SESG as a new paradigm	Advocates integrating security into ESG amid hybrid threats
Bose & Springsteel (2017) [7]	Limits of ESG data in security contexts	Current metrics overlook aggression and disinformation
Clark, P. (2024) [10]	Climate risks for employers	ESG must be adapted to extreme scenarios
Gaines, C. (2024) [11]	ESG perceptions among Gen Z and Millennials	Young generations increasingly critical of “ineffective ESG”
Deloitte (2024) [12]	Future of ESG Reporting under Geopolitical Stress	Recommends ESG adaptation to geopolitical security risks
European Commission (2023) [13]	Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)	Introduces legal obligations for addressing human rights and security in ESG

).

These sources collectively demonstrate that integrating a security dimension into ESG is no longer optional but fundamental. SESG responds to the growing complexity of hybrid threats, governance fragility, and public mistrust in corporate responsibility frameworks. In particular, SESG fosters corporate and societal resilience, especially in environments exposed to war, cyberattacks, and systemic shocks.

Although ESG frameworks typically embed aspects of security—such as labor protection under ‘S’ and cybersecurity under ‘G’ [14]—the pervasive and multidimensional role of security in fragile or conflict-affected environments like Ukraine necessitates its explicit elevation to a separate dimension within the SESG framework [15].

While global ESG frameworks indeed embed security considerations within the ‘S’ (e.g., labor protection, human rights) and ‘G’ (e.g., cybersecurity, information protection), our research highlights that in fragile or conflict-affected environments such dispersed treatment is insufficient. In the Ukrainian context, security emerges as a systemic and multidimensional factor that underpins all other sustainability priorities. Therefore, elevating Security to a stand-alone dimension within the SESG framework does not duplicate existing ESG elements but consolidates and amplifies them, ensuring that resilience and stakeholder trust are addressed holistically.

Thus, in the current understanding, security is not an isolated concept but a multidimensional system that unites institutional, moral, and ecological integrity, the resilience of society, and its moral-ethical foundations. It constitutes the core of the SESG paradigm—a new strategic framework shaping the thinking and policymaking of democratic countries in the 21st century.

Research Questions of the paper are formulated as:

• To what extent does Security represent a distinct dimension beyond the existing ESG framework in the Ukrainian context?
• How do Ukrainian professionals across business, government, and civil society perceive the role of Security in ensuring sustainable development and resilience?
• Can elevating Security to a stand-alone pillar within ESG (SESG model) strengthen organizational and societal resilience in fragile environments?

This provide the basis to state such research Hypotheses:

• H1: Security considerations are perceived by stakeholders as equally or more important than traditional ESG dimensions in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.
• H2: The integration of Security into the ESG framework (SESG) significantly enhances the explanatory power of ESG in capturing resilience-related challenges.
• H3: The prioritization of Security within sustainability frameworks varies systematically across professional groups (business, government, civil society).

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach combining conceptual analysis and empirical data collection. The theoretical framework was developed based on a structured review of academic literature, policy documents, and global risk assessments related to ESG, security, and sustainable development. Primary sources included reports by the UNDP, OECD, and World Economic Forum, as well as academic publications on ESG transformations and hybrid threats.

The study employed a structured literature review rather than a formal Systematic Literature Review (SLR). The review process focused on peer-reviewed publications indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and relevant policy reports between 2010 and 2024. Selection criteria included: (i) relevance to ESG frameworks and their adaptation in fragile or conflict-affected contexts, (ii) explicit discussion of security, resilience, or risk within ESG, and (iii) applicability to emerging economies. While not based on PRISMA protocol, the review followed a transparent procedure: initial identification of 356 records, screening for duplicates and irrelevance, and detailed assessment of 74 sources that directly informed the conceptual development of the SESG framework.

The second phase of the research involved an empirical analysis based on an online survey conducted in 2023 among Ukrainian professionals. The aim of the survey was to assess the extent to which respondents from various sectors support the integration of security as a separate pillar within ESG, and how they evaluate the practical viability of the SESG model.

The survey employed a non-probability purposive sampling strategy, targeting individuals with actual or potential experience in ESG- or security-related practices. A total of 83 responses were collected from representatives of four key sectors: business, public administration, education, and civil society. This sample composition was determined by the strategic role these sectors play in fostering both national and corporate resilience. Data collection ensured respondent anonymity and voluntary participation. Due to the non-interventionary nature of the study and the absence of personal identifiers, formal ethical approval was not required.

Regarding the inclusion of students in the survey, it is important to note that data collection took place after the completion of relevant academic courses in which ESG-related content had been explicitly covered—for instance, the course “Business Culture” at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and the training course “Sustainable Business Development Management” at the Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman.

Although self-selection bias is a known limitation of online surveys, several corrective measures were implemented in this study, including pre-screening questionnaires and validation of professional relevance for all respondents.

3. Results

3.1. Global Risks and Challenges to Contemporary Global Security

Global Risks Report 2024 [4], published by the World Economic Forum, outlines the most significant global threats over both the short-term (2 years) and long-term (10 years) horizons. These risks have a direct impact on governance systems, economic stability, security, social well-being, and the environment, making them particularly relevant for understanding within the framework of the SESG paradigm (Security, Environmental, Social, Governance). The table below presents the ten most critical risks identified in Davos in 2024 (

Table 2. Global Risks Identified at World Economic Forum in Davos, 2024.

Rank	Global Risks (2-Year Outlook)	Rank	Global Risks (10-Year Outlook)
1	Misinformation and Disinformation	1	Extreme Weather Events
2	Extreme Weather Events	2	Critical Changes to Earth Systems
3	Societal Polarization	3	Biodiversity Loss and Ecosystem Collapse
4	Cyber Insecurity	4	Natural Resource Shortages
5	Interstate Armed Conflict	5	Misinformation and Disinformation
6	Lack of Economic Opportunity	6	Adverse Outcomes of Artificial Intelligence
7	Inflation	7	Involuntary Migration
8	Involuntary Migration	8	Cyber Insecurity
9	Economic Downturn	9	Societal Polarization
10	Pollution	10	Pollution

Source: World Economic Forum. (10 January 2024). Global Risks Report 2024 [2]. —Environmental —Technological —Economic —Geopolitical —Social.

).

Global Risks Report 2024 clearly illustrates the increasing multidimensionality of global threats. In the short term, social, informational, and economic risks dominate—particularly misinformation, societal polarization, inflation, and armed conflicts. In the longer-term horizon, environmental risks prevail, with climate stability emerging as a central strategic concern. This trend underscores the urgent need to reconceptualize security as a systemic category, which encompasses not only military and defense dimensions but also environmental resilience, social cohesion, informational hygiene, and the effective governance of technological risks.

Particular attention should be paid to the growing ESG-related risks originating from the cyber domain, geopolitical tensions, and inadequate data governance. As emphasized by Morales-Sáenz, Medina-Quintero, and Reyna-Castillo (2024), “cybersecurity today is no longer merely a component of technological management, but rather a determinant of economic resilience and societal well-being, particularly for companies of strategic importance” [16]. However, most existing ESG frameworks lack robust analytical tools to capture cybersecurity risks, which limits the accuracy and reliability of sustainability assessments amid ongoing global digital transformation.

Similarly, ISACA (2023) underscores that neglecting digital risks in ESG reporting poses a direct threat to investment security, reputational capital, and stakeholder trust: “Organizations that fail to integrate cybersecurity into their ESG strategy risk falling short of integrity audits and accountability benchmarks” [17].

If we project these global risks onto SESG paradigm, the following analysis emerges across short-term and long-term horizons:

• S—Security:

  ▪

  cybersecurity ranks 4th in the 2-year outlook and 8th in the 10-year horizon, highlighting the persistent nature of threats in the digital environment;

  ▪

  involuntary migration, ranked 8th in the short term and rising to 7th in the long term, demonstrates how population security is closely linked to geopolitical instability and environmental crises;

  ▪

  interstate armed conflict (ranked 5th in the short term) indicates that traditional threats to national and international security remain relevant.

• E—Environmental:

  ▪

  in the 10-year outlook, all of the top four risks are environmental in nature: extreme weather events, critical changes to Earth systems, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity;

  ▪

  this underscores the dominance of the environmental dimension in long-term understandings of security—as a foundation of societal resilience.

• S—Social:

  ▪

  misinformation and disinformation top the list of short-term threats (ranked 1st for the 2-year horizon) and remain significant in the long-term (5th place). This reflects the systemic threat posed by informational vulnerability to democratic processes;

  ▪

  societal polarization is another critical social risk appearing in both rankings. It destabilizes political systems and undermines trust in institutions.

• G—Governance:

  ▪

  lack of economic opportunity, inflation, and economic downturn represent governance-related risks with strong short-term impact;

  ▪

  in the 10-year horizon, the emergence of “adverse outcomes of AI technologies” points to a new challenge for regulatory frameworks, requiring innovative approaches to technology governance—a core component of the “G” pillar.

In this context, SESG emerges as a new operational framework for developing long-term resilience strategies in democratic societies.

In addition, Global Risks Report 2025 [3] outlines the current landscape of global risks. As shown in Figure 1, geopolitical risks currently dominate, with climate-related threats also playing a significant role. Among economic risks, global economic downturn is particularly highlighted.

Both reports emphasize that security in the 21st century is not limited to defense, but rather constitutes the overall capacity of societies to adapt to environmental, informational, social, and technological threats.

The aforementioned special report [1] also places particular emphasis on a new generation of threats, which in the context of the Anthropocene are deeply interconnected and mutually reinforcing: digital inequality, armed conflict, social tensions, and the transformation of healthcare systems. Most states continue to address these issues in isolation, without recognizing their systemic nature. For example, while the digital revolution drives progress, it simultaneously introduces new challenges—the erosion of privacy, cyberattacks, and widening social divides. At the same time, the scale of armed conflicts is expanding—more than 1.2 billion people currently live in areas affected by violence.

The report presents alarming statistics: in 2020, 800 million people experienced hunger, 2.4 billion faced food insecurity, 82.4 million were forcibly displaced, and 47,000 women and girls were killed by partners or family members. Such threats undermine not only physical security but also dignity, equality, and trust—the foundations of resilient and stable societies.

When focusing specifically on global economic challenges and risks identified in the Economic Experts Survey Q1 2025 (conducted by the IFO Institute), the following landscape emerges [18]:

1. Geopolitical uncertainty and trade risks—experts identify a major threat in the form of potential tariff restrictions from the United States, which creates significant uncertainty regarding future exports and restrains investment activity.

2. Inflation expectations and persistently high prices—despite signs of stabilization, inflation expectations remain elevated, posing risks to long-term business planning. Domestic weak demand, combined with high prices, suppresses consumer activity and hampers investment dynamics.

3. Weak demand and low order volumes—reduced consumer demand and high production costs have slowed investment and triggered pessimism among businesses. A persistently low business climate index hinders forward momentum, with many companies fearing another recession.

4. Structural challenges and skills shortages—labour shortages and low productivity due to demographic shifts are limiting economic growth. Slow progress in digitalization and insufficient diversification of energy supply are further eroding economic competitiveness.

All these factors share a common feature: they exert underlying pressure on the economic resilience of both businesses and states, complicating the implementation of ESG/SESG strategies.

3.2. Evolution of ESG—From the Traditional Model to S + ESG

Abandoning traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in favor of impact entrepreneurship and the implementation of ESG strategies can effectively overcome “greenwashing” and engage businesses in addressing critical social challenges. This transformation is not only a challenge but also an opportunity: companies that act as early adopters and drivers of change will gain a competitive advantage and enhance their reputations. ESG strategies, which integrate environmental, social, and governance components into business operations and include transparent reporting, represent an essential element of the impact-driven approach [19].

In light of the challenges and threats previously discussed, the traditional ESG model (Environmental, Social, and Governance) is already undergoing modification. In countries facing persistent security threats, it is essential to incorporate a security dimension. This necessity underpins the formation of a new concept—SESG (Security, Environmental, Social, and Governance), which allows companies’ impacts on national and regional security to be integrated into the sustainable development framework.

SESG paradigm proposes a systemic approach to the challenges outlined above:

▪

S (Security): ensuring not only physical but also digital and humanitarian protection;

▪

E (Environmental): recognizing nature as a determinant of survival;

▪

S (Social): addressing polarization and fostering social cohesion;

▪

G (Governance): emphasizing the need for adaptive, transparent, and technologically competent governance.

This analysis provides a strong rationale for advancing SESG as a strategic tool not only for governments but also for businesses and international institutions.

Until recently, security was traditionally considered the exclusive responsibility of state institutions. However, the evolving nature of threats has brought the role of the private sector in ensuring national defense capacity to the forefront. A vivid example is Ukraine, where businesses provide targeted support to the security and defense sector, including:

(1) Investments in the defense sector:

▪

UAH 300 million—electronic warfare systems (Nova Poshta, 2024) [20];

▪

UAH 100 million—demining (Kyivstar, 2024) [21];

▪

UAH 50 million—unmanned platforms (WOG, 2024) [22];

▪

UAH 48 million—mobile UAV control centers (1 + 1 media, 2024) [23];

▪

UAH 33 million—drone operator training (PrivatBank, 2024) [24];

▪

UAH 20 million—communication equipment for army aviation (Podorozhnyk, 2024) [25];

▪

UAH 20 million—steel shelters (Metinvest, 2024) [26];

▪

UAH 15 million—air defense communication complexes (Ribas Hotels, 2024) [27].

(2) Early payment of tax obligations as a tool to support the state’s financial stability during armed conflict in the region.

(3) Incorporation of security-related contributions into business models—for example, a national fuel retail network OKKO redirected a portion of its premium product revenues to support critical national resilience initiatives, resulting in the accumulation of over UAH 1 billion [28].

SESG is not only a corporate strategy but also a form of collective self-actualization in today’s new global reality. It addresses fundamental needs and drives toward higher goals. SESG is embedded at every level of human needs—from basic survival to the realization of a company’s strategic mission as a stakeholder in sustainable development and security (

Table 3. Integration of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with SESG Model Elements.

Maslow’s Level of Needs	SESG Components	Corporate Implementation
1. Physiological Needs	Security, Environmental	Ensuring basic resources: electricity, water, heat, food security, resilient infrastructure.
2. Safety and Security	Security, Governance	Investments in national security, cyber defense, military support, transparent governance, legal stability.
3. Social Belonging	Social, Security	Support for employees, communities, IDPs (internally displaced persons); volunteering; wartime social initiatives.
4. Esteem and Recognition	Governance, Social, Security	Building a reputation as a responsible business, leadership in SESG, participating in standard-setting.
5. Self-Actualization	SESG (all components integrated)	Achieving higher goals: sustainable development, innovation, defending democracy, strategic societal transformation.

Source: Author’s elaboration using [6].

) [6].

The security factor at the level of an individual economic entity refers to the assessment of how well a company or organization ensures the physical, psychological, and digital safety of its employees, customers, and the communities in which it operates.

Why this matters for various stakeholders:

▪

Investors view security risks as a key component of business resilience;

▪

Consumers expect companies to prioritize their safety and well-being;

▪

Regulators may impose fines for neglecting safety standards;

▪

Employees seek employers who guarantee safe and secure working conditions.

An important aspect in shaping modern ESG policies is understanding the generational differences in attitudes toward these processes.

Millennials and Generation Z consistently demonstrate a stronger commitment to ESG and sustainability than older cohorts. Numerous surveys reveal that a substantial majority—82% of Gen Z and around two-thirds of young Millennials—actively invest in ESG-themed assets [29]. Nearly three-quarters of Millennials alter their purchasing behavior toward eco-friendly products, and over 70% of Gen Z workers consider an employer’s green credentials a dealbreaker when seeking employment [1]. This generation is deeply motivated by environmental concerns: a 2019 Pew survey found that 41% of Gen Z respondents ranked climate change among the most pressing global issues, while over 50% believed it to be real and human-induced [30].

In contrast, older generations (Gen X and especially Baby Boomers) tend to approach ESG from a more pragmatic standpoint. While 71% of Baby Boomers see ethical leadership as essential, they are notably less willing to endure financial sacrifice for ESG objectives [31]. Baby Boomers often expect ESG initiatives to align with performance and avoid compromising returns. This difference has narrowed recently; economic pressures have led some Millennials and Gen Z to adopt more conservative investment behaviors, reducing their willingness to sacrifice investment gains for ESG goals [29].

These generational trends underscore the evolving landscape of sustainable development and ESG: while younger cohorts prioritize purpose, environmental stewardship, and social impact, older generations demand alignment with governance, ethical leadership, and financial responsibility.

Perceptions of the security component within the ESG model also vary significantly across generations. Each generation has its own experiences, values, and level of trust in institutions, which influence their engagement in sustainable development and their understanding of security as an essential element (

Table 4. Generational Analysis of Security Perception in ESG.

Generation	Birth Years	Attitude Toward Sustainability	Perception of Security	Examples of Actions
Silent Generation	Before 1945	Views sustainability primarily as an ethical issue, with a focus on social responsibility	Security = protection and stability; institutional security is key	Supporting community organizations, engaging in veteran initiatives
Baby Boomers	1946–1964	Often see ESG as an external trend but acknowledge its importance, especially shaped by crisis experience	Emphasis on physical and economic security; skeptical of newer risks (e.g., cybersecurity)	Philanthropy, voting for green initiatives, investing in stable ESG funds
Generation X	1965–1980	Takes a pragmatic approach: supports sustainability through efficiency and risk management	Understands the link between security and risks to business and family	Supporting local projects, ESG investing, workplace sustainability implementation
Millennials (Y)	1981–1996	Among the most active on environmental, human rights, and transparency issues	Broad view of security: includes cyber, mental health, and community safety	Activism, choosing “green” brands, participating in digital safety campaigns
Generation Z	1997–2012	Treat ESG as a life standard; focused on systems thinking and social justice	Security = trust, privacy, psychological comfort; least trust in institutions	Online activism, brand boycotts, promoting cyber ethics
Generation Alpha	2013+	Still developing; shaped by their environment	Expected to integrate ESG deeply in school education; security as a default norm	Education, digital platforms with embedded ESG logic

Source: Author’s synthesis based on [1,29,30,31].

).

Thus, younger generations (Millennials and Gen Z) perceive security as an integral part of ESG, encompassing mental health and cybersecurity, not just physical or defense-related aspects. Older generations tend to adhere to a more traditional understanding of security—focusing on infrastructure, stability, and rule of law.

This suggests that ESG communication and reporting should be generationally tailored. At the same time, security must be presented simultaneously as: a matter of rights and freedoms (Gen Z), risk management (Gen X), and infrastructural resilience (Boomers).

3.3. Research Findings

To support the theoretical concepts described regarding the global spread of the ESG framework and the rising security challenges amid war, hybrid threats, and climate change, the authors of this article conducted a targeted survey. The aim of the survey was to assess the level of awareness of Ukrainian professionals regarding ESG, evaluate their attitudes toward integrating a security dimension into the ESG model (SESG), and explore the prospects for implementing such an approach in Ukraine. The survey was conducted among representatives of the business community, academia, education, civil society, and public authorities.

• Respondent profile:

  ▪

  Age distribution: The majority of respondents (43.4%) are aged 40–49. This indicates the involvement of an experienced audience, potentially engaged in managerial or strategic processes.

  ▪

  Fields of activity: Over 50% of participants identified themselves as representatives of business or entrepreneurship, which is highly relevant in the context of assessing the perception of the SESG model specifically in the private sector.

• Level of awareness:

  ▪

  88% of respondents perceive sustainable development as a balance between economic growth, environmental protection, and social welfare, indicating a mature understanding of the concept.

  ▪

  At the same time, only 10.8% stated they are “fairly familiar” with ESG, and 14.5% are studying or researching it in depth. This reveals a gap between general awareness of sustainable development and understanding of ESG as a concrete tool, especially in the context of security.

• Support for the SESG concept:

  ▪

  65.1% believe that integrating security into ESG is a logical evolution, and another 25.3% support it “but only in specific countries”. Thus, over 90% support the SESG concept in some form.

  ▪

  The main reason for emphasizing the security factor within ESG was that “without physical and cyber security, long-term sustainability strategies are impossible” (44.6%), followed by protection of human rights, infrastructure, and investor trust (22.9%).

• Business role and model potential:

  ▪

  56.6% of respondents view the role of private business in the defense and security sector as extremely important, with another 39.8% seeing it as “positive, though not decisive”.

  ▪

  63.9% believe that SESG is a timely and necessary new standard for sustainable business development in Ukraine. Only 6% consider the model irrelevant or outdated.

Figure 2 presents the respondents’ answers to the question: “Why do you think the security factor is important when implementing the ESG model?”.

The majority of respondents (44.6%) believe that without physical and cyber security, long-term sustainability strategies are vulnerable to disruption, indicating awareness of security’s fundamental role in ensuring resilience. Another 22.9% stated that security ensures the protection of human rights, infrastructure, and investor trust, emphasizing ethical and reputational aspects. Additionally, 13.3% highlighted the necessity for businesses to contribute to national resilience, especially in times of war or hybrid threats. Other response options—such as criticism of traditional ESG for overlooking military, technological, or geopolitical risks, or objections to integrating security into the ESG model—received significantly less support.

Figure 3 illustrates the responses to the question: “In which sectors do you believe the security factor is most relevant for businesses to consider?” (Respondents could select up to three options). The sectors that received the highest number of votes were IT and Cybersecurity (85.5%) and Energy (78.3%), indicating the prioritization of protecting digital infrastructure and critical resources in the context of contemporary threats. Ranked third was Logistics and Transportation (61.4%), reflecting the importance of physical security and supply chain stability.

Less attention was given by respondents to the Financial sector (39.8%), Agriculture (27.7%), Education (26.5%), and Media (25.3%). This may suggest either a lower level of risk awareness in these sectors or insufficient integration of security-related approaches into their respective business models. Thus, the chart emphasizes the need for sector-specific approaches to SESG and the importance of raising awareness in less prioritized sectors about the role of security in achieving sustainable development.

Based on respondents’ feedback regarding the risks and challenges of implementing the SESG (Security, Environmental, Social, Governance) approach, several core areas of concern emerge: lack of awareness and expertise, absence of clear standards and evaluation mechanisms, economic barriers, and resistance to change. A dominant theme is the insufficient public, business, and institutional understanding of SESG’s essence, which risks making its implementation superficial or symbolic. In countries with low institutional trust and high exposure to security threats—such as Ukraine—society is often not yet prepared to perceive security as a key component of sustainable development.

Another significant challenge lies in the lack of clear methodologies and standards for assessing the security dimension within SESG. This creates the risk of formalism (similar to greenwashing) and leads to inconsistent reporting and reluctance among companies to take on additional responsibilities without regulatory incentives. Respondents also noted the complexity of integrating security without government involvement, especially due to data sensitivity, lack of experts, and potential conflicts between security needs and the transparency values inherent to ESG.

Economic constraints are another major issue: the high cost of implementation, limited access to funding, and the challenge of balancing short-term profit goals with long-term SESG objectives. These concerns are particularly acute for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the resources and operate without strategic planning. Additionally, the war context, structural challenges, workforce shortages, and digital inequality further exacerbate the vulnerability of the business environment.

Thus, the successful implementation of SESG requires more than just formal frameworks and financial investment. It calls for a profound cultural and educational transformation aimed at raising awareness, standardizing security assessment, ensuring government support for institutional change, and rethinking the role of business in the context of security and resilience. SESG has the potential to become a strategic vector for sustainable development, but only if approached systemically and through cross-sector collaboration.

Overall, the results show strong support for integrating security into ESG in the context of Ukraine, which faces constant threats. However, there is a clear lack of awareness, methodological tools, and standardized frameworks, highlighting the need for the development of SESG-specific standards. A key factor for the successful implementation of this model will be educational outreach, government backing, and the engagement of businesses in strategic decision-making. Importantly, many respondents already perceive SESG not as an alternative but as a logical continuation in the evolution of sustainable development.

Within the SESG framework (Social, Environmental, Security, Governance), each dimension of security can be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative indicators. The authors have adapted some existing metrics to develop a methodology for measuring progress in SESG domains [4,5,7] (

Table 5. Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative and Quantitative Indicators.

Dimension	Indicator	Type	Sample Evaluation
Physical Security	Number of incidents per 100 employees	Quantitative	2 incidents/100
Cybersecurity	Existence of a cybersecurity policy	Qualitative	Yes/No
Psychological Safety	Employee satisfaction level	Quantitative	75% positive responses
Social Security	Presence of a crisis action plan	Qualitative	Available/Not available

Source: Author’s synthesis based on [4,5,7].

):

1. Physical Security—worker safety includes occupational health measures, accident prevention, and compliance with ISO 45001 standards [32]. This approach is a crucial part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and aligns with international risk management practices. Infrastructure protection involves countermeasures against terrorism, man-made disasters, and emergencies. These risks should be assessed through a comprehensive crisis management system.

2. Cybersecurity—data protection requires the existence of cybersecurity policies aligned with ISO 27001 standards [33], ensuring the integrity of both corporate and personal information. IT infrastructure must be resilient to cyberattacks. According to the OECD, digital security should be evaluated not only based on the existence of policies but also their effectiveness in practice [5].

3. Psychological Safety—a tolerant workplace environment and prevention of mobbing are essential for psychological well-being at work. The OECD reports that such factors are often overlooked in ESG ratings, leading to a distorted picture of corporate sustainability [5]. Employee surveys are recommended as tools to assess the internal climate and gauge satisfaction with workplace safety.

4. Social Security—community engagement reduces conflict potential and enhances integration, directly correlating with a company’s positive social image. Crisis response plans are mandatory elements of the SESG matrix. The OECD emphasizes that the absence of such plans significantly weakens a business’s ability to withstand external shocks [5].

OECD notes that over 70% of ESG metrics are qualitative, while only 17% are quantitative outcome-based, which raises the risk of “formal compliance” without real impact [5].

This approach is consistent with ESG evaluation principles under the PRISMA methodology, which emphasizes not only the presence of policies but also their integration into actual practices [4].

The following SESG (Social, Environmental, Security, Governance) evaluation matrix is designed as a diagnostic and monitoring tool for companies, public sector institutions, or hybrid governance entities. It provides a structured framework for assessing the degree of integration of sustainability principles, with a particular emphasis on security as a strategic pillar (

Table 6. Summary SESG Evaluation Matrix with a Focus on Security.

Dimension	Subcategory	Indicator/Assessment Question	Type	Score (0–5)
S—Social	Occupational Safety	Existence of workplace safety system (e.g., ISO 45001 [32], audits)	Qualitative
	Employee Wellbeing	Mental health and stress-management programs	Qualitative
	Equality and Non-discrimination	Diversity & Inclusion policy in place	Qualitative
	Community Engagement	Social projects, feedback mechanisms	Qualitative
E—Environmental	Resource Consumption	Water and energy audits	Quantitative
	CO2 Emissions	Emissions per production unit	Quantitative
	Waste Management	Recycling and disposal systems in operation	Qualitative
S—Security	Physical Security	Security protocols for personnel and assets	Qualitative
	Cybersecurity	Presence of ISO 27001/SOC 2 [33]; number of incidents	Mixed
	Psychological Safety	Survey on perceived workplace safety culture	Quantitative
	Crisis Preparedness	Emergency response plans; staff drills	Qualitative
G—Governance	Anti-Corruption Policy	Is an anti-corruption policy in force?	Qualitative
	Reporting Transparency	Is an ESG/SESG report publicly available?	Qualitative
	Strategic Integration of Security	Is “security” referenced in the mission or KPIs?	Qualitative

Source: Author’s synthesis based on [5,15,34].

).

This matrix enables both self-assessment and external audit, allowing organizations to measure their performance across key SESG dimensions using a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators. The matrix is adaptable to different sectors, including public administration, critical infrastructure, and corporate governance environments.

Each indicator is evaluated on a scale:

• 0—No policy or practice in place
• 1–2—Basic implementation or work-in-progress
• 3–4—Functional system with signs of regularization
• 5—Full integration, subject to continuous updates and external verification

The results can be evaluated per block (S, E, S, G); weighted and aggregated into a company’s SESG rating; compiled into an integrated SESG Security Index—a composite metric of resilience and responsibility. Research confirms that such an aggregated approach improves analytical precision and strengthens trust in assessments by investors and regulators [7].

To ensure the effectiveness of the SESG system, the following steps are recommended:

▪

conduct pilot testing in companies across different industries;

▪

align with international standards such as ISO 45001, ISO 27001, GRI, SASB [5];

▪

adapt to sector-specific risks, since threats in IT, energy, and manufacturing differ significantly.

Thus, the SESG system, with its focus on security, ensures transparent self-assessment and auditing of safety practices, enhances investor and societal trust, improves crisis preparedness, and provides companies with a competitive edge in the global market.

4. Discussion

From a broader perspective, ESG scholarship has consistently recognized the importance of social and governance safeguards, yet has treated security only as a derivative theme—embedded in labor safety, human rights, or cybersecurity. This fragmented view overlooks the systemic nature of security in fragile environments. Our study contributes theoretically by reframing security as a distinct, cross-cutting pillar, thereby advancing ESG theory with a context-sensitive adaptation.

The proposed SESG framework represents a necessary evolution of the ESG model in the face of hybrid threats, armed conflicts, and climate disruptions. This study confirms strong support among Ukrainian professionals for integrating the security dimension into ESG, while also revealing a lack of methodological clarity and institutional support. It is essential to recognize that SESG is not merely an expanded checklist of indicators but a strategic adaptation tool for navigating a complex risk environment.

We recognize that elements of security are embedded across the existing ESG framework (e.g., labor safety under ‘S’, cybersecurity and institutional stability under ‘G’). However, in high-risk contexts such as Ukraine, security transcends its fragmented presence in ESG. Elevating it into a distinct dimension reflects its systemic, cross-cutting nature and ensures that businesses and policymakers treat security not as a derivative, but as a prerequisite for resilience and sustainability. Shah et al. (2025) demonstrate that ESG-informed risk management significantly contributes to green growth, reinforcing our argument that in contexts of acute fragility, a discrete security pillar is essential to capture these dynamics fully [35].

Some analysts, including the Harvard Law School Forum (2022), have already raised the question of whether cybersecurity deserves to be recognized as a distinct “pillar” within ESG, on par with environmental, social, and governance components. The article notes: “Cyber risks today affect the entire supply chain, from small businesses to multinational corporations. They can no longer remain a hidden technical parameter within ESG if we are truly striving for sustainability” [36]. These reflections directly resonate with the rationale behind the SESG model, in which security is not merely a subcategory of the ‘S’ or ‘G’ components but a cross-cutting framework for risk management and corporate responsibility.

Similarly, the KPMG Report (2023) highlights the “invisibility” of cybersecurity risks in ESG disclosures, despite the fact that investors are increasingly focusing on security-related indicators when making decisions: “Integrating cybersecurity into ESG reporting is no longer a recommendation, but a necessity, if companies aim to avoid a loss of trust in the face of emerging digital threats” [34].

By framing Security as a stand-alone dimension of ESG, the SESG model positions resilience as the unifying principle: security practices—ranging from business continuity planning and cyber defense to workforce protection—are not only safeguards against immediate risks but also mechanisms that build systemic resilience at both the organizational and societal levels.

However, the global applicability of SESG remains a matter for debate. While SESG appears vital in high-risk countries such as Ukraine, more stable nations may question whether adding security dilutes the focus on environmental and social priorities. Thus, a key challenge lies in achieving a balanced integration—ensuring that security enhances rather than overshadows other sustainability pillars within the SESG model.

Thus, our findings contribute to ESG theory by highlighting the conceptual blind spot where security [37], though embedded within the ‘S’ and ‘G’ pillars [38], is not theorized as a systemic and cross-cutting factor. This omission becomes critical in fragile and conflict-affected environments, where security is a precondition for sustainability rather than a derivative of it.

Despite the significant findings, this study has several limitations. First, the survey was conducted exclusively among professionals in Ukraine, which limits the generalizability of the results to other countries or more stable regions. Second, the use of a self-selected online survey introduces the possibility of selection bias, as participants may already be interested in or familiar with the SESG concept. Moreover, the lack of universally accepted standards for evaluating the security dimension within ESG complicates cross-study comparisons. Most of the collected data are qualitative and subjective, which may influence the precision of the conclusions. Future research should incorporate quantitative models, cross-country comparisons, and a deeper sectoral analysis of SESG implementation.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to examine whether security should be conceptualized as a distinct dimension within the ESG framework. By combining theoretical analysis with empirical evidence from a nationwide survey in Ukraine, we demonstrated that security operates as a prerequisite for sustainable development rather than as a subsidiary element of existing ESG pillars.

The results of the study allow us to draw the following conclusions regarding the confirmation of the proposed hypotheses:

• H1: The hypothesis that security considerations are perceived by stakeholders as equally or more important than traditional ESG components in fragile and conflict-affected contexts is confirmed. Over 90% of respondents supported the integration of security as a distinct pillar within ESG.
• H2: The hypothesis that integrating security into the ESG framework (SESG) significantly enhances its ability to capture resilience-related challenges is confirmed. The SESG model offers a comprehensive response to new types of risks that are not fully addressed by the traditional ESG framework.
• H3: The hypothesis that the prioritization of security within sustainability strategies varies systematically across professional groups is partially confirmed. The highest levels of support for SESG were observed among respondents from business and government sectors, whereas lower engagement was recorded in sectors such as media and education.

The SESG (Security, Environmental, Social, Governance) framework represents a systemic response to emerging global challenges that combine military, cyber, informational, and environmental threats. Expanding the traditional ESG model by incorporating a security dimension is theoretically and empirically justified. The research confirms high levels of expert support, particularly in countries facing chronic crises or wartime conditions.

The scientific significance of this study lies in establishing a new conceptual foundation for sustainable development, where security is treated as an internal, integrated element of resilience rather than an external threat. This approach enables a rethinking of socio-economic systems through the lens of vulnerability, adaptability, and long-term viability. SESG can serve as a theoretical platform for further interdisciplinary research across economics, security studies, governance, and international relations.

From a practical perspective, SESG offers a viable model for integration into corporate strategies, risk assessment tools, sustainability audits, and ESG reporting. For Ukrainian companies, in particular, the model presents opportunities to reinforce their role in national resilience while building reputational capital in global markets. Furthermore, SESG can inform the development of public policy frameworks for sustainable development under hybrid threat conditions.

Theoretically, this study extends ESG discourse by proposing SESG as a context-sensitive adaptation. It demonstrates that in environments of heightened uncertainty, security must be elevated from a dispersed background condition to a central pillar, thereby strengthening both the analytical power and practical relevance of ESG. Ultimately, the SESG framework should be seen not as a departure from ESG, but as its strengthening—consolidating fragmented aspects of security into a coherent pillar that better reflects the realities of resilience and stakeholder trust in environments shaped by conflict and uncertainty.

The proposed SESG model also serves as a response to the contemporary challenges of corporate governance in an era of digital and geopolitical uncertainty. As demonstrated in De Giuli’s (2024) study, most current ESG classifications lack a unified risk management system capable of addressing hybrid, informational, and institutional threats [39]. This creates a methodological gap, within which SESG offers a structured framework for identifying, monitoring, and mitigating risks that have thus far remained on the periphery of traditional ESG analysis.

In conclusion, SESG is not merely a theoretical proposal but a strategic tool for synchronizing the values of sustainability, security, and responsible governance into a coherent operational framework for businesses, governments, and society at large.

Future research may address current limitations by conducting longitudinal and comparative SESG assessments across countries with varying risk profiles. Additional studies may also explore quantitative modeling of SESG risk-weighted metrics, particularly for critical infrastructure sectors.