Employees’ Perception of the Importance of Implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria in the Sustainability Report at a Shipyard
Faculty of Naval Architecture, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 800201 Galati, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(19), 8832; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198832
Submission received: 29 July 2025
/
Revised: 26 September 2025
/
Accepted: 30 September 2025
/
Published: 2 October 2025
Abstract
The research in this paper aims to analyze the perception and degree of involvement of employees from a Romanian shipyard in the process of preparing sustainability reports, with a focus on the integration of ESG criteria into organizational performance. The motivation for this study is to understand how directly productive employees within a shipyard see the usefulness of improving sustainability performance by integrating ESG criteria. To conduct this research, the authors used a survey-based analysis method, which was carried out using a questionnaire. This was sent online to target employees, and the defined hypotheses were validated based on the results obtained using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 statistical analysis software. The statistical results have shown that the employees in the analyzed departments perceive the importance of measuring, monitoring, and reporting sustainability performance in the company’s value chain. The originality of the work lies in the fact that this is the first study of its kind to be carried out within a shipyard in our country, with direct implications for the development of future sustainability reports.
1. Introduction
The shipbuilding industry is facing increasing pressure to improve its sustainability practices.
Sustainability reporting in shipyards involves compliance with ESG criteria, which cover three dimensions: environment, social, and governance and refer to carbon reduction, energy and water consumption, waste management, minimizing negative impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity conservation and habitat protection, occupational health and safety measures, employee satisfaction, fair labor practices, wage equity, codes of conduct, anti-corruption policies and compliance with ethical standards, transparency and accountability of shipyard management regarding regular reporting of ESG parameters to ensure a holistic and responsible approach. This involves monitoring and reporting the environmental impact during ship construction, using sustainable and recyclable materials, promoting safe and fair working conditions for employees, and ensuring compliance with corporate governance standards.
Even though there are frameworks and methods through which ESG indicators can be established and reported, each company has its own strategy or system in which it can integrate sustainable development objectives, thus helping the various stakeholders in the company (executive directors, boards of directors, employees) to be more receptive and involved in addressing global challenges, and at the same time in assessing the progress made by the company regarding sustainability, which leads to a positive corporate image and increased profitability [1,2].
To ensure that shipbuilding is sustainable and responsible in all respects, it is essential to consider ESG criteria when reporting sustainability [3]. Through sustainability reporting, a shipyard clearly indicates how its activities contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which Romania has committed to implementing by 2030, aiming to protect the environment, combat injustice, reduce poverty, and social inequalities [4,5,6,7,8].
ESG principles are linked to the 17 SDGs, and companies make a significant contribution to achieving these goals by integrating ESG into their operations [9]. These interconnected global goals provide a universal framework for addressing challenges such as inequality, climate change, and environmental degradation in organizations’ corporate strategy, providing detailed guidance on how to achieve a global vision.
The study in this paper focuses on how a Romanian shipyard manages to involve every level of the organization in encouraging employees to contribute to sustainability efforts, based on three pillars. These three pillars refer to sustainable solutions (developing eco-friendly solutions by designing circular ships, harnessing alternative and renewable energy sources to build zero-emission ships), sustainable operations (by adapting operations to reduce the CO2 footprint, water consumption, and waste) and sustainable organization (by communicating the sustainability strategy to the entire organization’s senior management, through an active approach to legal compliance, by raising environmental awareness). In this way, the shipyard under review fully integrates the SDGs, committing to incorporating these pillars into the company’s daily practices, thus ensuring full alignment with its initiatives and objectives.
In its efforts towards sustainability, the shipyard studied in this paper is committed to prioritizing a culture of engagement in which employees contribute to sustainability efforts. This involves every level of the organization, from top-down leadership to bottom-up collaboration, to improve reporting practices. The shipyard integrates sustainability into all aspects of its business, empowering employees to act sustainably, complying with relevant regulations, and implementing monitoring systems to ensure transparent reporting of sustainability performance. All these aspects require shipyard management to adopt a more holistic and interconnected approach towards sustainability dimensions, integrating ESG criteria, setting an example in the maritime industry [10,11].
The shipyard analyzed is an important player in the Romanian naval industry, which follows the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards in sustainability reporting, using various initiatives for operating processes, but also for shipbuilding technologies, thus contributing to minimizing the environmental impact and to a greener future in the naval industry. A company that adheres to these standards tends to develop and implement more proactive carbon strategies and policies, make environmental investments, and engage with stakeholders [12].
The GRI international standards provide a reporting framework that supports the assessment and measurement of the shipyard’s ESG performance, improving the consistency and comparability of ESG reporting [13]. By complying with these GRI standards, which emphasize comprehensive disclosure of ESG dimensions, the shipyard provides transparency on how it manages its social and environmental impact, which are essential aspects for assessing a good ESG profile. Furthermore, although GRI standards focus less on governance, there are also relevant indicators that address organizational transparency, ethics, and corporate responsibility, and which are key aspects of ESG governance. These standards provide the shipyard with a roadmap for aligning its practices with global expectations, while also allowing stakeholders to assess efficiently the sustainability efforts [14].
Among the sustainable practices that this shipyard has adopted and on which it focuses in its sustainability reporting are: reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency; using environmentally friendly production technologies that reduce environmental impact; selecting sustainable and environmentally friendly materials for ship construction; focusing on social responsibility by ensuring safe working conditions and promoting diversity and inclusion among employees and supporting local communities, and adopting GRI standards demonstrates the shipyard’s genuine commitment to taking steps to mitigate carbon emissions [12,15].
This approach to environmental care is useful for shipyard representatives, who are more responsible and sustainability-oriented, and more aware that such an approach represents a significant competitive advantage.
Based on these sustainable practices adopted in the shipyard’s sustainability reporting, which include ESG criteria, the research question in this paper is:
RQ: What is the degree of perception and involvement of employees in directly productive departments regarding the importance of implementing ESG criteria in the sustainability report to achieve the SDGs?
Managers, investors, and customers of companies in various fields are increasingly concerned with sustainability, being aware of its impact on the company’s reputation and financial stability. Therefore, the disclosure of sustainability reports based on ESG criteria becomes crucial and encompasses both employee expertise and organizational knowledge and processes within the company [16]. Therefore, it is necessary to measure these criteria as accurately as possible within companies [17,18], using comprehensive assessment methodologies [19], thereby contributing to increased transparency and accountability of companies [20]. Based on the establishment of clear indicators and reporting frameworks, every company has an obligation to disclose its environmental impact, social practices, and governance structure [21]. In this way, stakeholders can evaluate the company’s performance based on transparent information [22]. Based on ESG criteria measurements, comparisons can be made between different industries [23], organizations, and sectors [24]. However, due to differences in how companies publish information, obtaining complete and comparable data is difficult, and the reliability and completeness of the reported data raise questions, thus affecting the accuracy and robustness of ESG measurement results [25,26].
To increase the accuracy and relevance of ESG measurement, refs. [27,28] consider that consulting employees is vital for assessing the impact that ESG criteria have on sustainability performance and that including them in the decision-making process [29] is important for expressing concerns and suggesting improvements that can lead to the development of sustainable business practices [30].
In this context, the study presented in this paper proposes introducing an assessment of the degree of perception and involvement of employees in the directly productive departments of a Romanian shipyard regarding the importance of implementing ESG criteria in the sustainability report to achieve the SDGs. In this way, the study fills a critical geographical and sectoral gap (the shipbuilding industry) that has not been highlighted in the literature on ESG awareness in a shipyard. The study chose employee involvement because previous studies have identified them as key stakeholders in sustainability decisions [28]. This study reinforces the idea that employee involvement in this process is a requirement for sustainable growth.
Based on the analysis of the literature presented, noting that there are no studies of this type in the field of shipbuilding, and considering the objective of the research, the two hypotheses of the study are:
H1.
Directly productive employees at the shipyard are involved in the sustainability reporting process.
H2.
Directly productive employees at the shipyard respond knowledgeably to ESG criteria.
The formulation of these hypotheses was based on two components: a. the desire, openness, and conviction of the shipyard management to consult the perception and involvement of directly productive employees in the sustainable development process; b. filling the gap in the literature on the shipbuilding sector.
The paper offers a different perspective on the literature on sustainability reporting, through empirical research that considers how employees in the Romanian shipbuilding sector engage with and understand the usefulness of improving sustainability performance by integrating ESG criteria, which enables the company to align itself more closely with customer needs, offering sustainable and innovative solutions to minimize environmental impact.
The paper contains a review of the literature (Section 2), followed by the research methodology, which presents the means and methods of work (Section 3), followed by the results (Section 4), which presents the main results of the research, discussions (Section 5), which highlight the relevance of the research, but also the involvement of employees in this sustainability reporting, as well as the limitations of this research and suggestions for future research and conclusions (Section 6).
2. Literature Review
The study involved reviewing the latest literature, including an analysis of scientific articles from the past seven years [9,14,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], which discuss sustainability initiatives across various fields, highlighting their benefits for company performance. It also examined websites of shipbuilding companies both domestically and internationally [6,15], which follow GRI Standards for sustainability reporting. The analysis offers a comprehensive understanding of how this shipyard applies these standards to measure and report ESG indicators, as well as how employees are informed and engaged in the sustainability reporting process.
By adopting sustainable practices, a shipyard can achieve several benefits, such as: stimulating innovation and creativity, which can lead to the development of innovative, more cost-effective, and environmentally friendly products; attracting new investors and customers interested in sustainability; achieving cost savings through recycling and proper waste management, efficient use of resources, and reduced consumption, which can help companies improve their long-term profitability; improving reputation and ESG ratings, which together lead to the development of long-term partnerships and increased customer and investor confidence [5,37,39].
The more a shipyard is involved in environmental and social activities, the more detailed information the sustainability report will provide, which increases performance and customer confidence. Thus, shipyards with comprehensive disclosures in their sustainability reports can demonstrate their efficiency in asset management, thereby increasing customer confidence [36].
On the other hand, shipyards face several challenges, such as designing, producing, and selling sustainable ships, finding sustainable solutions in the field of offshore vessels, finding innovative ways to develop, improve operations, employee safety and well-being, strengthening the safety culture, increasing risk awareness, and enhancing control to prevent accidents [15].
Based on studies conducted by renowned companies, such as [40,41], shipyards can address these challenges by capitalizing on the SDGs, generating value in key areas: organizational performance, risk management, and business development.
Thus, good corporate governance, ensuring employee well-being, and adopting environmentally friendly practices can reduce risks, increase efficiency, and constitute real sources of competitive differentiation [42,43]. Therefore, integrating ESG into a company’s strategy is also a smart strategic move for long-term sustainable growth [44,45].
The transition to sustainability reporting aims to promote transparency and accountability in corporate governance [46].
Numerous studies have shown that, in recent years, there has been growing interest in integrating ESG principles into sustainability reporting, which positively influences companies’ reputation and financial stability, and also provides an opportunity for sustainable growth [37,47].
Ref. [33] defined the ESG principle as the framework that incorporates environmental, social, and governance criteria, which companies use to improve their impact on the environment, society, and governance structures. This acronym has been widely adopted to enable stakeholders to assess a company’s responsibility towards the environment, society, and governance structures. As more and more investors prioritize sustainability, companies have begun to integrate ESG principles into their strategies and operations [14,33]. Thus, companies have become aware that ESG disclosure is essential for their reputation and for a better image in addressing environmental issues with stakeholders, and this trend has expanded over the years in their efforts to remain sustainable [48].
Therefore, as [9] has stated, the term ESG has gained popularity, with companies’ commitment to ESG demonstrating their awareness of the effect on society and the environment, which influences both the business itself and the entire ecosystem around them. The adoption of ESG principles by companies means adopting best governance practices that are reflected in the best results across all sectors. Such an approach minimizes environmental impact while maintaining high profitability and robust administrative processes. By incorporating ESG criteria into its operations, a company can ensure its long-term sustainability and competitiveness, attracting a large number of stakeholders who are aware of the importance of ESG.
Furthermore, companies that embrace ESG principles deeply understand the long-term strategic challenges within their industry and can make critical decisions to ensure their success and sustainability. ESG principles also enable companies to manage their risks effectively [9].
A comprehensive ESG report provides transparency and performance information, helping to improve reputation and strengthen stakeholder relationships [14].
A significant number of studies have shown how ESG disclosure influences company performance. Thus, ref. [31] has shown that ESG disclosure practices vary significantly depending on the company. The authors have combined institutional and legitimacy theory into a single framework to investigate the extent to which these theories influence ESG disclosure practices and each pillar. The results have shown that at the country level, the political system, labor system, and cultural system affect ESG disclosure practices for firms, reducing or increasing disclosure levels, which may differ across pillars. At the same time, the authors have demonstrated that firm-level variables are homogeneously and positively correlated with each pillar, while country-level variables have a heterogeneous effect on ESG disclosure. It has also been found that company managers react when exposed to public visibility by increasing ESG transparency to manage stakeholder demands as they become more active in their various roles.
Ref. [32] assessed the influence of environmental, social, and governance performance on economic performance in 500 companies using linear regression. The results have shown that ESG is a significant predictor of a company’s economic performance. According to this study, stakeholders recognize companies’ social and governance performance more than their environmental performance. The study provides relevant information for investors, managers, and employees on the influence of ESG on a company’s economic performance.
Ref. [38] studied the effect of ESG disclosure on company performance, analyzing companies involved in port activities. The study is based on a panel regression, using a sample of 213 publicly listed ports over five years, demonstrating a positive relationship between ESG disclosure and corporate performance. The results reveal that a port becomes attractive to investors if it invests in ESG activities (emission reduction, innovation, human rights, product responsibility, management, workforce, strategy, and shareholders).
Another analysis of the impact of ESG on company performance was conducted by [34], who considered a sample of Italian companies over ten years. The results have suggested that ESG disclosure has a positive impact on company performance, particularly in the environmental and social pillars, with no significant impact found for the governance pillar.
Given that companies are placing increasing emphasis on ESG initiatives, a study conducted by [35] analyzed the levels of importance of ESG criteria. The authors applied a decision model for multinational logistics companies to select the best environmentally sensitive competitive strategy. The study demonstrates that integrating long-term competitive strategies with ESG practices helps companies develop relationships with various stakeholders and create a better understanding of the brand image for their products and services. The results of this research are useful for managers interested in ESG practices, as well as for investors and stakeholders.
Another study by [37] uses several ESG assessment methods to show the importance of these. The author has found that it is essential for companies to prioritize ESG criteria as they contribute to increased stakeholder engagement, improved brand reputation, and financial performance. Thus, through sound environmental practices, a company can reduce its carbon footprint, which influences climate change; through sound social practices, the company can attract and retain employees interested in diversity and inclusion and improve customer loyalty based on ethical business practices; and through sound governance practices, investor confidence can be improved through transparency and accountability.
An analysis of the literature shows that ESG practices have a positive impact on company performance, providing a framework for evaluating companies based on their sustainability and ethical impact. These aspects become significant for investors, who can make more informed decisions, for employees, who can be made aware of and involved in sustainability assessment, but also for customers and communities. Thus, the sustainability report becomes a tool through which a company can be promoted and through which information of interest to various stakeholders is presented regarding the impact that the company’s activity has on the environment and society. These aspects enable the company to enhance its image and determine the most effective methods for reporting sustainability, aligning with both its own needs and those of its stakeholders.
To measure the impact of ESG factors on sustainability performance, ref. [28] have applied item response theory (IRT) to workers in two companies in the electricity sector to determine their perception of the integration of ESG criteria in the sustainability report. Other studies have assessed environmental factors, referring to carbon emissions [49], waste management [50], and water footprint [51]. In terms of social factors, different studies evaluated board diversity [52], labor practices and corruption [53], gender and racial diversity [54], and from the point of view of governance factors, risk management [55], executive compensation [56], and board composition [57].
3. Materials and Methods
To answer the proposed research question, based on available knowledge in the field of shipbuilding, the authors consulted the shipyard management (CEO, sustainability manager, technical manager, quality manager), those responsible for preparing the sustainability report, and the specialized literature to complete the items in the questionnaire addressed to employees in the seven directly productive departments.
The structure of the questionnaire was based on the three pillars of sustainability for this shipyard (sustainable solutions, sustainable operations, and sustainable organization), presented in Table 1.
The wording of the questionnaire has agreed upon with the management team and those responsible for reporting on the sustainability of the shipyard, noting that this is the first study conducted in a shipyard in Romania and abroad, with the main purpose of analyzing the responses of employees in the direct production sector regarding their perception and degree of involvement in the process of preparing sustainability reports.
The questionnaire was distributed online in February 2025. Of the total 1220 employees at the construction site, 870 directly productive employees accessed and completed the questionnaire, with 778 questionnaires being validated, thus providing a robust data set necessary for statistical analysis. The questionnaire was accessed (started on 3 March 2025) by respondents from the following link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdOcXAfRFEBLTQKpEDi3PnN9YFeXnKlCGk-g4yMzIz6u6zkAg/formResponse?pli=1. The study was conducted only on respondents from directly productive departments (a first in the preparation of a company’s sustainability report). The reason for choosing only this segment of employees is that the other segment of employees participates in the preparation of monthly reports, thus having direct contact with the requirements for preparing the company’s sustainability report. The stated goal was to inform, raise awareness, and directly involve productive employees in the effort to include ESG criteria in the company’s sustainability report. Respondents were between 20 and 60 years old.
The questionnaire included 11 questions focused on environmental criteria (carbon emissions, energy consumption, water consumption, waste management, and biodiversity conservation), social criteria (occupational health and safety measures, employee satisfaction, fairness at work, and pay equity), and governance criteria (ethical practices and transparency and accountability of site management regarding regular reporting of ESG parameters). The reliability of the questionnaire was verified by calculating the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, which was 0.73 for environmental criteria, 0.71 for social criteria, and 0.69 for governance criteria. These values confirm the effectiveness of the instrument.
The sample was quite heterogeneous, consisting of department heads, workshop managers, engineers, and workers from the production departments of the shipyard.
The data extracted from the questionnaires was processed and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 for Windows (2017) statistical analysis software. With a total of seven production departments, each with a different number of employees, the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) [58] test was chosen for the statistical analysis. This is a statistical method used to compare the means of several groups (directly productive departments) of different sizes to check whether there are statistically significant differences between them.
To detail the production departments between which there are significant differences, the Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) test has been used, which accurately identifies these differences through the returned p-value index. In the analysis, the statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05 (for significant differences). The Tukey HSD test is a post hoc test used after ANOVA to identify which of the direct production departments present significant differences.
4. Results
Based on the responses provided by respondents from production departments to the questionnaire on ESG criteria, the following results were obtained regarding the distribution of respondents by gender (4.4% women and 95.6% men) and age group (14% aged 20–30; 40% aged 31–40; 43.3% aged 41–50; 2.7% aged 51–60).
According to the statistical analysis performed on the sample of respondents, the result within the directly productive area has been p = 0.899, which means that there are no significant differences in terms of gender distribution.
Regarding the distribution by age group, the result has been p = 0.221, which means that there are no significant differences in this regard.
The results confirm hypothesis H1 (the degree of employee involvement in the sustainability report preparation process), for which respondents had three response options: 0—not involved, 0.5—partially involved, and 1—involved. These results are presented in Figure 1 and Table 2.
Essentially, the degree of involvement of respondents describes their perception as an integral part of the multi-criteria analyses that form the basis for the sustainability report of the shipyard analyzed.
The analysis of the degree of involvement of respondents, presented in Figure 1, reveals the following:
- -
- The averages of all responses are below 0.5 (partial involvement);
- -
- For large sections with long production processes (assembly section 1, assembly section 2, cutting section, and mounting section), personal perception, which includes individual contribution, shows average values between 0.37 and 0.46;
- -
- For the other sections, the degree of individual involvement of respondents is lower (averages between 0.26 and 0.28).
The results of the statistical analysis of the degree of involvement of respondents in the directly productive departments are presented in Table 2. The values marked in yellow for the p parameter (values < 0.05) indicate the significant differences.
Although the overall result shows significant differences between all sections regarding the involvement of respondents in the preparation of the sustainability report, according to Table 2, there are situations where there are no significant differences between these sections (p-values marked in yellow). This aspect regarding the existence or absence of significant differences in the degree of respondent involvement is due to the different specificities of the sections.
To answer hypothesis H2, data on environmental criteria (carbon emissions, energy consumption, water consumption, waste management, and biodiversity conservation) were processed and presented in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
To further explore the results expressed by the respondents, inferential tables were compiled using the Tukey HSD post hoc analysis.
Regarding the responses on direct or indirect measurement of carbon emissions, the result of the analysis (p = 0.141) shows that there are no significant differences between respondents belonging to different departments (Table 3).
However, according to Table 3, there are two significant differences (marked in yellow) between respondents from the cutting department and those from the piping and repair departments (p = 0.032 < 0.05; p = 0.029 < 0.05), a result that is due to the different specificities of these departments. In the cutting department, carbon emissions are high and are due to the technological process, compared to carbon emissions in the piping and repair departments.
Regarding energy consumption, the statistical analysis led to the conclusion that there are no significant differences between respondents from directly productive sections (p = 0.193). This result can be explained by the energy supply to all equipment (Table 4).
Although the ANOVA test results have indicated no significant differences between respondents’ answers, the Tukey HSD multiple comparison test revealed significant differences between:
- -
- Assembly section 1 and assembly section 2;
- -
- Cutting and assembly;
- -
- The cutting section and the piping sections;
- -
- The sandblasting and painting section and the repair section.
These differences stem from differences in energy consumption between the above-mentioned sections.
In terms of water consumption, the ANOVA test results indicate, through the p = 0.193 coefficient value, that there are no significant differences between the respondents from the analyzed sections. However, according to the Tukey HSD test, there are significant differences between the cutting section and the piping, sandblasting and painting, and repair sections, which can be explained by the technological processes existing within these sections (Table 5).
Regarding waste management by the shipyard, the ANOVA test indicates no significant differences between respondents (p = 0.067). In terms of multiple comparisons (Tukey HSD test), there are significant differences between assembly section 1 and the cutting section, as well as between the cutting section and the piping, sandblasting, painting, and repair sections. This result can be explained by the different quantities of materials between these sections, which generate different amounts of waste (Table 6).
Regarding the site policy on minimizing negative impact on ecosystems, biodiversity conservation, and habitat protection, no significant differences were found among respondents from production departments in the ANOVA test (p = 0.822). Based on the results shown in Table 7, it can be concluded that all employees in the departments analyzed have been informed about this topic, so there are no significant differences between departments.
The second section, which deals with social criteria, looks at respondents’ opinions on occupational health and safety measures, employee satisfaction, fairness at work, and pay equity. The processed data are presented in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11.
A first parameter refers to employees’ assessment of occupational health and safety measures, for which the ANOVA test has indicated a value of p = 0.312, confirming the null hypothesis (no significant differences) (Table 8), which shows that the construction site promotes equal opportunities for employees and safe working conditions that prevent harm to employees’ health.
Another component of social sustainability relates to employee satisfaction.
The result of the ANOVA test for ‘employee satisfaction’ is p = 0.015, which indicates significant differences between respondents in the sections analyzed. In the multiple comparison presented in Table 9 (Tukey HSD test), significant differences can be observed between certain departments, which can be explained by recent hires within those departments.
In terms of employees’ perceptions of the practices developed at the shipyard, which are related to fairness at work, according to the ANOVA test (p = 0.590), there are no significant differences (Table 10). This reveals that for all employees of the productive departments, the indicator mentioned was perceived in the same way.
Regarding wage equity, according to the ANOVA test (p = 0.959), there are no significant differences between respondents (Table 11), who agree that wages are awarded based on each person’s qualifications, training, and professional competence.
The third section focuses on governance. Respondents expressed their opinions on ethical practices and transparency, as well as on the responsibility of shipyard management for regular reporting of ESG parameters. The results are presented in Table 12 and Table 13.
The first element appreciated by respondents relates to ethical practices (codes of conduct, anti-corruption policies, and compliance with ethical standards).
According to the ANOVA test (p = 0.000), there are significant differences between respondents. According to the Tukey HSD test, significant differences were recorded between assembly Section 1 and the cutting, assembly, piping, sandblasting, painting, and repair sections (Table 12). The overall average for this category is 0.990, while the average for the aforementioned sections is 1. The difference between the responses is very small and can be explained by the fact that assembly section 1 has a much larger number of employees compared to the others.
Regarding the transparency and accountability of site management in terms of regular reporting of ESG parameters, there are significant differences (p = 0.000) among respondents according to the ANOVA test (Table 13). This result is generated by the different perceptions of respondents, due to the varying involvement of department heads in explaining the importance of ESG, combined with the fact that it is a relatively new process implemented in the company.
The reasons for these differences in perception are:
- -
- The different amount of information provided to section members;
- -
- The quality and clarity of presentations;
- -
- The interest of employees in considering themselves part of the integrated process of the shipyard.
A result that deserves attention is to identify the productive departments where the average value of the answers in the questionnaire is below the average value of the entire sample (Figure 2).
Figure 2 presents, for each production section, the ESG indicators for which the averages for each criterion have been lower than the average for the entire study group. The marks in this table require specific interventions regarding the ESG indicators for employees in different sections. The following should be noted:
- -
- For carbon emissions, increasing information, awareness, and finding solutions is necessary for the piping, sandblasting, painting, and repair sections.
- -
- For energy and water use, the study highlighted the need to increase information on these two indicators in assembly section 1 and the piping, sandblasting, painting, and repair sections.
- -
- In the assembly 2 and cutting departments, it is necessary to intensify information, awareness, and practices regarding waste management.
- -
- Concerning biodiversity, the level of information in the assembly 2 department must be increased.
- -
- Regarding health and safety at work, additional information and assessment are needed for respondents in assembly section 1.
- -
- For the “employee satisfaction” parameter, the company must take measures in assembly 1 and the installation sections.
- -
- Regarding pay equity, fair pay scales need to be better promoted in assembly sections 1 and 2 and cutting.
- -
- Regarding the parameters of codes of conduct and regular ESG reporting, action needs to be taken concerning employees in the two assembly sections.
5. Discussions
This study has been conducted as a result of the observation that there are no studies of this type in the literature on shipbuilding.
In this study, we analysed the degree of perception and involvement of employees in the directly productive departments of a shipyard in Romania regarding the importance of implementing ESG criteria in the sustainability report to achieve the SDGs. The research allows us to state that the results obtained regarding the degree of employee involvement have been predictable from two perspectives: (a) this is the first time that a consultation of directly productive employees has been carried out; (b) the differences observed in the way of employee involvement, in the seven production sections, are due to their different specifics, with the first four production sections having a higher degree of employee involvement.
The results obtained confirm hypothesis H1, according to which directly productive employees within the shipyard are involved in the sustainability reporting process, with or without significant differences between the departments analysed. Employee involvement is necessary, as they are a key requirement for the shipyard’s sustainable growth, a finding that is consistent with the results obtained by [28].
The second hypothesis, H2, according to which directly productive employees within the shipyard respond independently and knowledgeably to ESG criteria, is confirmed by their responses following training conducted by those responsible for sustainability reports. This is consistent with the arguments presented by [59].
Raising awareness of the importance of sustainability reporting among the shipyard’s employees is a first prerequisite for starting a transformation process that involves recognizing the relevance of ESG criteria and their role while respecting regulatory obligations. The analysed company has relatively recently started sustainability reporting, realizing from the beginning the importance of direct and indirect employee participation in this process. An important stage, as a first step in achieving this objective, was the gradual information and involvement of employees.
The study shows that the shipyard employees surveyed are aware of the importance of improving sustainability performance, which ensures the long-term success of the company, enabling it to better align itself with customer needs by offering sustainable and innovative solutions that reduce environmental impact.
The results obtained through this study highlighted the parameters with significant differences between the directly productive departments. The analysis of these differences leads to the development of a plan to improve the information activities of employees in departments with response averages below expectations, without wanting their uniformity.
The limitations of this study refer to the fact that only one company has been analysed, in which the questionnaire has been addressed only to employees in productive departments, without being able to make comparisons regarding the perception of employees in non-productive departments regarding sustainability or with other similar companies.
The results of this research motivate the authors to conduct another study on the influence of ESG criteria on the SMART MARINE application (1.0.2 version), used in ship design, thus highlighting their importance on new generations of software, with the interconnection of sustainability parameters between the human factor and artificial intelligence.
6. Conclusions
This study helps decision-makers, employees, and other stakeholders improve their awareness of the impact of ESG disclosure on shipyard performance. Employee engagement is necessary, as they are a key requirement for the shipyard’s sustainable growth.
This study contributes to the specialized literature on the importance of ESG criteria in sustainability reporting in the naval industry, more precisely in a shipyard, providing information on how employees in the production departments are involved, aware, and perceive the importance of measuring, monitoring, and reporting sustainability performance in the company’s value chain. Through open and transparent communication and active employee involvement in decision-making processes, the shipyard can build strong relationships, which can contribute to strengthening its reputation in the long term.
The results obtained by the authors are useful for shipyards interested in implementing ESG criteria for the continuous development of the sustainability performance measurement and reporting system, inspiring other sectors and industries in terms of sustainability. These results contribute to international research by providing information on how employees of a shipbuilding company can be made aware of and involved in the process of preparing sustainability reports.
Recommendations that can be made to increase employee engagement and awareness at this shipyard regarding the importance of ESG criteria in sustainability reporting could include:
- -
- Training modules on ESG principles (explaining what ESG factors are and why they matter to the company);
- -
- The development of modules tailored to the specificities of each department, explaining to employees how ESG criteria are relevant to their work and decision-making processes;
- -
- Internal communication plans to highlight progress made and align sustainability goals with employees’ roles;
- -
- Feedback mechanisms (surveys to assess how employees understand ESG issues, how they can identify knowledge gaps, and how they can gather ideas for improving their knowledge; digital platforms where each employee can submit ESG-related questions; dedicated contact channels through which specific email addresses can be set up or online forms can be filled out by employees to ask questions or provide feedback on ESG initiatives);
- -
- Workshops on sustainability issues, focusing on ESG challenges and solutions specific to the shipyard (waste reduction, ethical practices, etc.);
- -
- Encouraging dialogue and accountability through public meetings with question and answer sessions;
- -
- Educating employees on how ESG data is collected and interpreted to understand the real impact of the company’s initiatives;
- -
- Disseminating successful experiences on how employees/departments contribute to ESG objectives;
- -
- Company-wide meetings to share ESG initiative progress and report key indicators;
- -
- Constant communication from leaders at all levels about the company’s commitment to ESG, showing how it aligns with the overall mission;
- -
- Transparent reporting through the publication of internal ESG reports that clearly show the efforts, challenges, and progress of the entire company to build trust and awareness.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.G. and C.U.; methodology, G.P.; software, G.P.; validation, G.P., C.U. and C.G.; formal analysis, C.G.; investigation, C.U.; resources, G.P.; data curation, G.P.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.; writing—review and editing, C.U.; visualization, C.G.; supervision, G.P.; project administration, C.U.; funding acquisition, C.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by Institution Committee due to Legal Regulations (The research was based on anonymized questionnaires and secondary data, which, according to Romanian legislation and institutional rules, do not require prior approval according to Ordonanța nr. 57/2002 privind cercetarea științifică și dezvoltarea tehnologică, Legea nr. 183/2024 privind statutul personalului de cercetare-dezvoltare-inovare and Codul de etică și deontologie universitară al Universității „Dunărea de Jos” din Galați).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the technical support and research facilities of the Naval Architecture Research Center of the Faculty of Naval Architecture.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| SDG | Sustainable Development Goals |
| ESG | Environmental, Social and Governance |
| GRI | Global Reporting Initiative |
References
- García Navarro, V.; Granda Revilla, G. La incorporación de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible como factor de competitividad empresarial. Inf. Com. Esp. Rev. Econ. 2020, 912, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo-Posada, E.; González-Torre, P.L.; Vidal-Suárez, M.M. Sustainable Development Goals and Corporate Strategy: A Map of the Field. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2024, 31, 2733–2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salas, L.M.; Arenas, J.S. Navigating towards sustainable vessels: State of the industry and its relationship to SDGs. Ship Sci. Technol. 2024, 18, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2024.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- European Court of Auditors. Rapid Case Review: Reporting on Sustainability: A Stocktake of EU Institutions and Agencies. Available online: https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/rcr_reporting_on_sustainability/rcr_reporting_on_sustainability_en.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
- Fincantieri Sustainability Report. Available online: https://www.fincantieri.com/globalassets/sostenibilita2/fincantieri-sustainability-report-2023.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2025).
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (“Agenda 2030”). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2025).
- Teodorescu, G.; Rădulescu, C.; Tanislav, D.; Stănescu, G.; Iancu, D. Inovaţie şi Antreprenoriat Durabil Pentru un Viitor Verde (Innovation and Sustainable Entrepreneurship for a Green Future); Transversal Publishing House: Targoviste, Romania, 2024; Volume 1, pp. 1–105. [Google Scholar]
- Paužuolienė, J.; Derkach, V. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Principles into Organisations. Reg. Form. Dev. Stud. 2024, 44, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strandhagen, J.W.; Buer, S.V.; Semini, M.; Alfnes, E.; Strandhagen, J.O. Sustainability challenges and how Industry 4.0 technologies can address them: A case study of a shipbuilding supply chain. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 33, 995–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Para-González, L.; Mascaraque-Ramírez, C.; Cubillas-Para, C. Maximizing performance through CSR: The mediator role of the CSR principles in the shipbuilding industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2804–2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, L.; Tang, Q. The real effects of ESG reporting and GRI standards on carbon mitigation: International evidence, Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 2985–3000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant Thornton. Sustainable Finance and ESG Reporting: Opportunities for Saudi Arabian Companies. Available online: https://www.grantthornton.sa/en/insights/articles-and-publications/sustainable_finance/ (accessed on 10 September 2025).
- Alhoussari, H. Integrating ESG Criteria in Corporate Strategies: Determinants and Implications for Performance. J. Ecohumanism 2025, 3, 11925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damen Shipyards. Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2023. 2023. Available online: https://medialibrary.damen.com/m/6aa54b224288fa33/original/corporate-social-responsibility-report-2023.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2025).
- Reboredo, J.C.; Sowaity, S.M.A. Environmental, social, and governance information disclosure and intellectual capital efficiency in Jordanian listed firms. Sustainability 2022, 14, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crace, L.; Gehman, J. What really explains ESG performance? Disentangling the asymmetrical drivers of the triple bottom line. Organ. Environ. 2022, 36, 150–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gebhardt, M.; Thun, T.W.; Seefloth, M.; Zülch, H. Managing sustainability—Does the integration of environmental, social and governance key performance indicators in the internal management systems contribute to companies’ environmental, social and governance performance? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 32, 2175–2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Chu, D.; Zheng, J.; Ye, T. Environmental, social and governance performance: Can it be a stock price stabilizer? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, Y.P.; Fan, Y.; Feng, Z.P. Bridging the gap: Building environmental, social and governance capabilities in small and medium logistics companies. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 338, 117758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cregan, C.; Kelly, J.A.; Clinch, J.P. Are environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings reliable indicators of emissions outcomes? A case study of the airline industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 31, 909–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doni, F.; Fiameni, M. Can innovation affect the relationship between environmental, social, and governance issues and financial performance? Empirical evidence from the STOXX200 index. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 33, 546–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Torre, M.; Leo, S.; Panetta, I.C. Banks and environmental, social and governance drivers: Follow the market or the authorities? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1620–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, G.J.; Dang, H.H.; Dinc, M.; Foster, J.; Lokshin, M.M. Measuring the statistical capacity of nations. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2021, 83, 870–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harymawan, I.; Nasih, M.; Agustia, D.; Putra, F.K.G.; Djajadikerta, H.G. Investment efficiency and environmental, social, and governance reporting: Perspective from corporate integration management. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1186–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikołajek-Gocejna, M. The environmental, social and governance aspects of social responsibility indices—A comparative analysis of European SRI indices. Comp. Econ. Res. 2018, 21, 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouni, Z.; Mansour, J.B.; Arfaoui, S. Board/executive gender diversity and firm financial performance in Canada: The mediating role of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) orientation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Souza Barbosa, A.; Crispim, M.C.; Silva, L.; Da Silva, J.M.N.; Barbosa, A.M.; Morioka, S.N. How can organizations measure the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria? Validation of an instrument using item response theory to capture workers’ perception. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 33, 3607–3634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomassetti, P. Between stakeholders and shareholders: Pension funds and labour solidarity in the age of sustainability. Eur. Labour Law J. 2023, 14, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alghababsheh, M.; Butt, A.S.; Ali, S.M. The role of buyers justice in achieving socially sustainable global supply chains: A perspective of apparel suppliers and their workers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2023, 29, 100820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldini, M.; Di Maso, L.; Liberatore, G.; Mazzi, F.; Terzani, S. Role of Country- and Firm-Level Determinants in Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cek, K.; Eyupoglu, S. Does Environmental, Social and Governance Performance Influence Economic Performance? J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 1165–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.T.; Wang, K.; Sueyoshi, T.; Wang, D.D. ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulino, S.C.; Ciaburri, M.; Magnanelli, B.S.; Nasta, L. Does ESG Disclosure Influence Firm Performance? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gündoğdu, H.G.; Aytekin, A.; Toptancı, Ş.; Korucuk, S.; Karamaşa, Ç. Environmental, Social, and Governance Risks and Environmentally Sensitive Competitive Strategies: A Case Study of a Multinational Logistics Company. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4874–4906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vakili, S.; Schonborn, A.; Olçer, A.I. The Road to Zero-Emission Shipbuilding Industry: A Systematic and Transdisciplinary Approach to Modern Multi-Energy Shipyards. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2023, 18, 100365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, H. The Importance of ESG in Corporate Strategy and Investment Decisions with Patagonia as an Example. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Management Research and Economic Development, Qingdao, China, 28 April 2023; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavalas, D. Does Sustainability Reporting Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from the Port Sector. Marit. Technol. Res. 2024, 6, 266092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trigo, A.; Silva, P. Sustainable Development Directions for Wine Tourism in Douro Wine Region, Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KPMG. How to Report on the SDGs: What Good Looks Like and Why It Matters. 2018. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2018/02/how-to-report-on-sdgs.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2025).
- McKinsey & Company. SDG Guide for Business Leaders: A Practical Guide for Business Leaders to Working with the SDGs as a Competitive Factor. 2019. Available online: https://vl.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20190612-SDG-Guide-full-version.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2025).
- Sulkowski, A.; Jebe, R. Evolving ESG reporting governance, regime theory, and proactive law: Predictions and strategies. Am. Bus. Law J. 2022, 59, 449–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clément, A.; Robinot, É.; Trespeuch, L. Improving ESG Scores with Sustainability Concepts. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabaleiro-Cerviño, G.; Mendi, P. ESG-driven innovation strategy and firm performance. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 2024, 14, 137–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver Yébenes, M. Climate change, ESG criteria and recent regulation: Challenges and opportunities. Eurasian Econ. Rev. 2024, 14, 87–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinu, E.M.; Jurcuț, C.N.; Gligor, D.A.G.; Cișmașu, I.; Buglea, A. Integrating Digital Technologies to Enhance ESG Performance: A Focus on Central and Eastern European Countries. Amfiteatru Econ. 2025, 27, 903–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuadaha, L.L.; Mukhtarudina, A.I.; Arisman, A. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG). Integr. J. Bus. Econ. 2023, 7, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzi, S.H.M.; Hamid, N.A.; Ismail, R.F. An Overview of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Company Performance. In Building a Sustainable Future: Fostering Synergy Between Technology, Business and Humanity; Said, J., Daud, D., Erum, N., Zakaria, N.B., Zolkaflil, S., Yahya, N., Eds.; European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences; European Publisher: London, UK, 2023; pp. 1111–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, J.; Xu, W. Carbon reduction effect of ESG: Empirical evidence from listed manufacturing companies in China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1311777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jouybari, F.G.; Khazaei, M.; Saen, R.F.; Kia, R.; Bonakdari, H.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Ramezani, M. Developing environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies on evaluation of municipal waste disposal centers: A case of Mexico. Chemosphere 2024, 364, 142961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venham, D.; Mekonnen, M.M. The scarcity-weighted water footprint provides unreliable water sustainability scoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gow, I.D.; Larcker, D.F.; Watts, E.M. Board diversity and shareholder voting. J. Corp. Financ. 2023, 83, 102487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semenova, N.; Lars, G.; Hassel, L.G. The Performance of Investor Engagement Dialogues to Manage Sustainability Risks. Nord. J. Bus. 2019, 68, 5–22. [Google Scholar]
- Eliwa, Y.; Abound, A.; Saleh, A. Board gender diversity and ESG decoupling: Does religiosity matter? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4046–4067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riani, D.; Sundarta, M.I.; Afrianto, Y.; Aini, S. ESG Risk and Firm’s Performance. eCo-Buss 2024, 7, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uyar, A.; Kuzey, C.; Karaman, A.S. Does aggressive environmental, social, and governance engagement trigger firm risk? The moderating role of executive compensation. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 398, 136542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cambrea, D.R.; Paolone, F.; Cucari, N. Advisory or monitoring role in ESG scenario: Which women directors are more influential in the Italian context? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4299–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angela, T.; Sari, N. The Effect of Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure on Firm Value. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 426, 01078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaee, Z.; Homayoun, S.; Poursoleyman, E.; Rezaee, N.J. Comparative analysis of environmental, social, and governance disclosures. Glob. Financ. J. 2023, 55, 100804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Respondents’ level of involvement.
Figure 2.
ESG parameters below the sample mean.
Table 1.
SDGs within the three pillars of sustainability.
| Pilons | SDGs | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainable solution | 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 | |
| -zero emissions | 7, 14 | -Affordable and Clean Energy (Promoting research and funding for the development of clean energy technologies for the maritime industry); -Life Below Water (Responsibilities for the conservation and use of water and marine resources through pollution prevention measures to improve the safety and security of maritime transport); |
| -circular economy | 12, 17 | -Responsible Consumption and Production (Promoting resource efficiency through sustainable production and consumption patterns to reduce waste generation); -Partnerships for the goals (Concluding partnership agreements with leading international organizations to achieve the SDGs); |
| -innovation | 9, 13 | -Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (Encouraging innovation, promoting sustainable industrialization, and building resilient transport infrastructure); -Climate action (Implementation of emission control measures to reduce the impact of climate change); |
| Sustainable operations | 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 17 | |
| -safe and empowered | 3, 6 | -Good health and well-being (Measures to reduce transport pollution, ensure and promote healthy living through adequate medical care); -Clean water and sanitation (Sustainable water management by improving the quality of and access to drinking water resources); |
| -environmental stewardship | 12, 13 | -Responsible consumption and production (Promoting resource efficiency through sustainable production and consumption patterns to reduce waste generation); -Climate action (Implementation of emission control measures to reduce the impact of climate change). |
| -communities engagement | 5, 17 | -Gender equality (Eliminating discrimination and violence to achieve gender equality and equal rights and opportunities); -Partnerships for the goals (Concluding partnership agreements with leading international organizations to achieve the SDGs). |
| Sustainable organization | 4, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17 | |
| -commitment to sustainability | 4, 5, 16 | -Quality education (Promoting learning opportunities to ensure equitable and inclusive education with a view to closing the global education gap); -Gender equality (Eliminating discrimination and violence to achieve gender equality and equal rights and opportunities); -Peace, justice, and strong institutions (Building effective and accountable institutions, ensuring access to justice, and promoting inclusive societies). |
| -responsible business | 13, 17 | -Climate action (Implementation of emission control measures to reduce the impact of climate change); -Partnerships for the goals (Concluding partnership agreements with leading international organizations to achieve the SDGs). |
| -performance monitoring | 8 | -Decent work and economic growth (Ensuring inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all people). |
Source: [15].
Table 2.
Multiple comparisons, degree of involvement.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.165 | 0.004 | 0.361 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.000 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.210 | 0.651 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.081 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.739 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.772 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 3.
Multiple carbon emission comparisons.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.058 | 0.058 | 0.583 | 0.303 | 0.395 | 0.275 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.126 | 0.126 | 0.570 | 0.107 | 0.058 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.375 | 0.032 | 0.061 | 0.029 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.178 | 0.246 | 0.162 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.945 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.952 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 4.
Multiple comparisons of energy consumption.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.234 | 0.326 | 0.169 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.012 | 0.795 | 0.131 | 0.189 | 0.188 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.175 | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.004 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.067 | 0.114 | 0.104 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.859 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.878 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 5.
Multiple comparisons of water consumption.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.519 | 0.043 | 0.301 | 0.476 | 0.556 | 0.592 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.242 | 0.769 | 0.255 | 0.322 | 0.323 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.355 | 0.021 | 0.043 | 0.032 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.139 | 0.202 | 0.187 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.889 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.904 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 6.
Multiple comparisons on waste management.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.385 | 0.007 | 0.063 | 0.994 | 0.995 | 0.749 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.118 | 0.436 | 0.464 | 0.524 | 0.319 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.393 | 0.021 | 0.043 | 0.011 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.12 | 0.180 | 0.069 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.781 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.809 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 7.
Multiple comparisons of biodiversity conservation.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.385 | 0.007 | 0.063 | 0.994 | 0.995 | 0.749 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.118 | 0.436 | 0.464 | 0.524 | 0.319 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.393 | 0.021 | 0.043 | 0.011 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.12 | 0.180 | 0.069 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.781 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.809 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 8.
Multiple comparisons on occupational health and safety measures.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.152 | 0.379 | 0.422 | 0.056 | 0.099 | 0.062 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.659 | 0.561 | 0.660 | 0.702 | 0.722 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.908 | 0.377 | 0.441 | 0.427 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.294 | 0.366 | 0.340 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.936 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.944 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 9.
Multiple comparisons of employee satisfaction.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.000 | 0.068 | 0.307 | 0.032 | 0.077 | 0.073 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.144 | 0.021 | 0.189 | 0.253 | 0.119 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.447 | 0.847 | 0.867 | 0.947 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.322 | 0.393 | 0.480 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.791 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.818 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 10.
Multiple comparisons of fair employment practices.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.170 | 0.170 | 0.148 | 0.159 | 0.245 | 0.166 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Cutting section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 1.000 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 11.
Multiple comparisons of pay equity.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.896 | 0.914 | 0.423 | 0.569 | 0.638 | 0.412 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.843 | 0.440 | 0.559 | 0.612 | 0.428 | ||
| Cutting section | 0.579 | 0.708 | 0.744 | 0.560 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 0.857 | 0.876 | 0.963 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 0.825 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 0.848 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 12.
Multiple comparisons of ethical practices.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.130 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.070 | 0.057 | 0.061 | 0.104 | 0.065 | ||
| Cutting section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 1.000 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Table 13.
Multiple comparisons on regular reporting of ESG metrics.
| Degree of Involvement Multiple Comparisons p= | Assembly Section 1 | Assembly Section 2 | Cutting Section | Blocks Assembly Section | Piping Section | Blasting and Painting Section | Repair Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly section 1 | 0.486 | 0.486 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| Assembly section 2 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.007 | 0.002 | ||
| Cutting section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Blocks assembly section | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||||
| Piping section | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||||
| Blasting and painting section | 1.000 | ||||||
| Repair section |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Popescu, G.; Ungureanu, C.; Gasparotti, C. Employees’ Perception of the Importance of Implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria in the Sustainability Report at a Shipyard. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198832
AMA Style
Popescu G, Ungureanu C, Gasparotti C. Employees’ Perception of the Importance of Implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria in the Sustainability Report at a Shipyard. Sustainability. 2025; 17(19):8832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198832
Chicago/Turabian StylePopescu, Gabriel, Costel Ungureanu, and Carmen Gasparotti. 2025. "Employees’ Perception of the Importance of Implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria in the Sustainability Report at a Shipyard" Sustainability 17, no. 19: 8832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198832
APA StylePopescu, G., Ungureanu, C., & Gasparotti, C. (2025). Employees’ Perception of the Importance of Implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance Criteria in the Sustainability Report at a Shipyard. Sustainability, 17(19), 8832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198832
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
