Stakeholder Collaboration for Effective ESG Implementation for Forests: Applying the Resource-Based View and Delphi

Abstract

In socio-ecological systems, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives play a critical role in enhancing forest multifunctionality, including climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. However, corporate integration and disclosure related to forests remain limited. Effective and sustainable ESG implementation for forests requires close collaboration among corporations, governments and NGOs. This study applied the resource-based view to identify the resources and capabilities of corporations, governments, and NGOs. The Delphi method was used to capture multi-sector expert opinions on the roles of governments and NGOs in supporting corporate forest-related ESG activities in the Republic of Korea. Through a three-round Delphi survey, consensus was achieved on 11 government roles and 14 NGO roles. The most frequently agreed-upon roles were related to technological and informational resources. Although these roles were linked to similar resource categories, government roles primarily encompassed macro-level and scientific functions, whereas NGO roles emphasized field-specific information and practical capabilities. To enhance the effectiveness of corporate ESG implementation through such collaboration, stakeholders must further develop both the quantity and quality of their resources and capabilities. Furthermore, an institutional structure that ensures balanced stakeholder participation is essential to minimize potential value conflicts.

1. Introduction

The urgent need for the sustainable management of nature has grown significantly within socio-ecological systems. Corporations, which have a mutual interaction with nature, are recognized as key actors in advancing sustainable natural management [1]. Several previous studies have shown that corporations in diverse sectors, including agriculture, food, energy, and fashion, can exert significant environmental impacts through greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and land use change [2,3,4,5]. These environmental impacts in turn pose financial risks, including instability in raw-material supply chains, economic losses from degraded ecosystem services, and greater exposure to natural disaster-related hazards [2]. As the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss accelerate, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) has emerged as a global megatrend. ESG incorporates non-financial factors into corporate management strategies and investment decisions to support sustainable development [6,7]. Accordingly, corporations are actively implementing ESG initiatives that address biodiversity conservation, the transition to renewable and clean energy, carbon footprint reduction, and the improvement of air and water quality [8,9].

In the environmental dimension of ESG, growing attention is being directed toward the sustainable management of ecosystems, with forest ecosystems emerging as an integral part of this broader agenda. Forests, as multifunctional ecosystems, contribute to climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and the provision of diverse ecosystem services [10,11]. For instance, a text analysis of 404 climate change litigation cases revealed that references to forests occurred 5618 times, and these references were intertwined with climate factors such as greenhouse gas emissions, fuel, and natural resource protection, which can be closely linked to ESG considerations [12]. Another study emphasized that forest ecosystems are the most species-rich habitat type and have immense biodiversity [13]. As forests are increasingly recognized for their ecological and social value, and as corporate ESG investments expand, the demand for guidelines and evaluation systems specifically tailored to the forest sector is growing [14,15,16]. In this study, we use the term “ESG for forests” to denote ESG activities that directly engage with forest-related issues within the broad use of ESG for sustainability reporting, standards, and investment decision-making.

Although an increasing number of corporations recognize the risks associated with degradation of ecosystems, including forests, and allocate funds and resources to address these risks, most corporations still struggle to integrate these risks into their core business activities [17]. Among the top 200 Fortune Global corporations, relatively few disclose substantive information on biodiversity and species protection, and existing disclosures are often aimed more at image enhancements than practical implementation [1,18]. This gap is even more pronounced in the Republic of Korea, where despite a high public preference for forest-related ESG management, corporate actions remain largely declarative and one-off activities [19,20,21]. For example, only 27.6% of the 76 corporations rated “A” by the Korea Exchange included forest-related content in their ESG reports, and 16.8% of them were limited to single-event activities [22]. If such trends, driven largely by reputational concerns or stakeholder pressure, continue, they could potentially lead to greenwashing [23,24].

Earlier studies highlighted that, although corporate ambition and internal capabilities are critical for professional and effective ESG performance, the regulatory and motivational roles of social stakeholders also remain important [18,25]. In particular, collaboration with governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) ensures corporations contribute professionally and sustainably to natural resource management [26,27]. Research on corporate climate change response indicates that governmental regulation and support policies exert substantial influence on corporate strategies [28]. Similarly, analyses of sustainable value chains for biological resources show that governments play a key role in standard-setting, while NGOs contribute by raising stakeholder awareness [29]. These stakeholders effectively “speak for nature” in broader socio-ecological decision-making [30,31]. Effective ESG collaboration therefore requires clearly defined roles, shared objectives, and inclusive decision-making [32]. Yet, empirical research on the roles of governments and NGOs in collaborating with corporations to promote sustainable and effective management of nature remains limited.

To address this gap, this study applies the resource-based view (RBV) to examine how corporations, governments, and NGOs can collaborate effectively on forest-related ESG implementation. RBV provides a framework for identifying tangible and intangible resources and capabilities that influence organizational performance [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Since these resources can be shared across stakeholder boundaries [42], RBV offers a basis for defining stakeholder roles that enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of stakeholder collaboration in ESG for forests [43]. To contextualize this application, this study is conducted in the Republic of Korea, where forests cover approximately 63% of the national territory and where diverse stakeholders have long been engaged in sustainable forest management [44]. In addition, ESG has recently emerged as a critical national agenda in Korea, driven by growing public demand for corporate reform [45,46], making it a relevant case for examining effective ESG implementation for forests.

In this context, this study aims to identify collaboration among corporations, governments, and NGOs based on resources and capabilities to effectively implement ESG in Korean forests. Notably, we focus on the relatively underexplored but critical roles of governments and NGOs that enable corporations to implement ESG for forests more effectively. While corporations are the primary actors in ESG and have already been extensively examined in prior research, this study does not aim to further analyze the roles of corporations. To achieve this, a three-round Delphi method was employed to systematically collect and refine expert opinions across sectors regarding the practical implementation of ESG in forests. Accordingly, this study has three specific objectives: (1) to identify the differentiated resources and capabilities possessed by corporations, governments, and NGOs; (2) to specify the complementary roles of the governments and NGOs based on the identified resources and capabilities that can effectively support ESG implementation in forests; (3) to examine potential divergences in stakeholder perspectives that could impede collaboration and propose evidence-based strategies to mitigate them.

This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the research design, including the application of the RBV and the Delphi method. Section 3 presents the results of the Delphi survey, highlighting the identified resources and roles of governments and NGOs for effective ESG implementation for forests. Section 4 discusses the findings for stakeholders’ collaboration, implications, and limitations. Finally, Section 5 concludes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Resource-Based View (RBV) as a Methodological Framework

Resource-based view is a theory that an organization can generate performance based on the resources and capabilities it possesses. Emerging from the insight that resources constitute a critical source of competitive advantage and can underpin strategic success [47]. RBV assesses those resources and capabilities with the VRIO framework—Value, Rarity, Imitability, and Organization [38]. Although RBV was originally applied in areas such as strategic management and human-resource management, it has more recently been combined with stakeholder theory to investigate the dynamics of stakeholder collaboration [43].

In the context of stakeholder collaboration, where diverse resources are shared across actor groups, this study employed the RBV framework to systematically identify resources and analyze stakeholder roles. First, drawing on prior studies, we classified the differentiated resources and capabilities possessed by corporations, governments, and NGOs. Specifically, RBV distinguishes tangible resources—physical, financial, technological, and organizational—from intangible resources—human, informational, reputational, and institutional [38,48]. Second, by applying the VRIO framework, we examined how these resources and capabilities contribute to the sustainable and strategic implementation of ESG for forests. Through this application, the RBV framework allowed us to derive the facilitative roles of governments and NGOs in supporting effective ESG for forests.

2.2. The Delphi Method

The Delphi method is a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts through a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled feedback, aimed at enabling a group to effectively address complex problems [49]. Its core characteristics—anonymity, iterative and controlled feedback, and convergence through statistical aggregation of group responses—facilitate the systematic-consensus building across various sectors when standardized data are lacking or quantitative analysis is difficult [49,50,51]. Widely used for predicting future requirements and strategic planning, Delphi is suited to identifying strategies, risk factors, and priorities for stakeholder collaboration [52,53]. Accordingly, this study employed the Delphi method to derive consensus on stakeholder roles based on expert knowledge, particularly in the complex and future-oriented domain of ESG implementation for forests.

2.2.1. Panel Composition

Delphi panels must be selected based on specific qualifications regarding their expertise and should be composed of experts who provide diverse perspectives [54,55]. To capture the diverse perspectives effectively, this study categorized expert panels into four groups: corporations, governments, NGOs, and academia. We identified the experts according to the following three criteria to ensure reliability and validity, which emphasize expertise, qualifications, willingness to participate, and ability to communicate [55]:

• At least five years of relevant professional experience, ensuring stable, practice-grounded judgments (e.g., policy and program design or implementation, research);
• Current affiliation with organizations actively engaged in practical ESG initiatives for forests in the Republic of Korea;
• Documented participation in cross-sector collaboration (e.g., public–private partnership, NGO-government project), ensuring familiarity with interdependent roles.

Based on these criteria, 44 experts were invited: 23 from corporations, 7 from government agencies, 6 from NGOs, and 8 from academia. Given the structure of ESG in the forest sector, and the fact that experts from corporations are sometimes reluctant to share opinions due to confidentiality concerns, a larger number of corporate experts were invited. As a result, 15 experts participated (4 from governments, 4 from NGOs, 4 from academia, and 3 from corporations), thereby achieving balance across stakeholder groups. Although Delphi panels are generally composed of 10 to 100 experts, previous studies suggest that panels of 10 to 18 highly qualified experts can be ideal for achieving reliable consensus, indicating that the size of our panel was also appropriate [55,56].

2.2.2. Delphi Procedure

The Delphi method was executed in three rounds through email. It comprised a brainstorming phase and narrowing-down phase [56]. Through three rounds of Delphi, experts were able to freely express their opinions by ensuring anonymity and were able to revise their judgments through repeated feedback [57].

Round 1 was implemented from 1 to 18 April 2025. Invitations were sent to the 44 experts, and 15 (34.1%) agreed to participate. The questionnaire used in round 1 consisted of three sections with open-ended questions. In the first section, the concept and types of RBV, along with general examples, were presented to ensure that experts had a clear understanding of the concept before responding. Based on this shared understanding, experts were asked to complete the blank table in which the horizontal axis represented the resources possessed by stakeholders (current and future), and the vertical axis represented seven types of resources. In the second and third sections, experts were asked to provide free responses regarding the roles of governments and NGOs in implementing ESG for forests based on their responses in the first section. Importantly, no additional documents were provided in these sections to avoid potential bias arising from externally supplied information.

Round 2 was conducted from 28 April to 20 May 2025 to evaluate the preliminary list of governments and NGO roles generated in Round 1. All 15 experts completed the questionnaire, yielding a 100% response rate. The second Delphi questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part presented 21 government roles, and the second part presented 20 NGO roles. Experts rated the appropriateness of each role on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all appropriate, 7 = highly appropriate), and suggested modifications, additions, or deletions where necessary.

Round 3, conducted from 23 to 29 May 2025, aimed to reach final consensus on the proposed roles. The same 15 experts (100%) re-evaluated each role using the 7-point Likert scale by reviewing the summary statistics from Round 2 (mean, standard deviation (SD), and interquartile range (IQR)). Roles were divided into two lists, those that had already reached consensus and those still pending. Experts confirmed the inclusion of consensus items and used statistical feedback to decide on the remaining items.

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Content Analysis (Round 1)

The open-ended responses collected in Round 1 were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, a systematic and rule-guided approach to textual data [58]. The analysis followed the standard steps of ‘definition of categories’, ‘formulation of coding rules’, ‘coding and categorization’, ‘revision and feedback loop’, and ‘interpretation’ [59]. Following a deductive strategy, the initial coding framework was based on seven resource categories derived from RBV, which corresponded to those presented in round 1 of Delphi survey. However, certain roles identified by experts could not be clearly classified within the initial coding framework. To address this, the revision and feedback loop was applied, leading to the development of an additional category, “institutional resources”. Finally, we used an analytical coding framework, which is presented in

Table 1. Analytical coding framework: Types of resources and capabilities used for role specification.

Types of Resources/Capabilities		Definition
Tangible	Physical	Assets that organizations own or control (e.g., land, facilities) and can be directly or indirectly utilized to advance forest-related ESG initiatives.
	Financial	Monetary resources and financing instruments that can be allocated to implement ESG for forests.
	Technological	Codified knowledge and tools that enhance the effectiveness or scalability of forest-focused ESG implementation (e.g., patents, know-how, research, and process technologies).
	Organizational	Formal structures, routines, and cultural norms that coordinate actors and integrate resources for implementing ESG goals for forests.
Intangible	Human	Organizational actors’ knowledge, skills, and experience—individually or collectively—mobilized to design and execute ESG actions for forests.
	Informational	Databases, analytics tools, and information management processes that support evidence-based decision making for forest ESG implementation.
	Reputational	Legitimacy assets that strengthen credibility and facilitate collaboration for forest ESG implementation (e.g., reputation, trustworthiness, relationship).
	Institutional	Institutional framework that authorizes and provides access to resources for forest ESG implementation (e.g., laws, permits, policy programs).

. The definitions of resource types in Table 1 were formulated based on descriptions from prior literature and then refined through qualitative content analysis of Round 1 expert responses. Redundant or tangential statements were removed, leaving only substantively meaningful roles, and the final coding was reviewed by a peer researcher to enhance reliability and validity.

2.3.2. Statistics Analysis (Round 2 and 3)

Internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha, where values between 0.70 and 0.95 were considered acceptable [60]. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1, with a higher value indicating greater internal consistency reliability [61].

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each role. Consensus was evaluated using the criteria summarized in

Table 2. Consensus status in Delphi round 2 and 3 using mean, SD, and IQR thresholds. Next-round actions are determined by the consensus status of the preceding round.

Mean	SD	IQR	Round 2	Round 3
<4.0	-	-	Delete	Delete
>4.0	≥1.0	>1.0	Re-evaluate with feedback	Delete
>4.0	<1.0	>1.0	Re-evaluate with feedback	Delete
>4.0	≥1.0	≤1.0	Re-evaluate with feedback	Delete
>4.0	<1.0	≤1.0	Confirm inclusion	Consensus

; an IQR ≤ 1.0 and an SD < 1.0 were interpreted as indicating low dispersion and thus acceptable agreement [62].

To identify divergences across the four expert groups, we performed a Kruskal–Wallis test. Because the expert groups were small (n = 3–4), normality and homoscedasticity assumptions could not be satisfied; therefore, differences among the four expert groups were tested using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test [63]. This analysis compared the median ratings across the expert panel groups. A p-value < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.4.1 [64].

3. Results

3.1. Stakeholder Resources and Capabilities

The analysis of the Delphi survey of the first round showed that stakeholders currently possess a total of 66 resources and capabilities for implementing ESG for forests, and that 41 additional resources and capabilities are expected to be possessed in the future (see Figure A1 in Appendix A for the details).

Among the three sector stakeholders, expert panels indicated that government agencies hold the most diverse portfolio of resources. Specifically, they possess substantial physical (n = 4), technological (n = 6), and organizational (n = 4) resources (Figure 1). Their physical resources include forests, public forest facilities, equipment, and seedlings. These are tangible inputs directly required for ESG performance. Government agencies also provide nation-level monitoring capabilities, research and development infrastructure, policy promotion, and forestry expertise. In addition, they possess systematic administrative, operational, and management systems, established at the organizational level, that facilitate ESG implementation. By contrast, corporations primarily possess informational resources (n = 4), while NGOs predominantly possess human (n = 5) and informational (n = 5) resources. Both corporations and NGOs primarily possess informational resources, but the nature of these resources differs. Corporations tend to hold information more directly related to ESG, whereas NGOs maintain more specialized information pertaining to forest-related, environmental issues, and regional contexts.

With respect to resources and capabilities expected to be acquired in the future, government agencies are projected to hold the broadest spectrum. In addition to their existing portfolio, they are anticipated to secure further human resources (n = 8) including research personnel and governance mechanisms that facilitate collaboration with stakeholders from other sectors and local communities. They are also expected to secure informational resources (n = 8), such as national-scale big data and integrated data-sharing platforms. By contrast, corporations are expected to strengthen their technological (n = 6), organizational (n = 6), and informational (n = 6) capabilities. In terms of technology, capabilities related to monitoring and public relations were expected. From an organizational perspective, the expected capabilities included the establishment of ESG departments and management systems, grounded in the internal awareness of employees and boards regarding forest-related ESG. For NGOs, additional human (n = 8) and informational (n = 8) capabilities are anticipated. Notably, Delphi panels emphasized that NGOs, unlike other stakeholder groups, should prioritize qualitative assets. These include personnel with storytelling and cross-sector collaboration skills, and the development of customized databases rather than the accumulation of quantitative resources.

3.2. Roles of Governments and NGOs in ESG Implementation

In the second round, consensus was achieved for 8 of the 21 government roles and 10 of the 20 NGO roles (see descriptive data in

Table A1. Descriptive data of the items evaluated by the experts panel in Delphi round 2.

Code	Related Types of Resources/Capabilities	Roles of Governments	Mean					SD	IQR
			Corporation (n = 3)	Government (n = 4)	NGO (n = 4)	Academia (n = 4)	Overall (n = 15)
-	-	All governments roles (aggregate across items)	5.48	5.81	5.25	6.17	5.69	1.51	2.00
G1	Physical	Promoting public–private collaboration on available resources (e.g., equipment, seedlings)	4.33	6.75	5.25	4.75	5.33	1.70	3.00
G2		Linking project sites	6.33	6.00	6.25	5.50	6.00	1.26	1.00
G3	Financial	Financial support	2.67	4.50	4.50	6.50	4.67	1.89	3.50
G4	Technological	Establishing a forest-based ESG model through pilot projects and best-practice cases	6.33	6.25	6.00	7.00	6.40	0.61	1.00
G5		Co-developing products	3.00	5.50	3.50	5.00	4.33	1.53	1.50
G6		Conducting relevant R&D	4.67	5.50	5.25	6.25	5.47	1.09	1.00
G7	Organizational	Establishing multi-stakeholder governance systems involving corporations, public institutions, NGOs, and local communities	6.00	6.50	6.25	6.50	6.33	0.70	1.00
G8		Implementing and expanding performance measurement systems	6.33	6.25	5.50	6.00	6.00	0.73	1.00
G9		Establishing dedicated organization to increase forest-based ESG activities	6.00	4.50	5.25	6.25	5.47	1.15	1.00
G10		Enhancing coordination between policymaking and implementation divisions	6.00	6.50	4.75	5.75	5.73	1.44	2.00
G11	Human	Training ESG experts	5.00	5.50	5.00	6.75	5.60	1.25	2.00
G12	Informational	Providing information on forest-based ESG strategies and practices	6.33	6.00	5.50	6.25	6.00	0.73	1.00
G13		Providing forest-based ESG information tailored to the domestic context	6.33	6.00	5.75	6.25	6.07	0.68	0.50
G14		Providing guidelines based on international trends	6.00	6.25	4.50	6.75	5.87	1.26	1.50
G15		Collecting data	5.67	5.75	5.75	6.25	5.87	1.20	2.00
G16		Sharing scientific data and information for forest-based ESG activities	5.00	6.25	5.75	6.00	5.80	0.98	0.50
G17		Establishing a platform for information sharing	6.00	5.00	5.00	6.00	5.47	1.20	1.00
G18	Reputational	Expanding inter-ministerial collaboration	5.33	6.00	5.25	6.75	5.87	1.26	2.50
G19		Providing promotion and consultancy services to corporations	4.33	5.25	4.00	6.50	5.07	1.65	2.00
G20		Raising public awareness to improve societal accessibility to ESG activities	6.33	6.00	5.75	6.00	6.00	0.73	1.00
G21	Institutional	Establishing legal and institutional foundations	7.00	5.75	5.50	6.50	6.13	1.02	1.00
Code	Related Types of Resources/Capabilities	Roles of NGOs	Mean					SD	IQR
			Corporation (n = 3)	Government (n = 4)	NGO (n = 4)	Academia (n = 4)	Overall
		All NGOs roles (aggregate across items)	5.70	5.90	5.30	6.18	5.77	1.12	2.00
N1	Financial	Providing financial support through voluntary fundraising	4.67	5.25	5.00	5.25	5.07	1.39	2.00
N2		Operating forest-related funds	4.67	5.75	4.75	5.50	5.20	1.22	2.00
N3	Technological	Utilizing field-based technologies	5.67	6.25	5.50	6.25	5.93	0.68	0.50
N4		Carrying out sustainable management	4.33	5.50	4.00	5.25	4.80	1.33	2.00
N5		Conducting continuous monitoring	6.00	6.00	5.75	6.25	6.00	0.89	1.50
N6		Conducting relevant R&D	5.00	5.50	5.25	6.50	5.60	0.88	1.00
N7		Enhancing capacity to implement region-specific ESG activities	6.00	6.25	6.00	7.00	6.33	0.70	1.00
N8		Developing relevant products	4.00	5.75	3.75	5.50	4.80	1.38	2.00
N9	Organizational	Building local community-based initiatives	6.00	6.50	5.50	6.25	6.07	0.68	0.50
N10		Acting as an intermediary between corporations and governments	6.33	6.25	4.50	6.00	5.73	1.44	1.00
N11	Human	Providing participatory opportunities for diverse stakeholders, including local residents	6.67	5.75	5.50	6.75	6.13	0.88	1.00
N12		Strengthening educational capacity	6.33	5.50	6.00	6.00	5.93	1.00	0.50
N13	Informational	Developing and proposing forest-based ESG programs that integrate environmental and social objectives	6.67	6.25	5.75	7.00	6.40	0.80	1.00
N14		Providing expert knowledge related to forest management and ESG	5.00	6.00	5.25	5.75	5.53	1.02	1.00
N15		Facilitating communication aligned with global ESG trends and directions	5.67	5.75	5.75	5.75	5.73	0.77	1.00
N16		Collecting data from field-level ESG activities	6.67	6.25	5.75	6.50	6.27	0.93	1.00
N17	Reputational	Raising public awareness	6.33	5.75	5.00	6.00	5.73	0.85	0.50
N18		Participating in joint initiatives to prevent greenwashing	6.33	5.75	5.00	6.75	5.93	1.00	1.50
N19		Engaging in dialogue based on long-standing relationships with the public (consumers)	5.67	6.25	6.00	6.50	6.13	1.02	1.00
N20	Institutional	Proposing policies that support complementary forest-based ESG activities	6.00	5.75	6.00	6.75	6.13	0.88	1.00

in Appendix A for the details). However, after the third round, the panel ultimately reached consensus on 11 government roles and 14 NGO roles (see

Table A2. Descriptive data of the items evaluated by the experts panel in Delphi round 3.

Code	Related Types of Resources/Capabilities	Roles of Governments	Mean					SD	IQR
			Corporation (n = 3)	Government (n = 4)	NGO (n = 4)	Academia (n = 4)	Overall (n = 15)
		All governments roles (aggregate across items)	5.51	5.63	5.08	6.19	5.64	1.21	1.00
G1	Physical	Promoting public–private collaboration on available resources (e.g., equipment, seedlings)	4.67	5.07	5.00	5.00	5.07	1.44	1.50
G2		Linking project sites	6.33	6.00	5.25	5.75	5.80	0.98	0.00
G3	Financial	Financial support	2.33	4.07	3.75	5.75	4.07	1.81	2.00
G4	Technological	Establishing a forest-based ESG model through pilot projects and best-practice cases	6.67	6.75	5.75	6.75	6.47	0.62	1.00
G5		Co-developing products	3.67	4.33	3.25	5.00	4.33	1.30	1.50
G6		Conducting relevant R&D	5.00	5.53	5.50	6.25	5.53	0.88	1.00
G7	Organizational	Establishing multi-stakeholder governance systems involving corporations, public institutions, NGOs, and local communities	5.67	6.33	6.00	6.75	6.33	0.60	1.00
G8		Implementing and expanding performance measurement systems	6.33	6.07	5.50	6.25	6.07	0.57	0.00
G9		Establishing dedicated organization to increase forest-based ESG activities	6.00	5.33	4.75	6.25	5.33	1.19	1.50
G10		Enhancing coordination between policymaking and implementation divisions	5.67	5.73	4.75	6.00	5.73	1.29	2.00
G11	Human	Training ESG experts	4.67	5.50	4.50	7.00	5.47	1.15	1.50
G12	Informational	Providing information on forest-based ESG strategies and practices	6.33	6.20	5.75	6.50	6.20	0.65	1.00
G13		Providing forest-based ESG information tailored to the domestic context	6.33	6.13	5.75	6.25	6.13	0.72	1.00
G14		Providing guidelines based on international trends	6.00	5.73	4.75	6.75	5.73	1.18	0.50
G15		Collecting data	6.00	5.75	5.75	6.00	5.87	0.62	0.50
G16		Sharing scientific data and information for forest-based ESG activities	5.67	5.93	5.75	6.00	5.93	0.57	0.00
G17		Establishing a platform for information sharing	5.67	5.00	4.50	6.25	5.33	1.19	1.00
G18	Reputational	Expanding inter-ministerial collaboration	5.33	6.00	5.00	6.75	5.80	1.28	2.00
G19		Providing promotion and consultancy services to corporations	4.33	4.87	3.75	6.00	4.87	1.26	2.00
G20		Raising public awareness to improve societal accessibility to ESG activities	6.33	6.07	5.75	6.00	6.07	0.68	0.50
G21	Institutional	Establishing legal and institutional foundations	6.67	5.75	6.00	6.75	6.27	0.68	1.00
Code	Related Types of Resources/Capabilities	Roles of NGOs	Mean					SD	IQR
			Corporation (n = 3)	Government (n = 4)	NGO (n = 4)	Academia (n = 4)	Overall
		All NGOs roles (aggregate across items)	5.77	5.73	5.29	6.05	5.68	1.14	1.00
N1	Financial	Providing financial support through voluntary fundraising	4.67	4.75	4.75	4.75	4.73	1.24	1.50
N2		Operating forest-related funds	4.67	5.00	4.75	5.25	5.00	1.10	1.50
N3	Technological	Utilizing field-based technologies	5.67	6.07	6.00	6.50	6.07	0.68	0.50
N4		Carrying out sustainable management	4.33	5.00	3.50	4.00	4.20	1.42	2.00
N5		Conducting continuous monitoring	6.67	6.00	5.50	6.25	6.00	0.82	0.50
N6		Conducting relevant R&D	5.00	5.53	5.25	6.50	5.53	0.88	1.00
N7		Enhancing capacity to implement region-specific ESG activities	6.33	6.27	5.75	7.00	6.27	0.68	1.00
N8		Developing relevant products	3.67	4.47	3.25	5.75	4.47	1.36	1.00
N9	Organizational	Building local community-based initiatives	6.00	6.13	5.50	6.75	6.13	0.72	1.00
N10		Acting as an intermediary between corporations and governments	6.33	5.75	4.25	6.00	5.53	1.36	1.00
N11	Human	Providing participatory opportunities for diverse stakeholders, including local residents	6.67	6.13	5.50	6.75	6.13	0.88	1.00
N12		Strengthening educational capacity	6.33	5.87	5.50	6.25	5.87	0.96	0.00
N13	Informational	Developing and proposing forest-based ESG programs that integrate environmental and social objectives	6.67	6.40	6.00	7.00	6.40	0.80	1.00
N14		Providing expert knowledge related to forest management and ESG	5.00	5.53	5.75	5.75	5.53	0.72	1.00
N15		Facilitating communication aligned with global ESG trends and directions	5.67	5.87	6.00	6.00	5.87	0.72	1.00
N16		Collecting data from field-level ESG activities	6.67	6.20	5.50	6.50	6.20	0.91	1.00
N17	Reputational	Raising public awareness	6.33	5.67	5.75	5.00	5.67	1.19	0.00
N18		Participating in joint initiatives to prevent greenwashing	6.33	5.75	5.00	6.50	5.87	0.96	1.00
N19		Engaging in dialogue based on long-standing relationships with the public (consumers)	6.00	6.07	6.25	6.00	6.07	0.68	0.50
N20	Institutional	Proposing policies that support complementary forest-based ESG activities	6.33	6.13	6.00	6.50	6.13	0.72	1.00

in Appendix A for the round 3 descriptive statistics). The overall mean score for government and NGO roles was 5.66 on a 7-point Likert scale, with individual scores ranging from 4.07 to 6.47. The perceived importance of the government roles was highest among academia (n = 4, mean = 6.19), followed by government (n = 4, mean = 5.63). The overall mean across all stakeholder groups was 5.64. With respect to the NGO roles, academia reported the highest level of perceived importance (n = 4, mean = 6.05), while NGOs themselves followed closely (n = 4, mean = 5.77). The overall mean score for the NGO role was 5.68. The mean scores for each government and NGO role, as assessed by the panel groups in reaching consensus, are shown in Figure 2.

Internal consistency reliability, assessed using Cronbach’s α, was high for both scales: α = 0.89 for government roles, and α = 0.87 for NGO roles. These values indicate that the items within each scale reliably measure the intended construct and are suitable for further statistical analyses.

Among the consolidated set of government and NGO roles, the highest-rated item was the government role “Establishing a forest-based ESG model through pilot projects and best-practice cases” (mean = 6.47, SD = 0.62). The next most highly ranked item was the NGO role “Developing and proposing forest-based ESG programs that integrate environmental and social objectives” (mean = 6.40, SD = 0.80). Government roles that were likewise highly expected included “Establishing multi-stakeholder governance systems involving corporations, public institutions, NGOs, and local communities” (mean = 6.33, SD = 0.60) and “Establishing legal and institutional foundations” (mean = 6.27, SD = 0.68). For NGOs, the expert panel assigned the greatest importance to “Enhancing capacity to implement region-specific ESG activities” (mean = 6.27, SD = 0.68), followed by “Collecting data from field-level ESG activities” (mean = 6.20, SD = 0.91).

Based on the resource types presented in Table 1, the consensus roles were linked with resource and capability types. While Figure 1 illustrates the number of resources identified by the expert panels, Figure 3 presents the number of roles associated with each resource type for government agencies and NGOs. For both government and NGOs, the categories cited most frequently were informational and technological resources. Expert panels expected the governments to supply context-specific information such as nationally relevant datasets and scientific evidence, whereas NGOs were expected to contribute field-level data and integrated ESG programs and specialized knowledge. Divergence also emerged at the technological level. Respondents expected the governments to leverage their technological resources and capabilities to develop a forest-based ESG model, while NGOs were expected to possess the capacity to monitor and implement region-specific ESG activities. A comparison of the number of resource types linked to each stakeholder showed that government roles were additionally associated with organizational resources, whereas NGO roles were more frequently linked to human and reputational resources.

However, when the consensus roles were mapped to resource types, no roles were linked to financial resources, and only one was associated with physical resources—the lowest frequencies among all resource types.

3.3. Comparative Evaluation of Role Importance Across Panel Groups

The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed statistically significant inter-group differences for three government roles and one NGO role (see Figure 4). Among the government items that had already reached consensus, only “Establishing multi-stakeholder governance systems involving corporations, public institutions, NGOs, and local communities” (p = 0.04) displayed heterogeneity, with academia and government panelists assigning significantly higher ratings than their corporation or NGO panelists. Two non-consensus government roles also differed across groups: academics attached the greatest importance to both “Training ESG experts” (p = 0.01) and “Providing guidelines based on international trends” (p = 0.04), while government experts ranked second for “Training ESG experts” and corporation experts ranked second for “Providing guidelines based on international trends”.

In contrast, perceptual divergence for NGO roles was comparatively modest, as only “Developing relevant products” (p = 0.04) yielded a significant Kruskal–Wallis result, with mean ranks declining in the order academia, governments, corporations, and NGOs.

4. Discussion

The Delphi results highlight broad agreement among stakeholders that cross-sector collaboration is essential for effective ESG implementation in forest ecosystems. Experts from all four groups rated nearly all proposed roles as important, with an overall mean of 5.66 on 7-point Likert scale, and no roles discarded based on the mean consensus threshold for importance. This strong consensus reflects a shared recognition that addressing forest-related ESG issues, characterized by ecological complexity and multidimensional value, requires coordinated efforts across corporations, governments, and NGOs.

4.1. Roles of Stakeholders for ESG Collaboration for Forests

In our Delphi study, the expert panels identified information- and technology- related roles as important for both governments and NGOs (see Figure 3). From the perspective of the RBV framework, information and technology represent highly valuable resources for ESG implementation in forest ecosystems. Yet these resources possess the characteristics of rarity and imitability, as corporations often lack the capacity to secure them independently. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have identified key barriers such as limited knowledge, methodological uncertainty, and the absence of robust measurement systems when corporations seek to integrate biodiversity and climate considerations into business practice [16,65,66]. Especially, the lack of standardized evaluation systems and indicators has been consistently cited as a reason for the insufficiency of specific and quantitative information on their natural management plans, processes, and outcomes [67,68]. Consistently, the roles derived in this study emphasize the provision of forest-based ESG information, technical expertise, and measurement frameworks by governments and NGOs. By sharing these valuable and inimitable resources through multi-stakeholder collaboration, corporations can develop a more effective and successful ESG strategy and achieve more sustainable outcomes than if they were to pursue implementation in isolation. However, detailed expectations for those roles varied significantly between governments and NGOs, even when categorized under the same resource types.

This division is consistent with Richter and Dow’s typology, which posits stakeholders can influence outcomes, behaviors, directions, and processes [69]. In our findings, governments were assigned macro-level, technically intensive roles that define the overall direction of forest-based ESG implementation, leveraging inimitable resources such as policy instruments, technical infrastructure, and large-scale R&D capacity. Utilizing these well-organized resources performs a function the corporations or NGOs cannot undertake on their own. NGOs, by contrast, were tasked with field-oriented roles that facilitate processes on the ground, capitalizing on their trust-based relationships with consumers, local communities, and other stakeholders, rare as they are built over time and inimitable as they cannot be replicated quickly, positioning them to generate context-specific intelligence [70]. From an RBV theory, this complementary division of roles also reflects the bundling of rare and inimitable resources—governments’ institutional and technical capacities and NGOs’ trust-based, context-specific knowledge—that cannot be secured by corporations alone. By sharing and mobilizing these resources through their respective roles, both differentiated and integrated, stakeholders strengthen multi-layered governance structures and increase the probability that corporate ESG initiatives will yield measurable environmental outcomes and long-term sustainability benefits [71,72,73].

Stakeholder entities such as governments and NGOs may engage corporations through integrative strategies that foster collaborative, win-win relationships, yet they also deploy distributive strategies that exert coercive pressure to ensure high-quality natural-resource management [32,74,75]. Governments typically rely on statutory obligations and regulatory enforcement, whereas NGOs use public campaigns to prevent greenwashing [76,77,78]. Consistent with this dual role, our Delphi panel reached consensus on “Establishing legal and institutional foundations” as a core government responsibility and on “Participating in joint initiatives to prevent greenwashing” as a key NGO responsibility aligned with the results in previous studies [24]. In practice, corporate ESG strategies can be realized effectively within the enabling and constraining conditions created by governments and NGOs.

However, financial resources were the only one of the eight resource types for which no stakeholder roles were reached agreement (see Figure 3). This indicates that financing responsibilities should rest primarily with corporations rather than with governments or NGOs [20]. They must broaden their budgetary allocations and undertake long-term investments that support the ecological functionality of forests in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss. Because these environmental risks also can ultimately diminish corporate performance, corporations have both an economic and a social incentive to recognize their exposure and respond proactively [79,80,81]. These findings highlight that the financial resources of corporations, when combined with the valuable, rare, and inimitable external resources held by governments and NGOs, can create mutually reinforcing complementarities that sustain corporate ESG implementation for forests and provide a strategic foundation for long-term success.

4.2. Strategic Pathways for Effective Cross-Sector Collaboration

To achieve effective stakeholder collaboration among corporations, governments, and NGOs, we propose two complementary strategies based on our findings regarding both the consensus and divergence of roles.

First, for successful collaboration and effective ESG implementation, all stakeholders including corporations, governments, and NGOs require quantitative and qualitative development of resources and capabilities [67]. Especially, corporations should continuously accumulate and share the information and data generated through their forest-focused ESG activities to maintain sustainable forest ecosystems [82,83]. They must also consider trust and recognition both inside and outside the corporations to ensure broad participation in forest initiatives and to secure long-term financial commitments [84]. To ensure that corporate ESG activities avoid greenwashing and make tangible contributions to natural resource management, the commitment and capability of corporations are paramount [23,24].

As corporations’ ESG strategies are dynamically embedded within the roles of governments and NGOs presented in Section 4.1, governments and NGOs must also develop their own resources and capabilities to enable professional and long-term implementation. Governments need to establish support systems that allow corporate forest-related ESG implementation to evolve strategically. Experts in the first Delphi round observed that, although government agencies already possess the capacity to collect and analyze relevant data, a systematic platform for sharing those data is still lacking, and value measurement schemes that could be linked to ESG remain underdeveloped [20]. Consequently, a nationwide integrated data-management system coupled with a science-based evaluation framework is required to enable corporations to translate forest activities into demonstrable ESG outcomes [85]. NGOs must strengthen resources and capabilities rooted in practical, field-based experience. Both individual activists and their organizations need enhanced competencies in monitoring, project design, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Evidence from Chinese SMEs shows that NGOs’ knowledge and network-building efforts can make a significant contribution to corporate ESG capacity [70]. Deploying these resources and capabilities through close collaboration rather than through simple exchanges of resources can improve the effectiveness of ESG implementation in the forest sector and generate corresponding economic and social value [20,86,87].

Second, a formal agreement building mechanism for contested governance factors is essential for successful collaboration. Effective collaboration requires organizations to share a common purpose, understand one another’s interests, and recognize their respective roles so that joint decisions can be made efficiently and transparently [88,89,90]. Central to this process is the alignment of stakeholder expectations and priorities, which minimizes value conflicts and secures relational trust [31,33]. Previous studies that have examined the gap between societal expectations for corporate biodiversity and ecosystem protection have already documented discrepancies among governments, NGOs, and corporations in how they define the problem and set priorities [91]. Unresolved disputes can otherwise limit sustainability efforts. In our Delphi survey, only one consensus role, namely “Establishing multi-stakeholder governance systems involving corporations, public institutions, NGOs, and local communities”, exhibited significant divergence in importance ratings across stakeholder groups. This finding reveals a latent disagreement over which actor should take the lead in governance for ESG implementation. Such divergence is critical, as it indicates that stakeholders may hold competing views on leadership and decision-making authority, which, if left unresolved, could delay implementation and reduce the effectiveness of tangible outcomes.

To resolve these divergent views collectively, institutionalized structures for deliberation and coordination are required [67,92]. Prior studies have proposed a variety of such mechanisms including deliberative councils, public forums, multilateral negotiation bodies, and co-management boards to mediate complex environmental decisions [93,94,95]. Any platform of this kind must grant balanced decision-making authority to all stakeholder constituencies involved in corporate ESG implementation, such as corporations, government agencies, NGOs, academia, and local communities [94]. For procedural legitimacy, it should be initiated by government but facilitated by a neutral mediator with minimal vested interests, such as a university [93]. A well-designed deliberative arena can also align stakeholder values, promote collective learning, and thereby translate negotiation into substantive collaboration [96].

4.3. Limitations and Further Research Implications

This study has several limitations. First, we did not explicitly account for the heterogeneous context in which ESG is implemented, and thus the findings may have limited applicability to other countries. The design, implementation, and outcomes of ESG can vary markedly across institutional arrangements, political cultures, and stakeholder capabilities [97,98]. For instance, while EU advances ESG through institutional frameworks with strong government involvement, in the US ESG is more market-driven, with NGOs playing a greater role [99,100]. These differences suggest that the specific roles of governments and NGOs identified in this study may vary across national contests [101,102]. Importantly, regardless of national context, the establishment of collaborative structures remains a fundamental prerequisite for advancing ESG implementation. And the RBV-based framework also provides a transferable analytical lens that can guide comparative analyses and help generate insights across diverse national settings.

Second, stakeholder roles are likely to differ according to the resources and capabilities of the focal corporations. Variables such as the size of a dedicated ESG unit, prior experience with forest-related projects, and the density of existing stakeholder networks may all shape role expectations and collaboration structures [32]. Future research could therefore derive more fine-grained role typologies based on corporate profile.

Lastly, this study did not capture the complex and dynamic interactions that unfold during real-world collaboration processes. Future research might segment forest-based ESG implementation into discrete stages, specify the resources and capabilities required at each stage, and assign corresponding stakeholder roles. Such stage-specific mapping would enhance its practical utility for practitioners tasked with operationalizing ESG in diverse contexts.

Despite these limitations, this study has implications for both practitioners and researchers engaged in ESG for forests. We hope that it will stimulate more practical applications and theoretical development by applying the RBV and employing the Delphi method. Previous studies have provided valuable insights by examining the roles of single stakeholders [70,103]. By extending this line of research to define stakeholder roles within a comprehensive multi-stakeholder collaboration, our findings may guide practitioners in recognizing with whom, and through which types of resources, they should engage and share when making decisions to implement ESG for forests more effectively. Moreover, by focusing specifically on forests, this study contributes ecosystem-specific insights that complement broader ESG and natural resource research, whereas existing research had primarily emphasized the forestry sector rather than forest ecosystems themselves [14,104]. Future studies could further explore how these stakeholder roles evolve across different ecological contexts or national governance systems, thereby deepening the transferability and applicability of the framework.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the roles of governments and NGOs in facilitating effective ESG implementation within Korean forests. Although many corporations now acknowledge the ecological and socio-economic risks of ecosystem degradation and have begun allocating resources to address them, sustaining a genuine commitment to nature-related ESG remains an ongoing challenge. To translate this corporate interest into professional and long-term outcomes, it is critical that corporations themselves strengthen their own internal capabilities while also engaging in collaboration with governments and NGOs. This perspective aligns with international biodiversity initiatives such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which underscore multi-stakeholder participation as essential.

Our findings confirm that governments and NGOs possess differentiated roles related to resources and capabilities, primarily focused on informational and technological resource. Governments are expected to perform macro-level and strategic roles, such as establishing measurement systems and sharing scientific data, whereas NGOs are anticipated to deliver practical, field-oriented knowledge and monitoring. Corporations are also expected to make substantial and long-term contributions to ESG implementation by expanding financial investments and by securing trust and recognition among internal and external stakeholders.

However, our study identified sector-specific divergences in stakeholder perceptions regarding certain roles. Significant differences emerged in the role of establishing a multi-stakeholder governance system that has reached consensus. To address this issue, we propose the establishment of an institutional structure that enables balanced participation among all relevant stakeholder groups. Such structured governance can facilitate alignment of interests, minimize potential conflicts, and foster collective learning.

Theoretically, this study extends forest research in stakeholder collaboration by integrating the RBV and Delphi methodology, bridging theory with practical decision-making. Practically, the derived roles for governments and NGOs provide actionable guidelines for multi-sector collaboration and effective resource allocation, potentially enhancing corporate ESG strategies, forest ecosystem multifunctionality, and other social and economic values. However, we acknowledge certain limitations in our research, primarily its geographic and contextual specificity, which suggest cautious generalization. Future studies should examine stakeholder roles within diverse corporate contexts, segment ESG implementation by stages, and incorporate the dynamic interplay of stakeholder interactions, thereby refining the practical applicability of ESG frameworks in varied global contexts.