Exploring Stakeholder and Organizational Influences on ESG Management in the Logistics Sector

Abstract

As the global emphasis on sustainability intensifies, logistics companies face mounting pressure from stakeholders to adopt environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices. Despite this growing interest, few studies have investigated how both external pressures and internal organizational factors jointly influence ESG management and its outcomes in the logistics sector. This study aims to examine the effects of international, governmental, investor, and customer pressures on three ESG dimensions—environmental management, social responsibility, and governance practices. Furthermore, the study evaluates how these ESG dimensions affect corporate image and organizational performance. Data were collected from 352 logistics professionals through a structured online survey. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the proposed research model. The findings reveal that investor and customer pressures are the most influential drivers of comprehensive ESG engagement. As an internal factor, hierarchy culture significantly enhances organizational performance and strengthens the impact of corporate image on performance. Environmental and governance management contribute to both image and performance, while social responsibility primarily enhances corporate image. These results provide valuable insights for logistics companies and managers seeking to align ESG strategy with stakeholder expectations and operational excellence.

1. Introduction

The increasing prominence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles in corporate strategy marks a pivotal shift in how businesses approach long-term value creation and stakeholder engagement [1,2]. As global climate agreements, stakeholder activism, and ethical standards continue to shape expectations across industries, firms are expected to go beyond compliance and embed sustainability into their operations [3,4,5]. ESG management has become particularly relevant in high-impact industries like logistics, where operational scale and environmental consequences draw intense scrutiny from regulators, investors, and consumers alike [6]. Within this context, logistics firms are under growing pressure to integrate sustainability practices, not only to minimize environmental harm, but also to enhance their corporate image and maintain market competitiveness [7].

Despite the broad acceptance of ESG as a strategic imperative, the existing research has primarily focused on external drivers, such as regulatory compliance, stakeholder activism, and consumer demand [8]. Studies have highlighted how investor pressure or international agreements influence corporate sustainability disclosures or environmental performance [9,10]. However, limited attention has been paid to the interplay between external forces and internal organizational dynamics in shaping ESG implementation. In particular, existing studies often treat external and internal factors in isolation, overlooking the integrative nature of ESG adoption. Moreover, most research has concentrated on general manufacturing or financial sectors, leaving the logistics industry—despite its central role in global supply chains—comparatively underexplored [11].

This gap is especially concerning given the complexity and stakeholder exposure of logistics operations [12]. Logistics firms must navigate a wide array of pressures, ranging from international climate accords and government regulation to investor expectations and client demands [13]. At the same time, organizational culture and structural hierarchies can either facilitate or hinder ESG integration [14]. Understanding how these pressures interact with internal mechanisms is crucial for developing a comprehensive framework that reflects the real-world challenges of ESG management. The absence of empirical studies that simultaneously examine external stakeholder pressures and internal organizational factors, especially within the logistics sector, limits both theoretical advancement and practical application.

Against this backdrop, there is a critical need to investigate how different types of pressures—international, governmental, investor, and customer—affect ESG dimensions, and how internal factors such as hierarchy culture mediate or amplify these effects. This study addresses these concerns by proposing an integrative framework that connects external and internal drivers with ESG management, corporate image, and organizational performance. While the previous literature has examined these constructs individually, few studies have analyzed them in a cohesive model that reflects the complex dynamics within ESG-oriented firms.

This study proposes a comprehensive research model grounded in Stakeholder Theory and the resource-based view (RBV). Stakeholder Theory emphasizes the importance of addressing the interests of various external actors, including investors, governments, international bodies, and customers [15,16]. Meanwhile, the RBV highlights the strategic value of internal capabilities—such as leadership orientation and organizational culture—in achieving sustainable competitive advantage [17,18]. By combining these perspectives, the model offers a dual-lens approach to understanding how logistics firms operationalize ESG practices and achieve desirable outcomes.

The contributions of this study are threefold. First, it expands the existing ESG literature by empirically testing how both external pressures and internal enablers influence three key sustainability domains: environmental management, social responsibility, and governance. Second, it addresses a contextual gap by focusing on the logistics sector, where ESG research remains limited, despite the industry’s high impact and exposure. Third, the study evaluates the consequences of ESG management on corporate image and performance, offering practical insights for managers aiming to align sustainability goals with business outcomes. Additionally, by examining the moderating effect of hierarchy culture, this research adds depth to our understanding of how organizational structures affect ESG-related performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. ESG Management

ESG management has emerged as a critical framework for businesses seeking long-term sustainability and ethical corporate practices [3,19,20,21]. It encompasses strategies that address environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance, aligning firms with regulatory expectations and stakeholder demands [22]. Companies that integrate ESG principles into their operations not only enhance their reputation but also gain competitive advantages through improved risk management, operational efficiency, and investor confidence [23]. As regulatory bodies worldwide tighten ESG compliance requirements, organizations are increasingly adopting structured approaches to sustainability reporting and ethical business conduct [8].

Environmental management, a key component of ESG, focuses on reducing corporate environmental footprints through emissions control, resource conservation, and regulatory compliance [24]. Firms that proactively implement environmental policies often benefit from lower operational costs and enhanced brand perception [25]. The logistics industry, for instance, faces significant pressure to reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency, prompting firms to adopt alternative energy sources and optimize supply chain processes [26]. Companies that fail to address environmental concerns risk reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and decreased consumer trust, highlighting the importance of integrating environmental management within ESG strategies [27]. The social dimension of ESG encompasses corporate social responsibility (CSR), employee well-being, diversity and inclusion, and ethical labor practices [28]. Companies that prioritize social responsibility foster stronger relationships with stakeholders, including employees, consumers, and local communities [29]. Firms that actively engage in fair labor practices, workplace safety initiatives, and community development programs often experience higher employee satisfaction and consumer loyalty [30]. However, while CSR initiatives improve corporate image, their direct impact on financial performance remains debated, as some studies suggest that social responsibility efforts yield intangible benefits rather than immediate financial gains [31]. Governance management, the third pillar of ESG, focuses on ethical leadership, transparency, and accountability. Strong governance frameworks enhance investor confidence by ensuring compliance with regulations, reducing financial misconduct risks, and promoting fair decision-making processes [32]. Companies with robust governance structures are more likely to attract institutional investors and maintain long-term financial stability [33]. In the logistics industry, governance practices such as anti-corruption policies, stakeholder engagement, and transparent reporting play a vital role in maintaining operational integrity and regulatory compliance [34].

Despite the growing volume of research on ESG management, prior studies often treat its three pillars—environmental, social, and governance—as discrete elements, lacking a holistic view of how they interact within specific industries. For instance, while some research emphasizes environmental management as a driver of operational efficiency and risk mitigation, others highlight its weak short-term financial returns, especially in logistics, where capital-intensive infrastructure changes are required [25,27]. Similarly, although social responsibility initiatives are linked to a positive brand image and employee morale, the empirical findings are mixed on whether such efforts directly enhance firm performance or remain intangible assets [30,31]. Governance management, often lauded for reducing agency costs and enhancing transparency, is less explored in high-complexity, decentralized sectors like logistics [33,34]. These conflicting insights indicate a need for more integrative and context-specific studies, especially those addressing how ESG practices function collectively in sectors with unique operational constraints. This study responds to that call by examining ESG management holistically within logistics firms, identifying interdependencies, and clarifying how external and internal organizational factors influence ESG performance outcomes.

2.2. Logistics and ESG

The integration of ESG principles in logistics has gained increasing attention due to rising regulatory pressures and stakeholder expectations. Logistics companies serve as essential nodes in global supply chains, but their operations significantly contribute to environmental pollution, carbon emissions, and labor-related social concerns, particularly in areas such as ethical sourcing and working conditions [35,36]. As a result, ESG-driven sustainability initiatives are no longer optional but necessary for securing long-term operational efficiency and protecting corporate reputation [37,38,39,40].

In practice, logistics firms are increasingly prioritizing environmental sustainability by implementing carbon footprint reduction strategies, improving energy efficiency, and adopting low-emission transportation solutions [41,42]. Green logistics approaches—such as route optimization, the use of electric vehicles, and sustainable packaging—have become more common in order to mitigate environmental impacts [43]. Furthermore, companies are using digital tools like the blockchain and IoT to enhance supply chain transparency and monitor carbon emissions in real time [44,45]. Despite these advancements, the full integration of environmental management remains challenging due to high implementation costs, fragmented regulations across countries, and uncertainty around return on investment [44,46].

Social responsibility is another critical ESG domain in logistics. Issues such as labor rights, workforce well-being, and ethical trade are increasingly central to ESG efforts [7]. Companies are developing initiatives that focus on fair wages, employee training, safety, and mental health to improve their internal culture and stakeholder trust [47,48]. Moreover, diversity and inclusion programs are gaining traction as firms seek to align with international labor norms and enhance workplace equity, especially within large logistics operations [49]. On the governance front, logistics firms are working to strengthen compliance mechanisms, corporate accountability, and anti-corruption practices to reduce risk and maintain stakeholder confidence [50,51]. Good governance structures also promote accurate sustainability reporting and better engagement with regulatory agencies and clients [52].

While industry practices demonstrate progress, the academic literature has yet to fully examine how these developments translate into measurable outcomes. Although ESG reporting is increasingly common, studies show little consensus on the actual effectiveness of these disclosures in driving environmental, social, and governance improvements [53,54,55]. Much of the existing research has focused on external drivers, such as investor demands or regulatory mandates [14,56], while internal organizational dynamics remain comparatively underexplored. Specifically, factors like leadership influence, structural hierarchy, and cultural norms—elements that are especially relevant in operationally complex logistics environments—have not been sufficiently addressed. In particular, the role of hierarchy culture, which is a defining feature of logistics firms, has yet to be clearly linked to ESG adoption and performance. This study responds to these gaps by examining both the external and internal drivers of ESG management and analyzing their implications for corporate image and performance within logistics.

2.3. Differentiating This Study from the Existing Literature

While prior research on ESG management has extensively examined external pressures, such as regulatory mandates and investor expectations, relatively fewer studies have focused on both the external factors and internal organizational dynamics that shape sustainability strategies within firms [8,14]. Much of the existing literature has analyzed how environmental regulations, market demands, and corporate reputation drive ESG adoption, yet there remains a gap in our understanding of how overall external factors and organizational hierarchy impact ESG integration [21,23]. This study seeks to address this gap by specifically investigating the roles of external pressure and hierarchy culture—two critical but underexplored organizational factors—in shaping ESG management in logistics firms.

Additionally, research on logistics and ESG has largely emphasized the environmental aspect, particularly in reducing carbon emissions, optimizing fuel efficiency, and implementing green transportation strategies [7,41]. However, social responsibility and governance dimensions have received comparatively less attention. Studies that do explore governance in logistics tend to focus on compliance with international trade regulations and ethical sourcing, but do not fully examine how corporate governance structures influence ESG strategy execution at the managerial level [50,51]. Furthermore, while previous studies acknowledge the importance of sustainability reporting, they have not thoroughly analyzed how internal decision-making frameworks and organizational hierarchies contribute to or hinder effective ESG adoption [52,53].

This study builds upon prior research by providing a more holistic perspective on ESG adoption in logistics. By incorporating external pressure and hierarchy culture into our analysis, we offer new insights into how leadership decisions and structural governance impact sustainability outcomes. Our approach moves beyond external compliance drivers and highlights the role of internal mechanisms in shaping corporate sustainability practices. Moreover, unlike previous research, which focuses on specific case studies or select industry leaders, our study examines a broad set of logistics firms in South Korea, providing empirical evidence on how diverse organizational structures approach ESG integration. These distinctions contribute to a deeper understanding of sustainability management in logistics and offer a foundation for future studies to explore internal corporate influences on ESG practices.

2.4. Theoretical Framework for ESG Management

ESG management is shaped by both external expectations and internal capabilities, which necessitates a theoretical framework that can accommodate these dual influences. To this end, Stakeholder Theory and the RBV are jointly employed in this study to provide an integrated lens for understanding how logistics firms adopt and implement ESG strategies.

Stakeholder Theory posits that firms must consider the expectations of a wide array of stakeholders—such as investors, customers, employees, and regulators—beyond traditional shareholders [16]. ESG practices represent a direct response to these stakeholder demands, with firms adopting sustainability measures to maintain legitimacy, avoid reputational risks, and build long-term trust [5,15,57]. In the logistics industry, pressures from supply chain partners and international regulatory institutions frequently drive ESG adoption, especially in areas such as emissions reduction, fair labor practices, and anti-corruption transparency [58,59,60].

While Stakeholder Theory accounts for these external drivers, the RBV complements it by focusing on the internal organizational capabilities that enable firms to respond to stakeholder expectations effectively. The RBV argues that a sustainable competitive advantage stems from resources that are valuable, rare, and difficult to replicate [17]. ESG-related competencies—such as robust environmental systems, ethical governance frameworks, and strong social engagement—can act as intangible strategic assets [18]. Logistics firms that leverage these internal resources are more likely to meet stakeholder demands in ways that also yield operational efficiency and financial resilience [61]. For example, companies with established emissions-monitoring systems not only comply with carbon regulations but also differentiate themselves in markets increasingly sensitive to sustainability.

The integration of Stakeholder Theory and the RBV allows this study to explore ESG management as a dynamic process shaped by the interaction between external pressures and internal enablers. Stakeholder Theory explains why firms face mounting sustainability demands, while the RBV explains how they develop capabilities to meet these expectations strategically. This synthesis is particularly relevant in the logistics sector, where firms must continuously adapt to a fluid regulatory environment and meet diverse stakeholder expectations, all while optimizing operational efficiency. Thus, our theoretical framework reflects a dual-path mechanism in which stakeholder demands initiate ESG responses, and internal resources mediate the effectiveness of those responses. This integration moves beyond prior studies which apply these theories separately, offering a more comprehensive view of the organizational mechanisms behind ESG adoption in logistics.

3. Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Development

This study is grounded in two prominent theoretical perspectives: Stakeholder Theory and the RBV. These theories offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how external pressures and internal organizational structures influence the adoption and performance of ESG practices.

Stakeholder Theory posits that firms must respond not only to shareholders but to a broader set of stakeholders—including governments, investors, customers, and international institutions—whose expectations shape corporate behavior [15,16]. In the context of ESG management, external stakeholder demands increasingly influence firms’ strategic priorities, particularly in high-impact industries such as logistics [6,8]. For example, investor coalitions now require companies to adopt transparent sustainability reporting, while international regulations such as the EU’s supply chain due diligence law compel firms to meet global ESG norms [9,10]. These pressures motivate organizations to adopt environmental practices, engage in social initiatives, and strengthen governance mechanisms to maintain legitimacy and market access.

Complementing this, the RBV emphasizes the role of internal organizational resources and capabilities in achieving a competitive advantage [17]. Organizational cultures—such as hierarchy culture—constitute intangible resources that influence a firm’s capacity to implement ESG strategies effectively [18,62]. Hierarchical structures may enhance ESG adoption by enabling formalized decision-making and accountability, which in turn shape the extent to which corporate image is translated into operational and financial performance [26,63].

By integrating these two theoretical lenses, the current study explains both why firms are externally pressured to engage in ESG management (Stakeholder Theory) and how their internal mechanisms determine the outcomes of such engagement (RBV). This dual-theory approach provides a solid rationale for selecting international pressure, government pressure, investor pressure, and customer pressure as external constructs, while hierarchy culture serves as an internal enabler of ESG implementation. Environmental, social, and governance management then act as mediating constructs that link these influences to corporate image and organizational performance. Figure 1 illustrates the research model.

3.1. International Pressure

International pressure refers to the influence exerted by global institutions, regulatory bodies, and cross-border agreements that encourage or mandate firms to align with international sustainability norms and standards [64]. With the increasing global awareness of environmental degradation and climate change, international organizations such as the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization have implemented binding agreements and recommendations to promote eco-friendly practices among businesses [65,66]. These frameworks often emphasize environmental protection, social accountability, and transparent corporate governance. The European Union, for example, imposes mandatory ESG disclosures and supply chain due diligence, affecting not only European firms but also global suppliers [10]. Companies operating internationally are thus expected to align with these standards or risk losing competitiveness and legitimacy in the global market. The adoption of sustainability practices across environmental, social, and governance dimensions is increasingly seen as a strategic response to maintain compliance and reputation. Building on this foundation, the present study proposes the following set of hypotheses.

H1a. 

International pressure is positively correlated with environmental management.

H1b. 

International pressure is positively correlated with social responsibility management.

H1c. 

International pressure is positively correlated with governance management.

3.2. Government Pressure

Government pressure refers to the regulatory obligations, legal mandates, and policy frameworks imposed by national or local authorities that compel firms to adopt sustainability practices [67]. Governments play a pivotal role in promoting ESG management by enforcing compliance with environmental laws, labor standards, and corporate governance regulations [68]. For instance, emission reduction targets, carbon pricing policies, and environmental tax schemes incentivize firms to implement green technologies and eco-efficient processes [69]. In the social domain, many governments have introduced legislation aimed at improving labor conditions, ensuring workplace safety, and supporting vulnerable social groups through corporate responsibility mandates [70]. Similarly, governance reforms—such as mandatory board diversity, enhanced disclosure rules, and anti-corruption regulations—have driven firms toward greater transparency and accountability [71]. These regulatory mechanisms shape managerial behavior and institutionalize sustainability at the core of business operations. Based on this foundation, the present study proposes the following set of hypotheses.

H2a. 

Government pressure is positively correlated with environmental management.

H2b. 

Government pressure is positively correlated with social responsibility management.

H2c. 

Government pressure is positively correlated with governance management.

3.3. Investor Pressure

Investor pressure refers to the expectations and demands made by shareholders and institutional investors for companies to disclose, improve, and align with ESG practices [6]. Investors increasingly perceive environmental, social, and governance issues as materially relevant to long-term firm value and risk mitigation, prompting them to demand transparency and performance in these areas. Environmentally, investor coalitions like Climate Action 100+ and the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance push firms to set emission reduction targets and adopt sustainable resource management [9,72]. In the social dimension, investors expect companies to uphold human rights, promote diversity, and engage in community development, viewing these actions as indicators of ethical risk management and corporate stability [73,74]. Governance concerns, such as board independence, anti-corruption policies, and executive accountability, are also central to investor evaluations, as they relate to the firm’s oversight, compliance, and financial integrity. Based on this perspective, the present study proposes the following set of hypotheses.

H3a. 

Investor pressure is positively correlated with environmental management.

H3b. 

Investor pressure is positively correlated with social responsibility management.

H3c. 

Investor pressure is positively correlated with governance management.

3.4. Customer Pressure

Customer pressure refers to the expectations that consumers place on firms to engage in ethical, transparent, and sustainable business practices [14]. As sustainability awareness increases, customers demand that companies minimize environmental harm, adopt fair labor practices, and demonstrate corporate integrity. Environmentally, customers prefer products and services with a lower carbon footprint, pushing companies—especially in high-impact sectors like logistics—to adopt green technologies and eco-friendly supply chain practices [75]. Socially, customer pressure influences firms to address issues such as fair trade, labor rights, and employee well-being, especially as consumers become more conscious of human rights in global supply chains [48]. In terms of governance, customers increasingly value companies that uphold strong ethical standards, transparency, and regulatory compliance, associating these with long-term brand trust and accountability [7]. In response to these multidimensional pressures, firms integrate sustainability principles more systematically. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed.

H4a. 

Customer pressure is positively correlated with environmental management.

H4b. 

Customer pressure is positively correlated with social responsibility management.

H4c. 

Customer pressure is positively correlated with governance management.

3.5. Environmental Management

Environmental management refers to a company’s strategic efforts to minimize its ecological footprint through sustainable resource use, pollution control, and regulatory compliance [24]. Firms that adopt strong environmental practices often enhance their corporate image, as stakeholders increasingly value sustainability commitments in brand evaluations [25]. A proactive environmental stance fosters customer trust and strengthens competitive positioning in industries where ecological responsibility is a key differentiator [76]. Additionally, environmental management contributes to organizational performance by improving operational efficiency, reducing regulatory risks, and unlocking cost-saving opportunities through energy conservation and waste reduction [27]. Companies integrating sustainability into their core strategies also experience higher investor confidence, leading to long-term financial stability [77]. Given these insights, it is expected that environmental management will be positively linked to corporate image and organizational performance.

H5a. 

Environmental management is positively correlated with corporate image.

H5b. 

Environmental management is positively correlated with organizational performance.

3.6. Social Responsibility Management

Social responsibility management refers to a company’s commitment to ethical business practices, community engagement, and stakeholder well-being [28,78]. Firms that actively engage in corporate social responsibility initiatives, such as fair labor practices and philanthropic contributions, enhance their corporate image by fostering public trust and brand loyalty [31,79]. Consumers and investors increasingly expect businesses to operate responsibly, and companies that meet these expectations are often viewed more favorably in the market [29]. Based on this, social responsibility management is expected to be positively associated with corporate image.

H6. 

Social responsibility management is positively correlated with corporate image.

3.7. Governance Management

Governance management refers to the systems and processes that ensure corporate accountability, ethical decision-making, and stakeholder transparency [32,79,80]. Companies with strong governance structures foster trust among investors, consumers, and regulatory bodies, enhancing their corporate image [34]. Transparent reporting, ethical leadership, and board independence signal corporate integrity, which strengthens stakeholder confidence and brand reputation [81]. In addition, governance management contributes to organizational performance by improving risk management, reducing agency costs, and fostering long-term financial stability [33]. Well-governed firms are better positioned to attract investments, minimize regulatory scrutiny, and maintain operational efficiency, leading to sustainable growth [80,82]. Given these considerations, governance management is anticipated to be positively associated with corporate image and organizational performance.

H7a. 

Governance management is positively correlated with corporate image.

H7b. 

Governance management is positively correlated with organizational performance.

3.8. Hierarchy Culture

Hierarchy culture refers to an organizational environment characterized by formal rules, clear structures, centralized decision-making, and control-oriented processes [83]. This cultural orientation emphasizes internal efficiency, predictability, and adherence to standardized procedures, often found in large or highly regulated firms such as those in the logistics sector [84]. When implemented effectively, a hierarchical structure can improve resource allocation, reduce operational ambiguity, and enhance accountability, all of which contribute to organizational efficiency and goal attainment [11]. In performance-driven industries, such a structure may foster stability and process optimization, leading to improved financial and operational outcomes. Moreover, hierarchy culture may shape how corporate image influences organizational performance [85]. A strong, formalized culture can reinforce the translation of positive external perceptions into internal operational consistency and stakeholder trust. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypotheses.

H8a. 

Hierarchy culture is positively associated with organizational performance.

H8b. 

Hierarchy culture moderates the effects of corporate image on organizational performance.

4. Empirical Methodology

4.1. Instrument Development

The measurement items for this study were adapted from previously validated studies to ensure their reliability and validity. As shown in

Table A1. List of constructs and items.

Construct	Item	Description	References
International Pressure	ITN1	International organizations, including the IMO, require compliance with environmental regulations.	Park and Kim [14], Martínez-Falcó et al. [64], Lee et al. [99]
	ITN2	The EU requires independent greenhouse gas reduction (environmental regulation).
	ITN3	The international community requires compliance with supply chain due diligence laws.
Government Pressure	GPR1	The government requires companies to comply with official ESG-related regulations.	Ji and Nie [100], Nie et al. [101]
	GPR2	The government requires companies to comply with laws and regulations related to corporate management.
	GPR3	The government requires clear response activities for greenhouse gas reduction.
Investor Pressure	IPR1	Our company’s investors require clear compliance with laws in corporate operations.	Amel-Zadeh and Serafeim [6], Rau and Yu [102], Eccles et al. [103]
	IPR2	Our company’s investors require the disclosure of non-financial information.
	IPR3	Our company’s investors require continuous investment in climate change.
Customer Pressure	CPR1	Customers require an increase in the proportion of eco-friendly services.	Park and Kim [14]
	CPR2	Customers require compliance with fair trade regulations.
	CPR3	Customers require continuous improvement activities on ESG evaluation results.
Environmental Management	EVR1	Our company strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.	Tripopsakul and Puriwat [104], Min and Kim [105], Chang et al. [106]
	EVR2	Our company raises awareness of environmental management and conducts capacity-building education.
	EVR3	Our company complies with environmental regulations.
Social Responsibility Management	SRP1	Our company continuously promotes social contribution activities.	Maignan [107], Becker-Olsen et al. [108]
	SRP2	Our company strives to support socially disadvantaged groups (disabled, female, temporary workers, etc.).
	SRP3	Our company strives to prevent workplace accidents and improve health issues.
Governance Management	GVN1	Our company strives to ensure the soundness of corporate governance management (participation of professional managers, proportion of outside directors, etc.).	Niu, et al. [1], Park and Kim [14], Sim and Kim [79]
	GVN2	Our company strives to secure transparency in capital procurement (debt ratio, risk–asset ratio, etc.).
	GVN3	Our company has procedures to resolve conflicts of interest among stakeholders.
Corporate Image	CPI1	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has a positive image among its customers.	Şantaş, et al. [109]
	CPI2	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has strong international competitiveness.
	CPI3	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has a better image than its competitors.
Hierarchy Culture	HCT1	Our company values compliance with official procedures, rules, and policies.	Parker and Bradley [83], Quinn [110]
	HCT2	Our company emphasizes strict approval processes.
Organizational Performance	OPF1	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has been more successful.	Payal, et al. [111]
	OPF2	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has been more profitable.
	OPF3	(Since implementing ESG management), our company has a greater market share.

, all constructs were derived from prior research and measured using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This seven-point scale was chosen over the five-point and ten-point alternatives because it provides a greater degree of sensitivity and reliability while maintaining its ease of use for respondents [86]. Prior studies suggest that a seven-point scale improves data quality and discriminability, reducing response bias while enhancing the accuracy of psychometric assessments [87]. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section assessed participants’ general awareness and understanding of ESG management practices. The second section measured perceptions of the key constructs examined in this study, including external pressures, internal organizational factors, ESG activities, and performance outcomes. The third section gathered demographic information, such as respondents’ gender, company size, and organizational position.

To ensure linguistic accuracy and cultural appropriateness, a rigorous translation protocol was followed. The questionnaire was initially developed in English by the author, and then translated into Korean by a language expert specializing in business and sustainability research. A separate bilingual expert conducted a back-translation to English to verify the consistency and accuracy. Any discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were resolved through discussion with the translators. This approach ensured that the translated version retained the meaning of the original questions while being contextually appropriate for Korean respondents.

Content validity was established through a pretest with experts in academia and industry. Five professors specializing in sustainability and corporate management, along with five practitioners from logistics firms, reviewed the questionnaire for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Based on their feedback, minor revisions were made to improve item wording and alignment with industry terminology. A pilot test was then conducted with 15 voluntary participants working in logistics-related fields to evaluate the clarity, comprehension, and linguistic appropriateness of the questionnaire items. Although the sample size was relatively small, the pilot study was designed primarily as a qualitative pretest to refine item wording and ensure contextual relevance, rather than to conduct full-scale psychometric validation. This approach aligns with early-stage instrument development practices, where smaller samples are commonly used to confirm item clarity before administering the survey to a larger population. Feedback from the pilot participants indicated that the items were well understood and appropriately captured the intended constructs, supporting the instrument’s readiness for the main data collection.

4.2. Data Collection

A survey-based approach was used for the data collection, as surveys are widely recognized for their effectiveness in gathering insights into organizational behavior and managerial perceptions [88]. This method allowed for the efficient collection of structured responses from a broad sample, making it particularly useful for studying sustainability adoption in logistics companies.

The target sample consisted of professionals working in logistics firms in South Korea, including managerial staff, sustainability officers, and supply chain specialists. This group was selected because they are directly involved in ESG-related decision-making and implementation. The online survey was distributed through the author’s professional network, targeting employees in leading logistics companies. To mitigate selection bias, the survey was also disseminated through industry associations and professional groups, ensuring a wider reach beyond the author’s immediate connections. Additionally, key industry stakeholders were encouraged to share the survey within their organizations, promoting randomization in participant selection and increasing sample diversity [89]. This multi-channel distribution strategy helped capture varied perspectives from professionals engaged in sustainability practices across different company sizes and roles [90].

Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and respondents were assured of their anonymity to encourage honest and unbiased responses. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the survey, explaining the study’s purpose and the confidentiality of responses. The data collection period took place in March 2024.

After data collection, a rigorous pre-processing procedure was applied to ensure data quality. Responses with incomplete answers or identical ratings across all items were removed. Additionally, a time-based filtering criterion was applied, excluding responses completed in an unreasonably short time, as this may have indicated lack of attention. These steps ensured that the final dataset was reliable and suitable for analysis.

The required sample size for this study was determined using the A priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models [91]. The calculation was based on an anticipated effect size of 0.1, a desired statistical power level of 0.8, 7 latent variables, 20 observed variables, and a probability level of 0.05. Based on these parameters, the minimum recommended sample size was 223. To enhance the robustness of the study, a total of 352 valid responses were collected, exceeding the minimum requirement. Although the survey was primarily distributed through the author’s professional network and via logistics-related associations, care was taken to reach a diverse range of respondents from different company sizes and job positions across the South Korean logistics sector. While this sampling method may have introduced potential self-selection and network bias, the inclusion of participants from multiple organizational levels and firms helped improve the representativeness and contextual generalizability of the findings. The larger sample size also enhanced statistical reliability and mitigated concerns about sampling error, supporting the validity of the structural equation modeling results.

Table 1. Sample information.

Category	Subject	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	300	85.2%
	Female	48	13.6%
	No Response	4	1.1%
Position	Assistant Manager and Below	76	21.6%
	Manager	98	27.8%
	General Manager	70	19.9%
	Executive	69	19.6%
	CEO	39	11.1%
Size	Sole Proprietorship	33	9.4%
	Small Business	129	36.6%
	Medium-Sized Business	110	31.3%
	Large Business	79	22.4%
	No Response	1	0.3%
Revenue	Less Than KRW 10 Billion	71	20.2%
	KRW 10 Billion–100 Billion	92	26.1%
	KRW 100 Billion–500 Billion	56	15.9%
	KRW 500 Billion–1 Trillion	39	11.1%
	More Than KRW 1 Trillion	91	25.9%
	No Response	3	0.9%

presents the sample information. The majority of the participants were male (85.2%), while female respondents accounted for 13.6%, and 1.1% did not disclose their gender. In terms of position, managers (27.8%) formed the largest group, followed by assistant managers and below (21.6%), general managers (19.9%), executives (19.6%), and CEOs (11.1%). Regarding company size, 36.6% of respondents were from small businesses, 31.3% from medium-sized businesses, 22.4% from large businesses, and 9.4% were from sole proprietorships. Revenue distribution varied, with 26.1% of firms generating between KRW 10 billion and 100 billion, followed by 25.9% exceeding KRW 1 trillion, 20.2% reporting less than KRW 10 billion, 15.9% between KRW 100 billion and 500 billion, and 11.1% between KRW 500 billion and 1 trillion. A small proportion of respondents (0.3% for company size and 0.9% for revenue) did not disclose this information.

5. Research Results

This study employed PLS-SEM to examine the relationships among the constructs within the research model. PLS-SEM is particularly suitable for predictive research and complex models with latent constructs, as it focuses on maximizing explained variance rather than testing absolute model fit [92]. Unlike CB-SEM, which requires large sample sizes and assumes multivariate normality, PLS-SEM handles non-normal data distributions more effectively and is well suited to smaller and heterogeneous samples [93]. Additionally, PLS-SEM is preferred when dealing with formative constructs, as it allows researchers to model indicators that define rather than reflect a construct, which is critical in sustainability-related studies [94]. Given the exploratory nature of this study and the need to capture interactions among multiple organizational factors, PLS-SEM was deemed the most appropriate analytical approach.

5.1. Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the measurement model were assessed through internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity.

Construct	Sort	Item	Mean	St. Dev.	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR (rho_a)	CR (rho_c)	AVE
International Pressure	11	ITN1	5.676	1.337	0.885	0.877	0.883	0.924	0.803
	11	ITN2	5.665	1.302	0.914
	11	ITN3	5.224	1.283	0.888
Government Pressure	12	GPR1	4.767	1.510	0.901	0.836	0.845	0.902	0.753
	12	GPR2	5.304	1.349	0.833
	12	GPR3	4.778	1.547	0.868
Investor Pressure	13	IPR1	5.190	1.527	0.843	0.830	0.843	0.898	0.745
	13	IPR2	4.426	1.646	0.853
	13	IPR3	4.153	1.710	0.893
Customer Pressure	14	CPR1	4.563	1.652	0.927	0.882	0.890	0.927	0.809
	14	CPR2	5.236	1.402	0.849
	14	CPR3	4.489	1.655	0.921
Environmental Management	21	EVR1	4.750	1.650	0.936	0.896	0.897	0.935	0.829
	21	EVR2	4.574	1.655	0.912
	21	EVR3	5.295	1.364	0.882
Social Responsibility Management	22	SRP1	4.892	1.568	0.924	0.890	0.893	0.932	0.820
	22	SRP2	4.815	1.557	0.912
	22	SRP3	5.330	1.400	0.880
Governance Management	23	GVN1	4.608	1.606	0.889	0.877	0.878	0.924	0.802
	23	GVN2	5.114	1.434	0.901
	23	GVN3	4.847	1.440	0.897
Corporate Image	31	CPI1	5.105	1.320	0.872	0.810	0.822	0.887	0.723
	31	CPI3	5.088	1.424	0.815
	31	CPI5	5.136	1.320	0.864
Hierarchy Culture	41	HCT1	5.369	1.229	0.924	0.744	0.790	0.884	0.793
	41	HCT2	5.241	1.255	0.856
Organizational Performance	51	OPF1	5.048	1.123	0.893	0.893	0.896	0.933	0.823
	51	OPF2	5.068	1.178	0.934
	51	OPF3	5.099	1.245	0.895

shows that all the constructs demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding the 0.7 threshold, ensuring that the scale items reliably measured their respective constructs [95]. Composite reliability (CR) rho_c values ranged from 0.876 to 0.975, indicating strong construct reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.5 for all constructs, confirming convergent validity [96].

Table 3. Correlation matrix and discriminant assessment.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. International Pressure	0.896
2. Government Pressure	0.508	0.868
3. Investor Pressure	0.432	0.496	0.863
4. Customer Pressure	0.473	0.491	0.650	0.900
5. Environmental Management	0.505	0.550	0.653	0.632	0.910
6. Society Responsibility Management	0.349	0.396	0.612	0.545	0.721	0.906
7. Governance Management	0.319	0.370	0.633	0.524	0.656	0.763	0.896
8. Corporate Image	0.331	0.282	0.468	0.429	0.622	0.702	0.708	0.851
9. Hierarchy Culture	0.334	0.356	0.502	0.437	0.589	0.563	0.632	0.606	0.890
10. Organizational Performance	0.316	0.239	0.379	0.336	0.494	0.558	0.649	0.752	0.555	0.907

Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of AVE.

presents the correlation matrix and discriminant validity assessment using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. The square root of each construct’s AVE exceeded its correlations with other constructs, confirming that each construct was distinct from the others [97].

Additionally, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios in

Table 4. HTMT ratio.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. International Pressure
2. Government Pressure	0.591
3. Investor Pressure	0.499	0.583
4. Customer Pressure	0.537	0.565	0.750
5. Environmental Management	0.567	0.632	0.743	0.709
6. Society Responsibility Management	0.389	0.456	0.704	0.612	0.805
7. Governance Management	0.360	0.427	0.737	0.593	0.737	0.863
8. Corporate Image	0.387	0.334	0.558	0.500	0.720	0.810	0.828
9. Hierarchy Culture	0.411	0.456	0.632	0.540	0.713	0.670	0.767	0.756
10. Organizational Performance	0.354	0.277	0.436	0.378	0.551	0.624	0.731	0.883	0.667

are all below the conservative threshold of 0.90, further verifying discriminant validity. These results confirm that the measurement model is robust and that all the constructs are appropriately specified for further structural analysis.

5.2. Structural Model

The structural model was evaluated using a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples to assess path significance. The model explained 60.6% of the variance in organizational performance, indicating a strong predictive power. The results of SEM the analysis are illustrated in

Table 5. Hypotheses testing results.

H	Predictor	Outcome	β	t	p	Result
H1a	International Pressure	Environmental Management	0.147	2.836	0.005	Supported
H1b	International Pressure	Society Responsibility Management	0.028	0.506	0.613	Not Supported
H1c	International Pressure	Governance Management	0.001	0.012	0.990	Not Supported
H2a	Government Pressure	Environmental Management	0.186	3.333	0.001	Supported
H2b	Government Pressure	Society Responsibility Management	0.061	1.070	0.285	Not Supported
H2c	Government Pressure	Governance Management	0.032	0.640	0.522	Not Supported
H3a	Investor Pressure	Environmental Management	0.330	6.096	0.000	Supported
H3b	Investor Pressure	Society Responsibility Management	0.421	5.523	0.000	Supported
H3c	Investor Pressure	Governance Management	0.495	6.933	0.000	Supported
H4a	Customer Pressure	Environmental Management	0.257	4.452	0.000	Supported
H4b	Customer Pressure	Society Responsibility Management	0.228	2.983	0.003	Supported
H4c	Customer Pressure	Governance Management	0.186	2.615	0.009	Supported
H5a	Environmental Management	Corporate Image	0.160	2.991	0.003	Supported
H5b	Environmental Management	Organizational Performance	−0.077	1.239	0.215	Not Supported
H6	Society Responsibility Management	Corporate Image	0.302	4.555	0.000	Supported
H7a	Governance Management	Corporate Image	0.373	6.019	0.000	Supported
H7b	Governance Management	Organizational Performance	0.209	2.989	0.003	Supported
H8	Corporate Image	Organizational Performance	0.583	11.069	0.000	Supported
H9a	Hierarchy Culture	Organizational Performance	0.132	2.562	0.010	Supported
H9b	Hierarchy Culture × Corporate Image	Organizational Performance	0.065	2.330	0.020	Supported

.

6. Discussion

6.1. External Pressure

Our findings show that international pressure significantly influences environmental management but has no substantial impact on social responsibility or governance management. This suggests that international frameworks and agreements are effective primarily in shaping firms’ environmental strategies. Regulatory instruments such as IMO decarbonization targets and global climate agreements may incentivize firms to reduce emissions or adopt eco-friendly logistics practices. However, the absence of significant effects on social and governance dimensions could reflect the voluntary or non-binding nature of many international initiatives in these areas. These results differ from studies that emphasize the broad influence of international norms on corporate sustainability [66], suggesting that their influence may be uneven across ESG dimensions.

Government pressure demonstrated a significant relationship only with environmental management. This indicates that environmental regulations, such as emissions targets and environmental taxation, may be more rigorously enforced or more clearly defined than social or governance mandates. Despite increased government focus on ESG disclosure and labor reforms, these may lack the enforcement mechanisms or specificity needed to impact firm-level social and governance strategies. This partial influence contrasts with research that underscores the role of governments as holistic enablers of ESG compliance [68]. The result implies that, while governmental policies shape environmental outcomes, their broader effectiveness may be constrained by implementation gaps or industry-specific dynamics.

Investor pressure was the most robust predictor of all three ESG domains. The significant influence of investor demands on environmental, social, and governance management highlights the growing power of shareholder activism and financial markets in driving sustainability integration. Institutional investors increasingly use ESG ratings and non-financial disclosures to assess corporate value and risk, incentivizing firms to align with best practices across the ESG spectrum. These findings reinforce the idea that financial stakeholders are not only concerned with profitability but also with ethical and sustainable operations [6]. The strength of these associations confirms previous studies’ findings on investor-driven ESG performance and underscores the role of investor coalitions in pushing for systemic change [9].

Customer pressure also showed a significant positive influence across all three ESG dimensions. This indicates that consumer expectations and preferences for sustainable, ethical, and transparent operations strongly shape corporate practices. In the logistics sector, customers increasingly demand carbon-neutral delivery, fair labor conditions, and transparent sourcing, placing firms under pressure to respond with ESG-aligned actions. This finding supports previous research that identifies consumer demand as a major external driver of sustainability [7,75]. Importantly, this result emphasizes that customers influence not only product-level environmental quality but also broader organizational commitments to social responsibility and governance transparency. Firms attuned to customer values are more likely to enhance their legitimacy and brand loyalty.

6.2. Discussion on ESG Management

Environmental management had a positive and significant influence on corporate image, suggesting that sustainability initiatives bolster brand credibility and stakeholder trust [25]. However, the relationship between environmental management and financial performance was not supported. This echoes the previous literature, indicating that environmental initiatives may involve substantial upfront investments and yield long-term benefits that are not immediately reflected in financial metrics [27]. Firms may view these efforts as strategic differentiators rather than short-term profit drivers.

Social responsibility management showed a strong positive impact on corporate image. Ethical labor practices, community engagement, and stakeholder initiatives appear to resonate with consumers and investors, reinforcing brand identity and legitimacy [31]. However, its direct impact on financial performance was not tested, leaving questions about the monetization of social efforts open. Still, the reputational gains highlight the value of CSR as a relational asset.

Governance management significantly influenced both corporate image and organizational performance. These results reinforce the importance of internal governance structures in securing stakeholder trust and driving operational efficiency [33,34]. Ethical leadership and transparency not only enhance firm reputation but also reduce risks, improve decision-making, and attract investor support. Governance thus emerges as a dual-force mechanism—bolstering both intangible and tangible performance indicators.

Corporate image was the strongest predictor of organizational performance. This suggests that stakeholder perceptions formed through ESG engagement translate into competitive advantages, customer loyalty, and enhanced market positioning [25,30]. In the logistics sector, where reputation directly affects client acquisition and retention, brand perception may serve as a key performance driver.

6.3. Role of Organizational Culture in ESG Impact

Hierarchy culture was found to positively influence organizational performance, confirming the role of formalized structures in enabling consistent operational execution and accountability [11]. This finding supports the view that a strong internal culture reinforces ESG implementation through efficient resource allocation and performance monitoring. Moreover, hierarchy culture was found to moderate the relationship between corporate image and organizational performance. In highly structured organizations, the benefits of a positive image are more effectively internalized, resulting in improved execution and performance outcomes. This interaction suggests that organizational culture not only affects direct outcomes but also enhances the efficacy of external perceptions in delivering internal value [85].

These insights highlight the interconnected nature of ESG strategy, stakeholder influence, and organizational structures. Together, they demonstrate that both external and internal factors must be aligned to fully realize the benefits of sustainability initiatives.

7. Conclusions

7.1. Theoretical Implications

This study offers a theoretical contribution by integrating Stakeholder Theory and the RBV to explain how external pressures and internal organizational structures jointly shape ESG management and its outcomes. It advances our understanding of ESG adoption by demonstrating that not all external pressures exert equal influence on different ESG domains. While prior studies have generally examined external factors such as regulatory or investor pressures in aggregate, this research differentiates among international, governmental, investor, and customer sources of influence, offering a more detailed account of which stakeholders matter for specific ESG dimensions. By showing that investor and customer pressures significantly affect all three ESG pillars, while government and international pressures only affect environmental management, the study clarifies the boundaries of stakeholder influence and underscores the need for scholars to consider disaggregated external drivers in future sustainability research.

Another key theoretical contribution lies in identifying the performance implications of ESG subdimensions and the mechanisms through which they operate. Unlike earlier research, which treats ESG practices as a composite or singular construct, this study provides empirical evidence that environmental and governance management influence corporate image, but only governance contributes to financial performance. This distinction deepens our theoretical understanding of how ESG creates value, showing that stakeholder-oriented perceptions translate into reputational capital, while internal governance systems improve operational and strategic efficiency. Moreover, the strong relationship between corporate image and organizational performance confirms the importance of intangible assets in value creation, which prior work has often underexplored in logistics settings [25,30]. These findings encourage scholars to theorize the differential pathways through which various ESG components contribute to firm outcomes, moving beyond the assumption that ESG uniformly drives performance.

Finally, this study contributes to the literature by highlighting the moderating and direct effects of hierarchy culture on ESG outcomes. While previous studies have focused on structural or cultural variables independently, this research shows how formalized internal environments not only enhance organizational performance directly but also strengthen the translation of corporate image into measurable outcomes. This insight builds on and extends the resource-based assumption that organizational culture is a strategic asset, particularly in high-compliance sectors like logistics [11,85]. It also contributes to Stakeholder Theory by demonstrating that stakeholder perceptions are internalized more effectively in hierarchical systems, which may promote consistency in ESG delivery. Scholars are thus encouraged to explore the boundary conditions of ESG effectiveness, considering how different organizational cultures mediate the implementation of stakeholder-driven strategies. This opens up pathways for future research into cultural contingencies and structural enablers that can maximize the strategic returns of ESG investments in other sectors or national contexts.

7.2. Practical Implications

This study provides practical guidance for logistics companies seeking to embed ESG principles into their operational, strategic, and cultural processes. The findings highlight that external stakeholders—especially investors and customers—play decisive roles in influencing corporate behavior across environmental, social, and governance domains. For logistics companies, this means that ESG strategies should not be uniform but rather tailored to the influence and expectations of key stakeholder groups. For instance, companies can prioritize environmental reporting and emissions transparency to meet investor scrutiny, while enhancing labor practices and supply chain ethics to appeal to socially conscious customers.

Top executives should lead ESG integration by institutionalizing practices that both demonstrate and measure sustainability progress. This can include establishing ESG committees at the board level, incorporating ESG objectives into annual business plans, and launching sustainability dashboards that communicate performance to investors and clients. Specifically, logistics firms may implement carbon tracking technologies, third-party environmental audits, or real-time emissions reports to align with international regulatory expectations and investment screening criteria. Adopting these tools not only meets compliance demands but also builds credibility in financial markets.

For middle managers in operations and compliance, this study emphasizes aligning internal systems with ESG objectives. Because hierarchy culture was found to strengthen ESG outcomes, middle managers should develop structured workflows that reinforce ESG accountability. Practical actions include integrating sustainability KPIs such as reductions in fuel usage, compliance with safety protocols, or the execution of diversity training sessions into performance evaluations. Middle managers can also lead ESG capacity-building programs that equip employees with the skills and mindset necessary for the effective implementation of green logistics practices.

Supply chain- and SCM-related partners must recognize the strategic value of ESG alignment in securing long-term partnerships with logistics firms. Service providers—such as carriers, warehouse operators, and logistics IT vendors—should consider developing ESG-aligned services, like carbon offsetting for shipments or real-time platforms for ESG metrics. Joint initiatives, such as co-developed ethical sourcing assessments or compliance monitoring tools, allow partners to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and become preferred vendors. By incorporating ESG performance into partnership evaluations, logistics firms can reinforce sustainability throughout the value chain and improve the sector-wide integration of ESG norms.

7.3. Limitation and Future Research Directions

This study has certain limitations that offer meaningful directions for future research. First, the analysis focuses solely on logistics companies in South Korea, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings in other national contexts with different regulatory regimes and stakeholder environments. Comparative studies across countries—especially between Asian and Western markets—could illuminate how institutional, cultural, and legal differences shape ESG adoption and performance [18,71,98]. Second, the study is based on cross-sectional data, which restricts the ability to observe dynamic, causal relationships over time. Longitudinal research is needed to capture the evolving nature of sustainability strategies under changing external pressures and internal priorities. Third, although this study incorporates a range of organizational factors, future studies should explore additional external variables such as market competition, technological innovation, and geopolitical risks to enrich the model. Finally, the reliance on the author’s professional network and industry associations introduces the possibility of non-random sampling bias. While the sample was diverse in terms of company size and role distribution, and was collected through multiple channels, the potential for network-based bias remains. Future research should consider probabilistic sampling to further strengthen the external validity of its results.