Next Article in Journal
Analysis and Assessment of the Role of Green Education in Shaping Responsible Attitudes of the Potential of Human Resources
Previous Article in Journal
A Composite Energy Dissipation System Based on Pressure-Dividing Transition Mechanism for High-Head Dams in Constrained Valleys: Physical Model Validation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 7
10.3390/su18073163
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Study on the Priority Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Relative Importance of Key Issues in Sustainable Management in South Korea

by
Youngnam Kim
1,
Eui-chan Jeon
1 and
Sihyoung Lee
2,*
1
Climate and Energy Policy, Department of Climate and Energy, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
2
Carbon Neutral Office, The Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(7), 3163; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073163
Submission received: 2 February 2026 / Revised: 7 March 2026 / Accepted: 16 March 2026 / Published: 24 March 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Corporate management has recently shifted from a traditional shareholder-centric approach to sustainability-oriented strategic management, with ESG factors becoming central to corporate strategy. In this study, we identified strategic implications for enhancing corporate sustainability amid these changes. Specifically, we examined the structural context in which voluntary international standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), interact with the rising importance of environmental issues, diverse stakeholders, and intensified corporate competition, leading to a more in-depth discourse on corporate sustainability management. We analyzed corporate sustainability management reports of 102 companies across five industries in South Korea, applying risk management techniques and calculating relative importance indicators for key issues. The analysis revealed that “Response to the Threat of Climate Change” was the top priority across many industries and was closely linked to other issues such as sustainable resource use, customer safety, and supplier management, depending on industry characteristics. Several issues were identified as highly important despite being infrequently mentioned, suggesting they could become key future concerns. Based on our findings, we recommend that companies develop scenario-based, industry-specific strategies to address the threat of climate change, with a focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. For governments and regulators, these findings are expected to have significant implications for enhancing corporate capacity to respond to Net Zero goals and improve climate change resilience across industries.

1. Introduction

The paradigm of corporate management is rapidly shifting toward enhancing sustainability [1,2,3]. Companies that previously focused solely on maximizing shareholder value now face contemporary demands requiring consideration of various factors, including environment, society, and governance (ESG) [4,5]. This shift has been recognized as a core strategy directly linked to creating mid- to long-term corporate profits and has spread to all areas of corporate management based on general consensus in society [6]. In this study, we aimed to explore how companies can effectively enhance sustainability amidst the significant changes in the corporate management environment.
Since the emergence of the corporate social responsibility concept, proposed by Bowen, H.R., there have been in-depth discussions on how to evaluate corporate sustainability worldwide [7,8,9]. These discussions have focused particularly on core topics such as “the importance of environmental issues,” “diversification of stakeholders,” “intensified corporate competition,” and “creation of voluntary international standards.” The need to respond to resource scarcity and global environmental issues has led to greater emphasis on effective water resource management and increasing demands for low-carbon products [10,11,12].
The emergence of various stakeholders—including shareholders, investors, employees, customers, partner companies/suppliers, local communities, governments, media, and NGOs—has resulted in higher expectations for corporate social responsibility [13,14]. This trend enables careful consideration of social, economic, and environmental ripple effects, such as occupational safety and health in workplaces [15,16].
Additionally, in the intensifying global competition system, companies secure competitiveness through group-wide resource management, electronic data management, and the adoption of artificial intelligence, while addressing customer demands for low-carbon products [17,18].
The formation of voluntary global standards related to corporate sustainability management, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), lies at the center of these discussions [19]. Since its creation in 1997 by the U.S. environmental group Ceres and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in response to global environmental issues such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, GRI has played a pivotal role as an international independent standards organization providing guidelines for corporate sustainability reporting [20,21].
Since the announcement of the first global framework, the GRI Guidelines (G1), in 2000, it has steadily developed through G2, G3, G4, and the first global sustainability reporting standard, the GRI Standards, in 2016 [22]. Notably, in 2021, sustainability reporting deepened and became more critical by emphasizing human rights and due diligence through a large-scale revision of the GRI Universal Standards, clarifying the perspective of “impact materiality,” i.e., the impact of companies on society and the environment [23,24].
Currently, GRI operates Universal Standards 2021 (GRI 1, 2, 3), GRI Sector Standards, and GRI Topic Standards (200, 300, and 400 series) [25]. Companies apply corresponding Sector Standards based on Universal Standards, if available, and apply Topic Standards according to recognized materiality issues when publishing their corporate sustainability management reports, and the GRI standard is the most frequently adopted sustainability reporting standard worldwide, with the world’s top companies employing it [19,20,21,22,26,27,28,29,30].
These key topics are interconnected to form global standards such as GRI and imply that the robustness of those topics mutually interacts [31,32]. Thus, recognizing the interrelationships between these topics can be regarded as laying the foundation for responding to the threat of climate change [33,34].
The discussion on the interactions between the key topics that this study focuses on has been continuously developed since the materiality research by Frishkoff (1970) [4]. Previous studies focused solely on one-way materiality assessments, evaluating the financial impact on companies. However, the research scope has expanded to assess impacts on stakeholders, including various members of society beyond companies, in a two-way manner [35]. This trend implies that corporate sustainability management is the outcome of interactions between companies and stakeholders [36].
Previous studies on such interactions focused on the ‘limits of research on the financial impact of companies’ and the ‘complexity of impact assessments targeting stakeholders’ [36,37]. These studies commonly pointed out the limitations of existing materiality assessments targeting single corporate entities, emphasizing the higher importance of responding to the threat of climate change within corporate sustainability management [38]. However, relevant previous studies are limited to single companies and industries, and there is a scarcity of research on the mutual awareness levels of both companies and stakeholders [39,40]. This is assumed to be attributable to the following: (1) high research complexity due to the different characteristics of each industry and (2) a lack of basic data reflecting the climate change awareness levels of companies and stakeholders [39,40].
Current voluntary corporate sustainability management global standards include GRI and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) [29,30]. Among them, GRI plays a crucial role in strengthening corporate transparency and accountability by encouraging companies to disclose their impacts on various stakeholders, focusing on “impact materiality,” i.e., corporate impacts on society and the environment. On the other hand, the S1 and S2 standards established by ISSB focus relatively more on “financial materiality,” which is important to financial decision-makers [41,42,43]. Despite these differences, there have been increased efforts to secure interoperability between ISSB and GRI, laying the complementary foundation for multiple disclosure standards to be utilized [28,44].
However, despite the incorporation of eco-friendly keywords in current disclosure standards, responses to energy-related issues, which are most closely linked to carbon emissions, remain insufficient [1,2,32,45,46]. This limitation inadequately supports companies’ implementation of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction under the Paris Agreement [46,47,48]. This trend suggests that voluntary global corporate sustainability management standards may neglect the core keyword “Response to the Threat of Climate Change” when evaluating two-way interactions between companies and stakeholders [1,2,45,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].
This study aims to improve corporate capabilities for evaluating corporate management status more realistically and in a future-oriented manner by addressing the limitations of existing voluntary global corporate sustainability management standards in responding to the threat of climate change.
To this end, the study analyzes the main issues of corporate sustainability management in South Korean companies across five industries (manufacturing, construction, finance, transportation, and service) using risk management techniques. It seeks to determine how strongly companies perceive climate change as a major issue. The research is based on the following hypotheses:
  • A company’s economic and environmental management strategies will be recognized as major issues from the perspective of stakeholders.
  • The main issues considered by companies and perceived by stakeholders will show common tendencies.
  • These tendencies will be related to the need for a company’s response to the threat of climate change.
  • Evaluation indicators will vary in robustness depending on how much these tendencies and needs are reflected.
This study consists of Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Research Design and Methods), Section 3 (Results), and Section 4 (Conclusions and Implications).

2. Research Design and Methods

2.1. Overview of Research Stages

This study was conducted in five stages as follows: First, in the initial phase (Basic/Preliminary Survey), the status of South Korean sustainability report publications was analyzed. Second, in the phase of Selection of Evaluation Targets, companies were classified by industry. Third, in the Identification of Main Issues phase, the main sustainability issues per industry were analyzed. Fourth, the Relative Importance Analysis phase involved analyzing the impacts and frequencies of main issues by industry. Fifth, and finally, in the Priority Evaluation phase, priorities were assessed based on the integrated results of the importance analysis (Table 1).

2.2. Data Collection and Target Selection

In the first phase (Basic/Preliminary Survey), the publication status of the latest Corporate Sustainability Management reports of 102 South Korean companies was analyzed as of April 2025.
In the second phase (Selection of Evaluation Targets), industry types were identified for 96 of the 102 companies, which subsequently served as the targets for main issue analysis. Industries were classified into construction, finance, transportation, service, electric utilities, and manufacturing. Manufacturing was further reclassified into seven categories based on production goods.

2.3. Identification of Main Issues and Classification Standards

In the third phase (Identification of Main Issues), the main issues considered by stakeholders and companies were analyzed, and the level of interest and relative importance, ranging from Low to High, was specified (Figure 1). Subsequently, issues evaluated as important by both groups were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. To achieve this, the study classified these key issues into 33 standards. When classifying the standards, this study referred to the GRI Standards, the most commonly employed framework worldwide for corporate sustainability management disclosure; this approach ensured consistency with corporate sustainability management reports by industry type.

2.4. Relative Importance Analysis

In the fourth phase (Relative Importance Analysis), the relative importance of main issues per industry was analyzed (Table 2). To this end, both the frequency (frequency level) and intensity group (priority level) of main issues across industry types were analyzed to derive relative importance levels.
R e l e t i v e   I m p o r t a n c e = F r e q u e n c y × I n t e n s i t y
Regarding frequency (frequency level), it was divided into five levels: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low (Table 3). The category of Very High corresponds to a frequency level of 80–100%, applied when most companies or stakeholders are identified as having specific issues as primary concerns. The High category corresponds to 60–80%, applied when a large number identify issues as major concerns. Moderate corresponds to 40–60%, applied when issues are identified as medium-level primary concerns. Low corresponds to 20–40%, applied when a small number identify issues as primary concerns. Very Low corresponds to 0–20%, applied when only a minority identifies particular issues as primary concerns.
As for the intensity group (priority level), it was divided into four levels: Lowest Group, Lower Group, Upper Group, and Top Group (Table 4). Priority levels of main issues per industry and key issues per company were considered. The lowest group corresponds to priority level 1, applied when an issue requiring minimum management is selected. Lower Group corresponds to priority level 2, applied when an issue requiring priority management is selected. Upper Group corresponds to priority level 3, applied when an issue that must be managed is selected. Top Group corresponds to priority level 4, applied when a top-priority issue requiring management is selected.
I n t e n s i t y = ∑ i = 0 I W i × ∑ j = 0 J Y j
W: Priority level, Y: Main Issue on Company unit.
Table 4. Intensity Groups for Relative Importance Evaluation.
Table 4. Intensity Groups for Relative Importance Evaluation.
Intensity GroupPriority LevelDescription
Lowest Group1Selected as an issue that needs to be managed
Lower Group2Selected as an issue that needs to be managed with priority
Upper Group3Selected as an issue that must be managed
Top Group4Selected as a top-priority issue to be managed

2.5. Priority Evaluation

In the fifth phase (Priority Evaluation), the overall priority ranking of each issue was determined by integrating the frequency level and intensity group classifications derived from the preceding phases.

3. Results

3.1. Construction Industry

The construction industry was divided into seven priority groups, with priority scores of 20, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, and 3 points, respectively (Figure 2). Among these, the highest relative importance was assigned to ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ and ‘Occupational Health and Safety.’ The response group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and received the highest priority level of 4 points. This outcome indicates that safety-related issues are considered important within companies due to the unique characteristics of the industry and that stakeholders and companies have a high interest in Green Business.
The next priority score group (12 points) included three items: Green Business, Sustainable Development Strategy, and Anti-Corruption. This group showed slight differences in frequency levels. The frequency category of Moderate was observed for Green Business and Sustainable Development Strategy, while Anti-Corruption fell into the High frequency category. Regarding priority levels, Green Business and Sustainable Development Strategy received four-point priorities, whereas Anti-Corruption received three points. This result implies a direct association with Response to the Threat of Climate Change and Occupational Health and Safety. It can be further subdivided into an association of Green Business and Sustainable Development Strategy with Responses to the Threat of Climate Change, and a link between Anti-Corruption and Occupational Health and Safety.
The priority score group of 9 points included one item: Mutual Growth (Shared Growth). This group recorded medium levels in both frequency and priority.
The priority score group of 8 points included three items: Customer Communication, Product Responsibility, and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. All were recorded as Low in frequency level, but each received the highest priority score of 4 points.
The priority score group of 6 points included two items: Pollution Prevention and Respecting Human Rights. These were recorded as Very Low in frequency, with a priority level of 3 points.
The priority score group of 4 points included two items: Customer Health and Safety, and Employment and Working Conditions. Both were recorded as Very Low in frequency but received the highest priority level. This outcome indicates that while some companies in the construction industry highly recognize the importance of these items, there is no consensus on this awareness across the industry.
Finally, the priority score group of 3 points included three items: Customer Privacy, Training and Education, and Labor/Management Relations. These were recorded as Very Low in frequency, with priority levels of 3 points.

3.2. Finance Industry

The finance industry formed seven priority score groups with scores of 20, 16, 15, 12, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively. Among these, ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ and ‘Customer Privacy’ received the highest scores. The response group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and the highest priority level of 4 points. This outcome implies that issues related to customers are important due to the industry’s characteristics. In particular, consumer information protection was highlighted as a significant issue, as personal information leakage was recognized as a risk. Additionally, ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ received the highest score due to emissions trading systems and increased environmental financial products.
The priority score group of 16 points included two items: Anti-Corruption and Customer Communication. Both were recorded as High in frequency, with priority levels of 4 points.
The priority score group of 15 points included one item: Sustainable Development Strategy. This item was recorded as Very High in frequency and had a priority level of 3 points.
The priority score group of 12 points included one item: Risk Management. This item was recorded as Moderate in frequency, with a priority level of 4 points.
The finance industry showed a distribution of priority scores at both ends. Following the 12-point priority group, a four-point priority score group included three items: Stakeholder Engagement, Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), and Community Investment. This implies that several companies in finance highly recognize the importance of these items, but there is no consensus across the industry.
The priority score group of 3 points included six items: Economic Performance, Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Biodiversity, Local Communities, Training and Education, and Governance.
The priority score group of 2 points included one item: Environmental Management.

3.3. Service Industry

The service industry was divided into nine priority groups, with scores of 20, 15, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively. Among these, the highest relative importance was assigned to ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change.’ This group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and the highest priority level of 4 points. This indicates a strong interest in climate change response both inside and outside companies. The fact that this item scored highest on its own means it is a primary driver in shaping the entire service industry’s business direction.
The next priority group, scoring 15 points, included two items: Anti-Corruption and Sustainable Development Strategy. Both scored Very High in frequency, with priority levels of 3 points. This indicates these items were selected as strategies to address the threat of climate change.
The 12-point priority score group included Mutual Growth (Shared Growth) and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. These scored Moderate and High in frequency, respectively, with priority levels of 4 and 3 points.
The 9-point priority score group included Occupational Health and Safety, recorded as Moderate in frequency, with a priority level of 3 points.
The 8-point priority score group included Employment and Working Conditions, recorded as Low in frequency with a priority level of 4 points.
The 6-point priority score group included six items: Green Business, Risk Management, Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Pollution Prevention, Local Communities, and Customer Communication. All scored Low in frequency with priority levels of 3 points.
The 4-point priority score group included four items: Sustainable Marketing, Product Responsibility, Customer Health and Safety, and Biodiversity. These were recorded as Very Low in frequency, with priority levels of 4 points. This indicates that several companies in the service industry highly recognize the importance of these items, but there is no consensus across the sector.
The 3-point priority score group included seven items: Community Investment, Customer Privacy, Training and Education, Governance, Respecting Human Rights, Environmental Management, and Stakeholder Engagement. All were recorded as Very Low in frequency, with priority levels of 3 points.
The 2-point priority score group included one item: Labor/Management Relations. This was recorded as Very Low in frequency, with a priority level of 2 points.

3.4. Transportation Industry

The transportation industry formed four priority score groups, with scores of 20, 16, 8, and 6 points, respectively. Among these, ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ and ‘Occupational Health and Safety’ scored highest. The response group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and the highest priority level of 4 points. This result reflects the integration of low-carbon transition awareness into conventional operations with high carbon intensity. Additionally, the importance of employee and workforce management was recognized, considering the characteristics of industry types such as aviation and shipping.
The next priority group scored 16 points and included Customer Communication, which scored High in frequency and 4 points in priority level.
The 8-point priority score group included three items: Anti-Corruption, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, and Community Investment. All scored Low in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 6-point priority score group included Customer Privacy, Stakeholder Engagement, and Diversity and Equal Opportunity, all scoring Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.

3.5. Manufacturing (Chemical)

Manufacturing (Chemical) formed nine priority score groups, with scores of 20, 16, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively. Among these, ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ and ‘Sustainable Use of Natural Resources’ received the highest scores. The response group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and the highest priority level of 4 points. This implies that Sustainable Use of Natural Resources is considered a crucial issue within companies due to the nature of the industry. It also suggests that these companies pursue sustainability, including resource use, to respond to the threat of climate change.
The next priority group scored 16 points and included Pollution Prevention and Occupational Health and Safety. Both scored High in frequency and 4 points in priority. This indicates that Pollution Prevention is of high interest to both stakeholders and companies due to the industry’s nature and that stakeholders recognize Occupational Health and Safety as important.
The 12-point priority group included Sustainable Development Strategy and Anti-Corruption, scoring Moderate and High in frequency and 4 and 3 points in priority, respectively.
The 9-point priority group included Biodiversity and Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), both scoring Moderate in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 8-point priority group included Risk Management, Green Business, and Product Responsibility, all recorded as Low in frequency, with priority levels of 4 points.
The 6-point priority group included Employment and Working Conditions and Respecting Human Rights, both scoring Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 4-point priority group included Environmental Management, recorded as Very Low in frequency, with a priority level of 4 points. This indicates that while several manufacturing (chemical) companies highly recognize its importance, there is no consensus across the industry.
The 3-point priority group encompassed Governance, Diversity and Equal Opportunity, Stakeholder Engagement, Local Communities, Anti-Competitive Behavior, Labor/Management Relations, Customer Health and Safety, Reputation, and Customer Privacy. These scored Very Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 2-point priority group included Customer Privacy, recorded as Very Low in frequency and 2 points in priority.

3.6. Manufacturing (Machinery)

Manufacturing (Machinery) formed eight priority score groups, with scores of 20, 16, 12, 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively. Among these, ‘Response to the Threat of Climate Change’ received the highest score. The response group recorded the highest frequency level, ‘Very High,’ and the highest priority level of 4 points. This reflects processes with low carbon intensity characteristic of the industry.
The 16-point priority group included Occupational Health and Safety and Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), both scoring High in frequency and 4 points in priority. This suggests that Mutual Growth (Shared Growth) is regarded as relatively important due to the industry’s numerous domestic partners and suppliers and that Occupational Health and Safety is also recognized as important.
The 12-point priority group included Anti-Corruption, scoring High in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 8-point priority group included Product Responsibility, Employment and Working Conditions, Green Business, Sustainable Development Strategy, and Labor/Management Relations. All scored Low in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 6-point priority group included Pollution Prevention, Governance, and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, all scoring Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 4-point priority group included Biodiversity, Customer Health and Safety, and Customer Communication, all recorded as Very Low in frequency with priority levels of 4 points. This indicates that several companies in manufacturing (machinery) recognize the importance of these items, but there is no consensus across the industry.
The 3-point priority group included Respecting Human Rights, Training and Education, and Customer Privacy, all scoring Very Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 2-point priority group included Community Investment, recorded as Very Low in frequency and 2 points in priority.

3.7. Electric Utilities

Electric Utilities formed nine priority score groups, with scores of 20, 15, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, and 2 points, respectively. The highest-scoring group (20 points) included two items: Response to the Threat of Climate Change and Occupational Health and Safety. Both items scored Very High in frequency level and 4 points in priority level. The Response to the Threat of Climate Change was analyzed as reflecting the characteristics of Electric Utilities as an energy-intensive industry.
The 15-point group included Sustainable Development Strategy and Anti-Corruption, both scoring Very High in frequency and 3 points in priority. These items were analyzed as highly associated with the previous 20-point group, where Response to the Threat of Climate Change was specified as Sustainable Development Strategy, and Occupational Health and Safety was linked to Anti-Corruption.
The 12-point group included Green Business, Risk Management, and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, all scoring High in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 9-point group included Employment and Working Conditions and Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), both recorded as Moderate in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 8-point group included Stakeholder Engagement, scoring Low in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 6-point group included Economic Performance, Customer Privacy, Pollution Prevention, and Labor/Management Relations, all scoring Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 4-point group included Local Communities, scoring Very Low in frequency and 4 points in priority. This suggests that several companies within Electric Utilities recognize the importance of this item, but there is no consensus across the industry.
The 3-point group included Reputation, Governance, and Training and Education, all scoring Very Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 2-point group included Respecting Human Rights, scoring Very Low in frequency and 2 points in priority.

3.8. Manufacturing (Electrical and Electronics)

Manufacturing (Electrical and Electronics) formed eight priority score groups, with scores of 20, 15, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, and 3 points, respectively. The highest-scoring group (20 points) included Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Occupational Health and Safety, and Sustainable Development Strategy. All scored Very High in frequency and 4 points in priority. This reflects stakeholders’ increased interest in climate response, particularly as lower energy consumption in products becomes more important. The high score for Sustainable Development Strategy reflects suppliers’ awareness of CSR management, especially due to the large number of overseas suppliers in the industry.
The 15-point group included Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, scoring Very High in frequency and 3 points in priority. This item was highly associated with the previous 20-point group, where Response to the Threat of Climate Change and Sustainable Development Strategy can be seen as subdivided into Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.
The 12-point group included Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), scoring High in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 9-point group included Anti-Corruption, Employment and Working Conditions, and Respecting Human Rights, all scoring Moderate in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 8-point group included Pollution Prevention, scoring Low in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 6-point group included Risk Management, Product Responsibility, Green Business, Governance, Diversity and Equal Opportunity, and Customer Privacy, all scoring Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 4-point group included Biodiversity and Customer Communication, both scoring Very Low in frequency and 4 points in priority. This suggests that several companies recognize these items’ importance, but there is no consensus across the industry.
The 3-point group included Stakeholder Engagement, scoring Very Low in frequency and 3 points in priority.

3.9. Manufacturing (Food and Beverage)

Manufacturing (Food and Beverage) formed one priority score group, with a score of 20 points. This group included Customer Health and Safety, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, and Sustainable Development Strategy. All scored Very High in frequency and 4 points in priority. This reflects the importance of product safety, customer relationship management, packaging management, contribution to the circular economy, and sustainable agricultural and fishery value chains characteristic of the industry.

3.10. Manufacturing (Minerals)

Manufacturing (Minerals) formed three priority score groups, with scores of 20, 15, and 12 points, respectively. The 20-point group included Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Pollution Prevention, and Occupational Health and Safety, all scoring Very High in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 15-point group included Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, scoring Very High in frequency and 3 points in priority.
The 12-point group included Mutual Growth (Shared Growth) and Anti-Corruption, scoring Moderate in frequency and 4 points in priority.

3.11. Manufacturing (Metal)

Manufacturing (Metal) formed two priority score groups, with scores of 20 and 12 points. The 20-point group included Response to the Threat of Climate Change and Anti-Corruption, both scoring Very High in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 12-point group included Occupational Health and Safety, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), Pollution Prevention, Green Business, and Employment and Working Conditions, all scoring Moderate in frequency and 4 points in priority.

3.12. Manufacturing (Wood and Paper)

Manufacturing (Wood and Paper) formed two priority score groups, with scores of 20 and 15 points. The 20-point group included Sustainable Development Strategy, Product Responsibility, Customer Health and Safety, and Reputation, all scoring Very High in frequency and 4 points in priority.
The 15-point group included Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, Anti-Corruption, and Employment and Working Conditions, all scoring Very High in frequency and 3 points in priority.
This industry was noted to have a relatively low priority score for Response to the Threat of Climate Change due to the challenges of low-carbon transition, such as the conversion of raw materials in the wood and paper industry.

4. Conclusions and Implications

This study utilized risk management techniques to analyze the relative importance of various key issues related to the economy, society, and environment of South Korean companies by industry type, considering perspectives from both stakeholders and companies. Through this approach, key issues for corporate sustainability management in South Korean companies per industry type were identified (Table 5).
Initially, the study analyzed the latest disclosure data, aiming to identify significant issues that should be continuously managed and communicated with stakeholders by industry type. It appears that the standards for classifying key issues should be regularly updated to reflect changes in market presence.
The analysis revealed that South Korean companies perceive “Response to the Threat of Climate Change” as the most crucial issue among corporate sustainability management concerns. Each industry type reflected key issues aligned with its characteristics. Notably, the service and manufacturing (Machinery) industries assigned the highest priority to Response to the Threat of Climate Change, indicating their role as a key determinant of business direction in these sectors.
More specifically, external stakeholder-oriented industries such as the service sector were found to strongly associate Response to the Threat of Climate Change with Reputation. This tendency relates to items scoring the next highest relative importance—15 points for Anti-Corruption and Sustainable Development Strategy and 12 points for Mutual Growth (Shared Growth) and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. These items appear to enhance the reputation of external stakeholders, linked to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) including SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), 15 (Life on Land), 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). In particular, this analysis highlights that SDG 17 should be more actively implemented, as it may serve as the strongest global incentive to improve reputation.
The manufacturing (Machinery) industry highly valued the connection between Response to the Threat of Climate Change and low-carbon processes. This reflects the significant intersection between manufacturing activities and climate response in low-carbon operations. The study confirmed that six of the 11 items in the highest priority level group (4 points) were directly associated with low-carbon processes.
Additionally, the study found instances where priority and frequency levels were inconsistent, exhibiting polarized values. These cases involved items with Very Low frequency levels but a priority level of 4 points, yielding a priority score of 4 points. These items varied by industry, indicating that while some companies within an industry perceive these issues as highly important, there is no consensus on this awareness across the entire industry.
Detailed results for seven industry types with such inconsistencies are as follows:
  • Construction Industry–Customer Health and Safety, Employment and Working Conditions
  • Finance Industry–Stakeholder Engagement, Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), and Community Investment
  • Service Industry–Sustainable Marketing, Product Responsibility, Customer Health and Safety, and Biodiversity
  • Manufacturing (Chemical)–Environmental Management
  • Manufacturing (Machinery)–Biodiversity, Customer Health and Safety, and Customer Communication
  • Electric Utilities–Local Communities
  • Manufacturing (Electrical and Electronics)–Biodiversity and Customer Communication
This study found that “Response to the Threat of Climate Change” was recognized as the highest-priority material factor across all industry sectors, which implies the critical need for actual and practical corporate responses. This finding directly addresses the limitation of existing voluntary global corporate sustainability management standards, which have largely overlooked this keyword in evaluating two-way interactions between companies and stakeholders. Accordingly, this study suggests that future corporate sustainability management frameworks should position climate change responsiveness as a core evaluation criterion, thereby enabling a more realistic and future-oriented assessment of corporate management status and enhancing corporate capabilities to proactively address climate-related threats at a global level.
These findings are notable because these issues are likely to emerge as key concerns in the medium to long term. This suggests that climate change impacts will intensify over time, increasingly affecting employees and stakeholders, and that associations with Response to the Threat of Climate Change will strengthen.
Based on the analysis, the study identifies the following implications:
First, since Response to the Threat of Climate Change was identified as a top priority issue across most industries, it should be regarded as a management risk and opportunity aligned with policy and regulatory changes and investor demands.
Industry-specific strategies for responding to climate threats should be developed. Specifically, manufacturing sectors (Chemical, Machinery, Energy, and Electrical and Electronics), the service industry, construction, and finance should proactively establish evaluation indicators for items with a priority level of four points that show mismatches with frequency levels.
The manufacturing sectors (Chemical, Machinery, Electrical, and Electronics) should prioritize low-carbon processes that incorporate biodiversity and environmental management and engage stakeholders such as consumers by communicating their performance in these areas.
The Electric Utilities sector should focus on addressing resident acceptance and technology stability challenges when implementing power generation projects, including renewable energy and nuclear power.
The service industry should strengthen decarbonization strategies within supply chains and internal operations to facilitate low-carbon transitions in value chains and enhance its global reputation.
The construction industry must prepare for the medium- to long-term impacts of Employment and Working Conditions, and Customer Health and Safety. These issues are directly linked to product processes and liability and will increasingly affect risk management as climate change and extreme weather events escalate. Risk management metrics for construction should reflect these medium- to long-term concerns.
The finance industry encompasses a broader range of stakeholders than other sectors, focusing on Stakeholder Engagement, Mutual Growth (Shared Growth), and Community Investment. Sustainable mutual growth with direct and indirect stakeholders, such as local communities, is central, suggesting that bottom-up risk management metrics design would be effective.
This study implies that companies in high-emission industries will enhance their GHG reduction capabilities in the short term. Over the medium to long term, this will increase the resilience of industries and industrial ecosystems against climate change impacts and extreme weather.
Overall, the study concludes that South Korean industries recognize Response to the Threat of Climate Change as a top priority risk and key management issue. However, companies face a complex future environment marked by uncertainty in technology advancement, global policies, and market volatility. Instead of adhering to a single optimal strategy, it is essential to develop scenarios exploring various futures and to prepare robust yet flexible response strategies for each industry. This approach will clarify the intersection of industry characteristics and climate response, contributing to tailored strategies. For instance, the service industry could focus on reputation and value chain decarbonization, while manufacturing (Machinery) prioritizes low-carbon processes.
In particular, this study addresses the highly timely and significant topic of sustainable management in the context of the growing importance of ESG factors and the pressing need for corporate responses to climate change-related threats. It presents a comprehensive analysis of 102 major Korean companies across five industrial sectors that have disclosed sustainability management reports, providing robust empirical evidence for their conclusions. The breadth of the study and its cross-sectoral analysis make a meaningful contribution to the corporate sustainability management literature. Through its methodology, this study enables readers to understand the overall research context and apply it in practice, encompassing key issue identification, frequency analysis, and the determination of relative importance by combining frequency and priority. This approach ensures practical value and can be utilized by practitioners to compare and evaluate ESG priorities across industries.
Notably, the “items with mismatches in priority and frequency levels” identified here represent factors currently recognized as important by only a few companies within an industry but that have the potential to become key issues over time. Using these factors as uncertainty and early risk indicators in scenario planning can facilitate proactive risk management and enhance resilience.
In this regard, the findings of this study clearly demonstrate that “Response to the Threat of Climate Change” is a core issue across all sectors, confirming the central role of climate in the current ESG discourse. At the same time, this study aptly illustrates how the ways in which this issue intersects with other domains—such as industrial safety, natural resource use, reputation, and stakeholder engagement—vary across industries. This sector-specific analysis adds value to the paper and offers meaningful implications for academics, practitioners, and public policymakers.

Limitations and Future Research

The methodology of this study is based on the analysis of corporate reports, which necessarily relies on declarative data self-disclosed by the companies. This approach inherently carries potential limitations, most notably the risk of selective disclosure, whereby firms may choose to publicize only information favorable to their interests. Future research should endeavor to mitigate these constraints and improve data transparency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.K. and E.-c.J.; methodology, Y.K.; software, Y.K.; validation, Y.K.; formal analysis, Y.K. and E.-c.J.; investigation, Y.K.; data curation, Y.K. and S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.K.; writing—review and editing, S.L. and E.-c.J.; visualization, Y.K.; supervision, E.-c.J. and S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, E.-c.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was conducted as a component of the Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Environment (MCEE)-funded Graduate School Specialized in Climate Change.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting. 2025. Available online: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate-sustainability-reporting_en (accessed on 31 January 2026).
  2. European Commission. The Commission Adopts the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. 2023. Available online: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-adopts-european-sustainability-reporting-standards-2023-07-31_en (accessed on 31 January 2026).
  3. Khaw, T.Y.; Amran, A.; Teoh, A.P. Factors influencing ESG performance: A bibliometric analysis, systematic literature review, and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 448, 141430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Frishkoff, P. An empirical investigation of the concept of materiality in accounting. J. Account. Res. 1970, 8, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Voegtlin, C.; Pless, N.M. Global governance: CSR and the role of the UN Global Compact. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 122, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martiny, A.; Taglialatela, J.; Testa, F.; Iraldo, F. Determinants of environmental social and governance (ESG) performance: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 456, 142213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bowen, H.R. Business Management: A Profession? Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 1955, 297, 112–117. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman; University of Iowa Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Windsor, D. The future of corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2001, 9, 225–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hu, Q.; Gu, Y. Copper economic dynamics: Navigating resource scarcity, price volatility, and green growth. Resour. Policy 2024, 89, 104462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mian, H.R.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Responsible financing and investment: Identification, development, and assessment of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics. Sustain. Futures 2024, 8, 100246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Molnár, P.; Suta, A.; Lukács, B.; Tóth, Á. Linking sustainability reporting and energy use through global reporting initiative standards and sustainable development goals. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2024, 27, 8659–8667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bonetti, L.; Lai, A.; Stacchezzini, R. Stakeholder engagement in the public utility sector: Evidence from Italian ESG reports. Util. Policy 2023, 84, 101649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dathe, T.; Helmold, M.; Dathe, R.; Dathe, I. ESG stakeholders. In Implementing Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Principles for Sustainable Businesses: A Practical Guide in Sustainability Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 113–131. [Google Scholar]
  15. Daugaard, D.; Jia, J.; Li, Z. Implementing corporate sustainability information in socially responsible investing: A systematic review of empirical research. J. Account. Lit. 2024, 46, 238–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Szewczuk, S.; Więcek-Janka, E. Exploring sustainable investment: In-depth analysis of socially responsible investing (SRI) and ESG strategies. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. H–Oecon. 2024, 58, 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, X.; Du, W.; Olasehinde, T.; Fan, Y. Balancing competition and sustainability: Strategic supply chain configurations in response to consumer low-carbon preferences. Sustain. Futures 2025, 9, 100411. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yammanur, V. Integrated enterprise systems: Leveraging ERP, EDI, and AI for enhanced US business competitiveness. Int. J. Comput. Eng. Technol. 2025, 16, 454–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sra, J.; Deo, B. GRI Standards for Environmental Sustainability–A Brief Review. In Proceedings of the IISE Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, 18–21 May 2024. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brown, H.S.; De Jong, M.; Levy, D.L. Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 571–580. [Google Scholar]
  21. Perera-Aldama, L. GRI and materiality: Discussions and challenges. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2023, 14, 884–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nial, N.; Parashar, P. A comparative study on sustainability standards with specific reference to GRI standards and BRSR framework. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2024, 41, 1752–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mezzanotte, F.E. Examining the reasons for impact materiality in EU corporate sustainability reporting. Eur. Bus. Law Rev. 2024, 35, 925–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tronci, L. “ESG” Targets in the Corporate Governance of Banks: KPI and Double Materiality (Impact and Financial Materiality). Eur. Co. Financ. Law Rev. 2024, 21, 738–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Global Reporting Initiative. GRI Standards; (GRI—Standards—Global Reporting Initiative). Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards (accessed on 31 January 2026).
  26. Adams, C.A.; Alhamood, A.M.; He, X. The development and implementation of GRI standards: Practice and policy issues. In Handbook of Accounting and Sustainability; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 26–43. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bednárová, M. ESG reporting and communication. In Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investment and Reporting; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 175–202. [Google Scholar]
  28. Goswami, K.; Islam, M.K.S.; Evers, W. A case study on the blended reporting phenomenon: A comparative analysis of voluntary reporting frameworks and standards—GRI, IR, SASB, and CDP. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract. 2023, 19, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Macias, H.A.; Ficco, C.R. ¿ Inició la era de reportes de sostenibilidad obligatorios? Transición desde lineamientos GRI hacia estándares de ISSB. Rev. Act. 2022, 20, 4–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pizzi, S.; Principale, S.; De Nuccio, E. Material sustainability information and reporting standards. Exploring the differences between GRI and SASB. Meditari Account. Res. 2023, 31, 1654–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Javan, K.; Altaee, A.; BaniHashemi, S.; Darestani, M.; Zhou, J.; Pignatta, G. A review of interconnected challenges in the water–energy–food nexus: Urban pollution perspective towards sustainable development. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, J.; Azam, W. Natural resource scarcity, fossil fuel energy consumption, and total greenhouse gas emissions in top emitting countries. Geosci. Front. 2024, 15, 101757. [Google Scholar]
  33. Panfilo, S.; Scarpa, F.; Canestraro, N. Reporting for change: Does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management? Manag. Decis. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vito, D.; Leto, L.; Bernini, F.; D’Onza, G. Double materiality in corporate sustainability: Insights from Italian companies. In Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) Risk, Performance, Monitoring; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2025; pp. 387–409. [Google Scholar]
  35. van Dijk, L.; Hijink, S.; in’t Veld, L. Corporate sustainability reporting. In Sustainable Finance in Europe: Corporate Governance, Financial Stability and Financial Markets; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 185–210. [Google Scholar]
  36. Huq, A.M.; Mohammadrezaei, M. A review of ex ante and ex post materiality measures, and consequences and determinants of material disclosures in sustainability reporting. J. Account. Lit. 2025, 47, 71–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Whitehead, J. Prioritizing sustainability indicators: Using materiality analysis to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 399–412. [Google Scholar]
  38. Belidan, M.A.; Baghad, H. Navigating materiality in sustainability reporting: A scoping review of single and double materiality approaches. Zesz. Teor. Rachun. 2024, 48, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hehenberger, L.; Andreoli, C. Impact measurement and the conflicted nature of materiality decisions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2024, 68, 101436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Witjes, S.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Cramer, J.M. Assessing Corporate Sustainability integration for corporate self-reflection. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 132–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Elliot, V.; Jonäll, K.; Paananen, M.; Bebbington, J.; Michelon, G. Biodiversity reporting: Standardization, materiality, and assurance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2024, 68, 101435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. IFRS S1; General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-Related Financial Information. IFRS Foundation: London, UK, 2023.
  43. IFRS S2; Climate-Related Disclosures. IFRS Foundation: London, UK, 2023.
  44. Carungu, J.; Dimes, R.; Molinari, M. EFRAG and ISSB: Tensions and opportunities for convergence in the quest for the standardisation of sustainability reporting standards. Manag. Decis. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, P.C.; Mirza, N.; Umar, M.; Horobet, A. Impact of environmental double materiality on firm valuation: Evidence from the EU. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2025, 103, 104461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Qian, Y.; Liu, Y. Improve carbon emission efficiency: What role does the ESG initiatives play? J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 367, 122016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Celoza, A.; Owens, V. Perspectives on ESG materiality in the engineering and construction industry: An exploratory study. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2025, 17, 05025001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lu, J.; Li, H. The impact of ESG ratings on low carbon investment: Evidence from renewable energy companies. Renew. Energy 2024, 223, 119984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alqadi, M.; Zaharieva, S.; Commichau, A.; Disse, M.; Koellner, T.; Chiogna, G. Developing and implementing a decision support system-integrated framework for evaluating solar park effects on water-related ecosystem services. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3121. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bogdan, V.; Rus, L.; Matica, D.E. The Interconnection of Double Materiality Assessment, Circularity Practices Disclosure and Business Development in the Fast Fashion Industry. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bux, C.; Geatti, P.; Sebastiani, S.; Del Chicca, A.; Giungato, P.; Tarabella, A.; Tricase, C. Toward an Experimental Common Framework for Measuring Double Materiality in Companies. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chopra, S.S.; Senadheera, S.S.; Dissanayake, P.D.; Withana, P.A.; Chib, R.; Rhee, J.H.; Ok, Y.S. Navigating the challenges of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting: The path to broader sustainable development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Cristofaro, T.; Gulluscio, C. In search of double materiality in non-financial reports: First empirical evidence. Sustainability 2023, 15, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Delgado-Ceballos, J.; Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N.; Antolín-López, R.; Montiel, I. Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2023, 26, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
  56. Dunfjäll, M. Materiality in transition: Challenges and opportunities in corporate sustainability reporting under the CSRD. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2025, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dyczkowska, J.; Szalacha, P. Double materiality concept in practice: Impact in a construction company. Manag. Decis. 2025; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; Ferrero-Ferrero, I.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M.; Muñoz-Torres, M.J. Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate sustainability principles. Sustainability 2019, 11, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  60. Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 173–178. [Google Scholar]
  61. Gourdel, R.; Monasterolo, I.; Dunz, N.; Mazzocchetti, A.; Parisi, L. The double materiality of climate physical and transition risks in the euro area. J. Financ. Stab. 2024, 71, 101233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, J.; Kang, J.; Hyun, S. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and idiosyncratic volatility: The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on ESG-sensitive industries. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 2024, 33, 730–745. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lee, H. Does ESG performance drive firm-level innovation? Evidence from South Korea. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lee, H.; Kim, J.H.; Jung, H.S. ESG-KIBERT: A new paradigm in ESG evaluation using NLP and industry-specific customization. Decis. Support Syst. 2025, 193, 114440. [Google Scholar]
  65. Matakanye, R.M.; Van Der Poll, H.M.; Muchara, B. Do companies in different industries respond differently to stakeholders’ pressures when prioritising environmental, social and governance sustainability performance? Sustainability 2021, 13, 12022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Morganho, C.; Milánes-Montero, P.; Pérez-Calderón, E. The Determinants of Materiality Assessment Disclosures in the Sustainability Statements of Iberian-Listed Companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 3659–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nielsen, C. ESG reporting and metrics: From double materiality to key performance indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nugroho, D.P.; Hsu, Y.; Hartauer, C.; Hartauer, A. Investigating the interconnection between environmental, social, and governance (ESG), and corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies: An examination of the influence on consumer behavior. Sustainability 2024, 16, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Primec, A.; Belak, J. Sustainable CSR: Legal and managerial demands of the new EU legislation (CSRD) for the future corporate governance practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ssekyanzi, G.; Ahmad, M.J.; Choi, K.-S. Sustainable solutions for mitigating water scarcity in developing countries: A comprehensive review of innovative rainwater storage systems. Water 2024, 16, 2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, S.R.; Shao, C.; Chen, J. Approaches on the screening methods for materiality in sustainability reporting. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yoon, C.; Kwak, H.; Jung, S. A Study on ESG Evaluation Indicators Through Chemical Accident Data Analysis and Double Materiality Assessment. Processes 2025, 13, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 03163 g001
Figure 1. Main issues considered by stakeholders and companies.
Figure 1. Main issues considered by stakeholders and companies.
Sustainability 18 03163 g001
Sustainability 18 03163 g002
Figure 2. Relative Importance by Industry.
Figure 2. Relative Importance by Industry.
Sustainability 18 03163 g002
Table 1. Methodological process.
Table 1. Methodological process.
StepTitleDescription
1Preliminary
survey		Survey of the publication status of sustainability reports in Korea
2Sample
selection		Selection of the study sample and industry classification
3Identification
of key issues		Industry-level analysis to identify key sustainability issues
4Relative importance analysisAnalysis of the influence and frequency of key issues by industry
5Priority evaluationPrioritization based on the integrated results of the importance analysis
Table 2. Relative Importance Evaluation.
Table 2. Relative Importance Evaluation.
Relative ImportanceRankLowest GroupLower GroupUpper GroupTop Group
Very Low11234
Low22468
Moderate336912
High4481216
Very High55101520
Table 3. Frequency Categories for Relative Importance Evaluation.
Table 3. Frequency Categories for Relative Importance Evaluation.
Frequency CategoryFrequency LevelDescription
Very High80–100%The majority of companies (or stakeholders) selected as key issues
High60–80%Many companies (or stakeholders) selected key issues
Moderate40–60%Generally selected as key issues
Low20–40%Few companies (or stakeholders) selected as key issues
Very Low0–20%Only some companies (or stakeholders) selected as key issues
Table 5. Summary of the key differences and similarities across 12 sectors.
Table 5. Summary of the key differences and similarities across 12 sectors.
Industry SectorPriority 1ScorePriority 2ScorePriority 3Score
ConstructionEmployee Health and Safety20Climate Change Response20Ethical Management12
FinanceConsumer Info Protection20Climate Change Response20Consumer Communication16
TransportationEmployee Health and Safety20Climate Change Response20Consumer Communication16
ServicesClimate Change Response20Sustainable Management Strategy15Ethical Management15
Electric UtilitiesEmployee Health and Safety20Climate Change Response20Ethical Management15
Manufacturing (Minerals)Climate Change Response20Employee Health and Safety20Pollution Prevention20
Manufacturing (Metals)Ethical Management20Climate Change Response20Working Condition Improvement12
Manufacturing (Machinery)Climate Change Response20Employee Health and Safety16Shared Growth16
Manufacturing (Wood/Paper)Product Responsibility20Consumer Health and Safety20Reputation20
Manufacturing (Electronics)Sustainable Management Strategy20Employee Health and Safety20Climate Change Response20
Manufacturing (Chemicals)Sustainable Resource Use20Climate Change Response20Pollution Prevention16
Manufacturing (Food & Beverage)Sustainable Resource Use20Sustainable Management Strategy20Consumer Health and Safety20
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, Y.; Jeon, E.-c.; Lee, S. A Study on the Priority Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Relative Importance of Key Issues in Sustainable Management in South Korea. Sustainability 2026, 18, 3163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073163

AMA Style

Kim Y, Jeon E-c, Lee S. A Study on the Priority Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Relative Importance of Key Issues in Sustainable Management in South Korea. Sustainability. 2026; 18(7):3163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Youngnam, Eui-chan Jeon, and Sihyoung Lee. 2026. "A Study on the Priority Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Relative Importance of Key Issues in Sustainable Management in South Korea" Sustainability 18, no. 7: 3163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073163

APA Style

Kim, Y., Jeon, E.-c., & Lee, S. (2026). A Study on the Priority Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Relative Importance of Key Issues in Sustainable Management in South Korea. Sustainability, 18(7), 3163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop