Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations are garnering increasing interest from various stakeholders. Nevertheless, the impact of ESG evaluation policies—whether voluntary or mandatory—are complex, particularly in competitive markets. Consequently, this study develops a game-theoretic model to investigate the propensity of competing manufacturers to invest in ESG initiatives. This study demonstrates that ESG evaluations reduce information asymmetry regarding ESG levels in competitive dynamics. However, this phenomenon may lower manufacturers’ incentives to invest in ESG. Interestingly, this study finds that although mandatory ESG evaluations boost the overall profitability of competing manufacturers, they do not invariably lead to enhanced ESG outcomes.
AryaA.MittendorfB. (2015). Supply chain consequences of subsidies for corporate social responsibility. Production and Operations Management, 24(8), 1346–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12326
BaronD. P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 10(1), 7–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/105864001300122548
5.
BhaskaranS. R.RamachandranK. (2011). Managing technology selection and development risk in competitive environments. Production and Operations Management, 20(4), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01165.x
BrinetteS.SonmezF. D.TournusP. S. (2023). ESG controversies and firm value: Moderating role of board gender diversity and board Independence. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 4298–4307. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3236667
CaiJ.SunH.ShangJ.HegdeG. G. (2023). Information structure selection in a green supply chain: Impacts of wholesale price and greenness level. European Journal of Operational Research, 306(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.11.002
CaoY.LiQ.ShenB.WangY. (2023). Buyer collaboration in managing supplier responsibility with ESG due diligence effort spillover and fairness concerns. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 180, Article 103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103333
ChenQ.DuanY. (2023). Impact of information disclosure on global supply chain greenwashing: Is more information transparency always better?Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 178, Article 103288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103288
15.
ChenavazR. Y.FeichtingerG.HartlR. F.KortP. M. (2020). Modeling the impact of product quality on dynamic pricing and advertising policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(3), 990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.035
16.
ChoS. H.FangX.TayurS.XuY. (2019). Combating child labor: Incentives and information disclosure in global supply chains. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 21(3), 92–711. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2018.0733
17.
ChoiT. M.FengL.LiR. (2020). Information disclosure structure in supply chains with rental service platforms in the blockchain technology era. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, Article 107473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.008
18.
DaiT.TangC. (2022). Frontiers in service science: Integrating ESG measures and supply chain management: Research opportunities in the postpandemic era. Service Science, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2021.0295
19.
DesaiP. S.KrishnamoorthyA.SainamP. (2010). “Call for prices”: Strategic implications of raising consumers’ costs. Marketing Science, 29(1), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0498
20.
EcclesR. G.IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
FangX.ChoS. H. (2020). Cooperative approaches to managing social responsibility in a market with externalities. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 22(6), 1215–1233. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2019.0837
23.
FengP.ZhouX.ZhangD.ChenZ.WangS. (2022). The impact of trade policy on global supply chain network equilibrium: A new perspective of product-market chain competition. Omega, 109, Article 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102612
FreemanN.NarayananA. (2022). The impact of multiple products and limited capacity on routine sourcing decisions. International Journal of Production Research, 60(12), 3728–3750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1931726
26.
GaoR.YaoS.YangR. (2024). Responsible audit and consumer awareness under collusion risk. European Journal of Operational Research, 314(2), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.10.011
27.
GengX.GuoX.XiaoG. (2022). Impact of social interactions on duopoly competition with quality considerations. Management Science, 68(2), 941–959. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.3972
28.
GhaziA. J.KarrayS.AzadN. (2023). Price and quality competition while envisioning a quality-related product recall. European Journal of Operational Research, 311(2), 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.05.013
HaA. Y.ShangW.WangY. (2023). Supplier audit information sharing and responsible sourcing. Management Science, 69(1), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4358
31.
HeJ.ChenW.MaX. (2022). Does supplier instability affect corporate social responsibility? A theoretical and empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 4692–4709. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3218069
32.
HongX.CaoX.GongY.ChenW. (2021). Quality information acquisition and disclosure with green manufacturing in a closed-loop supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 232, Article 107997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107997
33.
HongZ.ChuJ.ZhangL. L.WangN. (2023). Recycling channel selection for a manufacturer involving consumers’ green-return behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 8761–8776. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3300512
34.
HsiaoL.XiongH. (2022). Store brand introduction, retail competition and manufacturers’ coping strategies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 165, Article 102861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102861
35.
HsiehC. C.WuC. Y.LathifahA. (2025). Cross-channel influence of blockchain technology on green supply chains under asymmetric retail platform competition. International Journal of Production Economics, 283, Article 109584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109584
36.
HuangW.ZhouW.ChenJ.ChenX. (2019). The government’s optimal subsidy scheme under manufacturers’ competition of price and product energy efficiency. Omega, 84, 70–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.04.006
37.
HuangX.AtasuA.ToktayL. B. (2019b). Design implications of extended producer responsibility for durable products. Management Science, 65(6), 2573–2590. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3072
38.
JerathK.NetessineS.VeeraraghavanS. K. (2010). Revenue management with strategic customers: Last-minute selling and opaque selling. Management Science, 56(3), 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1125
39.
JiangB.LiuC. (2019). Managerial optimism in a competitive market. Production and Operations Management, 28(4), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12952
40.
JinM.LiB.XiongY.ChakrabortyR.ZhouY. (2023). Implications of coproduction technology on waste management: Who can benefit from the coproduct made of leftover materials?European Journal of Operational Research, 307(3), 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.10.020
41.
KalkanciB.PlambeckE. L. (2020). Managing supplier social and environmental impacts with voluntary versus mandatory disclosure to investors. Management Science, 66(8), 3311–3328. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3382
42.
KimI.WanH.WangB.YangT. (2019). Institutional investors and corporate environmental, social, and governance policies: Evidence from toxics release data. Management Science, 65(10), 4901–4926. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3055
43.
KimS.KimK. (2024). The compounding effect of mandatory GHG emissions disclosure and voluntary ESG disclosure on firm value in Korea. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 31(5), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-12-2023-0519
44.
KimS.YoonA. (2023). Analyzing active fund managers’ commitment to ESG: Evidence from the united nations principles for responsible investment. Management Science, 69(2), 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4394
LeeH. C. B.CruzJ. M.ShankarR. (2018). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in supply chain competition: Should greenwashing be regulated?Decision Sciences, 49(6), 1088–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12307
48.
LetiziaP.HendrikseG. (2016). Supply chain structure incentives for corporate social responsibility: An incomplete contracting analysis. Production and Operations Management, 25(11), 1919–1941. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12585
49.
LiJ.WuD. (2020). Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact?Management Science, 66(6), 2564–2588. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324
50.
LiK. J. (2021). Behavior-based quality discrimination. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 23(2), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2019.0847
LiuC.GongW.DongG.JiQ. (2024). Regulation of environmental, social and governance disclosure greenwashing behaviors considering the risk preference of enterprises. Energy Economics, 135, Article 107637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107637
53.
LiuW.LiangY.TangO.MaX. (2022). Channel competition and collaboration in the presence of hybrid retailing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 160, Article 102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102658
54.
LiuW.WeiW.ChoiT. M.YanX. (2022b). Impacts of leadership on corporate social responsibility management in multi-tier supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 299(2), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.042
55.
LiuX.XuZ.ZhangQ.ZhouL. (2024b). Multistage supply chain channel principal-agent model in the context of e-commerce with fairness preference. Evaluation Review, 48(6), 1115–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X241227878
56.
LiuZ. L.AndersonT. D.CruzJ. M. (2012). Consumer environmental awareness and competition in two-stage supply chains. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(3), 602–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.027
57.
LuL.MenezesM. B. (2024). Supply chain vertical competition and product proliferation under different power structures. International Journal of Production Economics, 267, Article 109097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.109097
58.
MaP.ShangJ.WangH. (2017). Enhancing corporate social responsibility: Contract design under information asymmetry. Omega, 67, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.03.004
NieJ.ZhongL.LiG.CaoK. (2022). Piracy as an entry deterrence strategy in software market. European Journal of Operational Research, 298(2), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.006
PengL.XiaZ.HuangY.PanZ. (2023). Role of weather in the natural gas market: Insights from the STL-GARCH-W method. International Finance, 26(3), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12437
ShiX.ChanH. L.DongC. (2020). Impacts of competition between buying firms on corporate social responsibility efforts: Does competition do more harm than good?Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 140, Article 101985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101985
68.
SinghA. K.ZhangY.Anu. (2023). Understanding the evolution of environment, social and governance research: Novel implications from bibliometric and network analysis. Evaluation Review, 47(2), 350–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X221121244
69.
SunX.KuoY. H.XueW.LiY. (2024). Technology-driven logistics and supply chain management for societal impacts. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 185, Article 103523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103523
WangZ.WangM.LiuW. (2020). To introduce competition or not to introduce competition: An analysis of corporate social responsibility investment collaboration in a two-echelon supply chain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 133, Article 101812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.11.006
73.
WeiW.LiuW.TangO.DongC.LiangY. (2023). CSR investment for a two-sided platform: Network externality and risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research, 307(2), 694–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.08.048
74.
WuX.ZhouY. (2017). The optimal reverse channel choice under supply chain competition. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(1), 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.027
75.
WuY.ZhangK.XieJ. (2020). Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing: Corporate social responsibility and information transparency. Management Science, 66(7), 3095–3112. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3340
XuH.LiuX.HuangH.ZhouY.WeiY. (2022). Innovation information sharing between two competitive supply chains. International Transactions in Operational Research, 29(1), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13016
78.
YaoF.ParilinaE.ZaccourG.GaoH. (2022). Accounting for consumers’ environmental concern in supply chain contracts. European Journal of Operational Research, 301(3), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.11.039
79.
YenipazarliA. (2019). Incentives for environmental research and development: Consumer preferences, competitive pressure and emissions taxation. European Journal of Operational Research, 276(2), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.037
80.
YuanM.PunH.GuanX. (2022). Information disclosure in a supply chain with copycat threat. European Journal of Operational Research, 302(3), 1018–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.027
81.
ZhangG.GongY.HongX. (2022). Free rider effect of quality information disclosure in remanufacturing. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 166, Article 102907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102907
82.
ZhangL.WangJ.YouJ. (2015). Consumer environmental awareness and channel coordination with two substitutable products. European Journal of Operational Research, 241(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.043
83.
ZhangM.ShenQ.ZhaoZ.WangS.HuangG. Q. (2024). Commitment or rent-seeking? Government incentive policies for ESG reporting in sustainable e-commerce logistics. International Journal of Production Economics, 268, Article 109134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.109134
84.
ZhangQ.WangK.FengL.DaiR. (2023). For better or worse: Impacts of information leakage by a common supplier with innovation imitation of downstream firms. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 170, Article 103020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103020
ZhouM.DanB.MaS.ZhangX. (2017). Supply chain coordination with information sharing: The informational advantage of GPOs. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(3), 785–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.06.045
87.
ZhouX.GaoC.ZhangD. (2024). Product service supply chain network competition: An equilibrium with multiple tiers and members. International Journal of Production Research, 62(20), 7324–7341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2060771
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
