ESG frameworks have become a central tool for aligning corporate strategies with sustainability imperatives. Yet, by reducing environmental, social, and governance dimensions to standardised metrics, conventional ESG framework risk obscuring the complex ethical commitments that arise from incommensurable societal subsystems. Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, this paper critiques ESG’s tendency to privilege specific function systems – science, politics, and economics – while marginalising others such as religion, art, and education. We further introduce the tetralemma, a concept from Indian logic, to illuminate novel ways of reconciling or transcending the paradoxes inherent in integrating these domains. By combining a multifunctional approach with tetralemma thinking, we demonstrate how organisations can expand their reporting scope beyond narrow ESG categories, foster inclusive stakeholder engagement, and respond more effectively to morally fraught sustainability dilemmas. This integration ultimately reframes ESG as a flexible, context-sensitive practice that embraces societal complexity and offers a holistic route to accountability.
AbdelbakyA.LiuT.MingyangX.ShahzadM. F.HassaneinA. (2024). Real earnings management and ESG performance in China: The mediating role of corporate innovations. International Journal of Finance & Economics.
2.
AzzamM. E. A. Y.AlsayedM. S. H.AlsultanA.HassaneinA. (2024). How big data features drive financial accounting and firm sustainability in the energy industry. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(1), 29–51.
3.
BebbingtonJ.ÖsterblomH.CronaB.JouffrayJ. B.LarrinagaC.RussellS.ScholtensB. (2020). Accounting and accountability in the Anthropocene. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(1), 152–177.
4.
BenameurK.HassaneinA.MostafaM. M.ElmaghrabiM.TharwatH. (2025). A decade of sustainable finance scholarly research: Performance analysis, science mapping and future pathways. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting.
5.
BergF.KoelbelJ. F.RigobonR. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG rating. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
6.
BesioC.PronziniA. (2014). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 287–300.
7.
BuitendagN. (2025). Environmental law and systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 42(2), 297–307.
8.
BurrittR. L.SchalteggerS. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend?Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.
9.
ChristensenM.SkærbækP. (2007). Framing and overflowing of public sector accountability innovations: A comparative study of reporting practices. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(1), 101–132.
10.
CraceL.GehmanJ. (2023). What really explains ESG performance? Disentangling the asymmetrical drivers of the triple bottom line. Organization & Environment, 36(1), 150–178.
11.
de la Cruz JaraM. F.SpanjolJ.DoppstadtT. (2025). Strategic social value orientation and sustainability performance: A commensuration perspective. Organization Studies, 46(5), 635–666.
12.
ElmaghrabiM.HassaneinA.DiabA. (2025). How do firm-level and country-level sustainability governance shape corporate sustainability? Insights from environmentally-sensitive industries. Social Responsibility Journal, 21(5), 1086–1110.
13.
EspelandW. N.SauderM. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
14.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
15.
EspelandW. N.YungV. (2019). Ethical dimensions of quantification. Social Science Information, 58(2), 238–260.
16.
EspositoE.StarkD. (2019). What’s observed in a rating? Rankings as orientation in the face of uncertainty. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(4), 3–26.
17.
FolkersA. (2025). Calculative futures between climate and finance: A tragedy of multiple horizons. The Sociological Review, 73(5), 1104–1121.
18.
FritzscheA. (2025). Propositional logic, paradox, and Indian dialectics–towards a deeper ontological approach in paradox theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 42(3), 629–639.
19.
GrayR. (1992). Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 399–425.
20.
GrayR. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability . . . and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
21.
HamedR.Al-ShattaratW.MahmoodF.Al-ShattaratB.HassaneinA. (2023). Does corporate sustainable development still promote corporate financial performance during global crises? Empirical Study from China. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2190195.
22.
HassaneinA.Bani-MustafaA.NimerK. (2024). A country’s culture and reporting of sustainability practices in energy industries: Does a corporate sustainability committee matter?Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–12.
23.
HassaneinA.ElmaghrabiM. (2025). How does market competition affect the reporting of sustainability practices? Insights from the UK and Germany. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 74(4), 1452–1474.
24.
HassaneinA.TharwatH. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) and green finance. In HunjraA. I.GoodellJ. W. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of green finance for sustainable development (pp. 859–889). Springer.
25.
IslamG.GreenwoodM. (2022). The metrics of ethics and the ethics of metrics. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(1), 1–5.
26.
JärvinenJ.LaineM.HyvönenT.KantolaH. (2022). Just look at the numbers: A case study on quantification in corporate environmental disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(1), 23–44.
27.
KleveH.RothS.KöllnerT.WetzelR. (2020). The tetralemma of the business family: A systemic approach to business-family dilemmas in research and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(2), 433–446.
28.
KPMG. (2022). The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2022.
29.
LaineM. (2024). Accounting, reporting and verification of impact: Implications for sustainability: A commentary on Adams et al. (2023) ‘Styles of verification and the pursuit of organisational repair: The case of social impact’. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 113, 101540.
30.
LindebaumD.MoserC.IslamG. (2023). Big data, Proxies, algorithmic decision-making and the future of management theory. Journal of Management Studies.
31.
LuhmannN. (1982). The differentiation of society. Columbia University Press.
32.
LuhmannN. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13, 137–157.
33.
LuhmannN. (2013). Theory of society, vol. 2. Stanford University Press.
34.
LuhmannN. (2018a). Organization and decision. Cambridge University Press.
35.
LuhmannN. (2018b). Trust and power. John Wiley.
36.
ManioraJ. (2017). Is integrated reporting really the superior mechanism for the integration of ethics into the core business model? An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(4), 755–786.
37.
MilneM. J.GrayR. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.
38.
ParfittC. (2020). ESG integration treats ethics as risk, but whose ethics and whose risk? Responsible investment in the context of precarity and risk-shifting. Critical Sociology, 46(4–5), 573–587.
39.
ParfittC. (2024). A foundation for ‘ethical capital’: The sustainability accounting standards board and integrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 98, 102477.
40.
Payán-SánchezB.Plaza-ÚbedaJ. A.Pérez-VallsM.Carmona-MorenoE. (2018). Social embeddedness for sustainability in the aviation sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 537–553.
41.
Pérez-VallsM.Cespedes-LorenteJ.Moreno-GarciaJ. (2016). Green practices and organizational design as sources of strategic flexibility and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8), 529–544.
42.
Pérez-VallsM.Céspedes-LorenteJ.Martínez-del-RíoJ.Antolín-LópezR. (2019). How organizational structure affects ecological responsiveness. Business & Society, 58(8), 1634–1670.
43.
Pina e CunhaM. P.CleggS.BertiM.RegoA.SimpsonA. (2021). Fully Embracing the Paradoxical Condition. Organizational Aesthetics, 10(2), 50–67.
44.
Plaza-ÚbedaJ. A.Pérez-VallsM.Céspedes-LorenteJ. J.Payán -SánchezB. (2020). The contribution of systems theory to sustainability in degrowth contexts: The role of subsystems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(1), 68–81.
45.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.
46.
RothS. (2021a). Draw your organization! A solution-focused theory-method for business school challenges and change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(4), 713–728.
47.
RothS. (2021b). The Great Reset. Restratification for lives, livelihoods, and the planet. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120636.
48.
RothS. (2025). The matrix reloaded: A revised framework for the inference of the four basic forms of social differentiation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3131
49.
RothS.SchneckenbergD.ValentinovV.KleveH. (2023). Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy. European Management Journal, 41(2), 191–198.
50.
RothS.SchwedeP.ValentinovV.Pérez-VallsM.Kaivo-OjaJ. (2020). Harnessing big data for a multifunctional theory of the firm. European Management Journal, 38(1), 54–61.
51.
RothS.ValentinovV. (2020). East of nature. Accounting for the environments of social sciences. Ecological Economics, 176, 106734.
52.
SchadJ.BansalP. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1490–1506.
53.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
54.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2019). Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 107–119.
55.
SchalteggerS.ChristK. L.WenzigJ.BurrittR. L. (2022). Corporate sustainability management accounting and multi-level links for sustainability–A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(4), 480–500.
56.
SchalteggerS.LinnenlueckeM. K.Dijkstra-SilvaS.ChristK. L. (2024). Revisiting renewable energies: Liberating, pacifying, and democratizing. Business & Society, 63(6), 1295–1301.
57.
SchramadeW. (2016). Integrating ESG into valuation models and investment decisions: The value-driver adjustment approach. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 6(2), 95–111.
58.
SchrittJ.VoßJ. P. (2025). Colonization, appropriation, commensuration: Three modes of translation. The Sociological Review, 73(1), 196–215.
59.
SerafeimG. (2023). ESG: From process to product (Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper 23-069).
60.
SmithW.ErezM.JarvenpaaS.LewisM. W.TraceyP. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 303–317.
61.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
62.
Spencer BrownG. (1979). Laws of form. E.P. Dutton.
63.
TahatY. A.HassaneinA. (2024). Exploring the synergy of corporate gender diversity, sustainability committee, and reporting ESG practices: An international evidence. Journal of Environmental Management, 371, 123093.
64.
TanZ. S. (2014). The construction of calculative expertise: The integration of corporate governance into investment analyses by sell-side financial analysts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(5), 362–384.
65.
ValentinovV. (2017). The Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 25–35.
66.
ValentinovV. (2019). The ethics of functional differentiation: Reclaiming morality in Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 105–114.
67.
van DuurenE.PlantingaA.ScholtensB. (2016). ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 525–533.
68.
von GroddeckV. (2011). Rethinking the role of value communication in business corporations from a sociological perspective–why organisations need value-based semantics to cope with societal and organisational fuzziness. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 69–84.
69.
Young-FerrisA.RobertsJ. (2023). ‘Looking for something that isn’t there’: A case study of an early attempt at ESG integration in investment decision making. European Accounting Review, 32(3), 717–744.
