Strategic Paths to Sustainability: A GRI-Based Comparative Analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel in the Energy Sector

Strategic Paths to Sustainability: A GRI-Based Comparative Analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel in the Energy Sector | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Strategic Paths to Sustainability: A GRI-Based Comparative Analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel in the Energy Sector yunus furuncu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines how sustainability evolves from a compliance-oriented obligation into a strategic and organizational capability within the energy sector by comparatively analysing three firms—Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. Using a qualitative content analysis of GRI-aligned sustainability reporting, triangulated with external ESG ratings, the research evaluates how environmental, social, and governance practices are embedded within broader corporate strategies. The findings reveal differentiated trajectories consistent with the S-curve hypothesis, which theorises a nonlinear relationship between the adoption of green business practices and firm performance. Enel illustrates a mature, fully integrated sustainability model that reinforces its competitive and reputational advantage; E.ON represents an expansion phase shaped by digital transformation and decarbonization initiatives; whereas Enerjisa reflects an early-stage, institutional-compliance orientation with emerging community and governance commitments. The results demonstrate that when GRI frameworks are mobilized not merely as disclosure mechanisms but as managerial and organisational tools, they become catalysts for innovation, stakeholder trust, and strategic repositioning. This study contributes to social science debates on corporate sustainability by linking reporting frameworks, institutional pressures, and strategic learning dynamics within a comparative, cross-national context. It also offers policy-relevant insights for regulators seeking to strengthen sustainability governance and for managers aiming to align ESG integration with long-term value creation. Future research should explore cross-sectoral dynamics, digital–ESG interactions, and the cultural and institutional conditions that enable firms to advance along the sustainability maturity curve. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Business and management Social science/Development studies Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Social science/Environmental studies Green Business Strategy GRI ESG S-curve Energy Sector Sustainability Reporting Strategic Management Institutional Pressures Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction As sustainability transitions reshape global energy systems, firms face increasing pressure to move beyond compliance-driven environmental practices toward more strategic and innovation-oriented approaches. Understanding how companies navigate this transformation is critical for advancing debates in strategic management, corporate sustainability, organizational behaviour, and policy studies. This research examines how three major energy firms—Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel—integrate green business strategies into their organisational processes and competitive positioning. Grounded in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, the study evaluates how environmental, social, and economic practices are mobilised not only as reporting mechanisms but also as strategic capabilities that influence long-term performance and stakeholder legitimacy. To guide this inquiry, the article addresses the following research questions: • How do Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel apply GRI standards to embed green business strategies across environmental, social, and economic dimensions? • What major differences arise in their sustainability priorities and strategic orientations? • How does the S-curve hypothesis explain the nonlinear relationship between the degree of sustainability integration and firm performance? The central objective is to compare the sustainability strategies of these firms using a structured GRI-based lens and to assess whether their trajectories align with the S-curve hypothesis, which posits diminishing or accelerating returns at different stages of sustainability adoption. In methodological terms, the study employs a qualitative content analysis of the firms’ 2023 GRI-aligned sustainability reports, triangulated with third-party ESG ratings and independent assurance statements. This combination of data sources enhances interpretive depth and reduces the risk of bias associated with self-reported sustainability information. The analysis is intentionally bounded by publicly disclosed documents, meaning that it does not include internal managerial perspectives, operational site observations, or multi-year performance data. These limitations open avenues for future research that could incorporate executive interviews, longitudinal case studies, or econometric testing to explore causality and strategic learning processes in greater depth. This study contributes to current scholarship in three key ways. First, it offers a comparative, cross-national analysis of sustainability strategies in the energy sector, highlighting how different institutional contexts and governance structures shape firms’ ESG orientations. Second, it positions GRI reporting not just as a compliance tool but as an organisational device that structures decision-making, stakeholder communication, and strategic differentiation. Third, by integrating the S-curve hypothesis into the assessment of sustainability maturity, the study provides a novel theoretical perspective on the nonlinear dynamics between ESG adoption and firm performance. Collectively, these contributions enrich interdisciplinary discussions at the intersection of strategic management, sustainability accounting, and energy policy, while offering actionable insights for managers, policymakers, and ESG analysts seeking to evaluate or enhance green business strategies. 2. Literature Review The growing urgency of environmental concerns and global decarbonization goals has brought sustainability to the forefront of corporate strategy, especially in the energy sector. In response, numerous scholars have investigated the role of Green Business Strategies (GBS) in driving environmental performance, innovation, and competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2011 ; Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017 ). Integrating sustainability into core operations enhances operational efficiency, creates long-term value, and strengthens stakeholder trust (Fatemi et al., 2018 ; Freeman et al., 2010 ). Building on this, circular economy principles have gained prominence as firms transition from linear to circular business models to minimize environmental impacts and maximize resource efficiency (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 ; Genovese et al., 2017 ). These shifts are also shaped by institutional and regulatory pressures encouraging alignment with global initiatives such as the EU Green Deal and national climate policies (Delmas & Toffel, 2008 ). While many studies highlight the role of GRI standards in promoting transparency and accountability (Michelon et al., 2015 ; Yadava & Sinha, 2016 ), these studies often treat GRI mainly as a compliance or legitimacy tool. This narrow perspective overlooks how structured reporting frameworks like GRI can actively shape innovation, stakeholder relations, and operational priorities. By focusing on checklists for assurance, prior analyses risk underestimating the strategic depth that GRI-aligned disclosures can offer when integrated into broader competitive positioning (Porter & Kramer, 2011 ). Recent research has shown that digital technologies transform how companies execute and communicate sustainability strategies, turning ESG data into strategic assets that support organizational change (George et al., 2020 ). However, empirical studies linking these digital shifts with formal reporting frameworks remain limited. Similarly, although green process innovation has been found to enhance performance under uncertainty (Xie et al., 2022 ), the intersection with structured GRI-based reporting is still underexplored. Moreover, by focusing primarily on compliance or investor communication, prior literature often neglects how sustainability reporting serves to deepen stakeholder trust and build resilient value networks (Freeman et al., 2010 ). This study, positions, therefore, GRI-based disclosures within a strategic management context, showing how transparent practices not only fulfill reputational needs but also foster innovation, risk mitigation, and stakeholder collaboration, essential for the energy transition. Additionally, the relationship between green strategy adoption and firm performance has been explained using S-curve or U-curve models (Gidage & Bhide, 2025 ; Xie et al., 2022 ), suggesting that benefits rise nonlinearly with adoption levels. However, empirical applications of these models to energy companies remain rare. No prior study integrates the S-curve hypothesis with a GRI-based sustainability assessment to explore these nonlinear effects on efficiency and strategic outcomes. This research fills that gap by offering a structured, comparative, and theory-informed framework that enhances both scholarly understanding and practical insights into sustainability strategy. To systematically summarize the key studies underpinning this research, Table 1 highlights selected works addressing GBS, ESG, GRI disclosures, digital transformation, and green innovation in corporate sustainability. Table 1 Summary of Selected Literature on GBS, ESG, GRI and Green Innovation Author & Year Study Title Method Summary Porter & Kramer ( 2011 ) Creating Shared Value Conceptual/Theoretical GBS fosters innovation and competitiveness by embedding sustainability. Dangelico & Vocalelli ( 2017 ) Sustainability and Firm Performance Empirical Renewable energy investment increases ESG ratings. Geissdoerfer et al. ( 2017 ) Circular Economy in Business Models Literature Review The circular economy reduces carbon footprint and boosts efficiency. Fatemi et al. ( 2018 ) ESG and Stakeholder Capital Empirical ESG builds stakeholder trust and reputation. Michelon et al. ( 2015 ) Sustainability Disclosure and GRI Content Analysis GRI improves transparency and corporate image. George et al. ( 2020 ) Digitalization and Sustainability Theoretical Digital ESG tools become strategic assets. Xie et al. ( 2022 ) Green Process Innovation Survey Financial burden initially, later gains via collaboration. Gidage & Bhide ( 2025 ) Green Innovation in MSMEs Survey U-curve: initial costs, later gains. Abdelbaky et al. ( 2024 ) ESG, Innovation & Firm Value Empirical ESG plus innovation enhances long-term value. Wan et al. ( 2025 ) ESG Collaboration in Energy Firms Empirical Collaborative governance boosts green innovation. Meylani & Sari ( 2025 ) ESG and Innovation in Energy Survey ESG and innovation improve returns and efficiency. Hamzah et al. ( 2025 ) Environmental Performance & Finance Survey Governance and green accounting improve finances. Lopes Cancela et al. (2023) Strategic Alliances & Identity Technical Alliances build a green identity and a culture of innovation. Freeman et al. ( 2010 ) Stakeholder Theory Theoretical Stakeholder engagement builds trust and legitimacy. Liang et al. ( 2023 ) Digital Models & Regulation Empirical Regulation drives digital innovation and green outcomes. Khalid et al. ( 2024 ) Normative Pressures & Green Investment Survey NGOs and partnerships increase green investment. Zhang et al. ( 2024 ) Institutional Pressures & Innovation Institutional Institutional pressures drive green innovation. Recent studies have significantly advanced the literature on green business strategies (GBS) by empirically connecting financial transparency, ESG outcomes, and innovation (Abdelbaky et al., 2024 ). Evidence from energy firms across diverse institutional contexts underscores how both firm-level governance mechanisms and country-level factors shape ESG performance (Elmaghrabi et al., 2025 ). Bibliometric analyses reveal that sustainability reporting (SR) and sustainable finance (SF) research have evolved into multidimensional fields, increasingly intertwining with governance structures, stakeholder engagement, and assurance practices (Benameur et al., 2024 , 2025 ). Further, findings on gender diversity and dedicated sustainability committees highlight the critical role of cultural and organizational factors in strengthening ESG disclosures (Alazzani et al., 2017 ; Tahat & Hassanein, 2024 ). While traditional literature emphasizes GRI disclosures primarily as compliance tools, there is growing recognition of their strategic function in aligning with SDGs and market-based ESG assessments. However, gaps remain regarding how GRI reporting integrates with digital transformation, S-curve innovation dynamics, and broader competitive repositioning, especially within the energy sector. This study addresses these gaps by systematically comparing energy firms through a GRI-based lens, offering nuanced insights into how structured sustainability practices drive operational excellence, stakeholder trust, and long-term resilience 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study adopts a qualitative, comparative case study design to evaluate the sustainability strategies of three major energy firms: Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. By leveraging the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, the research systematically examines how these companies disclose and implement environmental, social, and economic sustainability practices. The theoretical foundation integrates insights from the S-curve hypothesis to explore the potential nonlinear relationship between the maturity of green business strategies and their operational and financial impacts. This study strategically selected Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel to ensure a diverse cross-section of the energy sector across different geographic, regulatory, and market contexts. Enerjisa represents a rapidly developing energy market within Turkey, characterized by evolving regulatory landscapes and localized sustainability initiatives. E.ON, based in Germany, exemplifies an advanced European energy firm integrating digital and decarbonization strategies. Enel, headquartered in Italy, is a mature multinational operator with an extensive renewable portfolio and ambitious net-zero targets. These cases were chosen not through random sampling but through purposeful selection (Palinkas et al., 2015 ) to capture heterogeneity in sustainability maturity and strategic orientation. 3.2 Data Collection Methods Data were collected from the official 2023 sustainability reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel, retrieved directly from their investor relations websites. These reports serve as primary data sources, offering structured disclosures aligned with the GRI standards. The selected reports were independently verified through limited and reasonable assurance engagements conducted by KPMG, thereby providing an additional layer of reliability beyond self-reported data. The focus was placed on disclosures structured under the latest GRI Universal Standards, including GRI 1 (Foundation), GRI 2 (General Disclosures), and GRI 3 (Material Topics). All extracted qualitative and quantitative disclosures were recorded at the indicator level with explicit page or section references. The complete raw extraction dataset is provided as Supplementary File S2. 3.3 Data Analysis Method A manual content analysis methodology was employed to systematically code and assess the sustainability disclosures of the selected companies. The analysis concentrated on key GRI indicators across three dimensions: Environmental (GRI 301–308): covering materials use, energy consumption, water management, biodiversity impact, emissions, waste handling, compliance, and supplier assessments. Social (GRI 401–419): encompassing employment practices, health and safety, diversity and equal opportunity, human rights considerations, community relations, and customer privacy. Economic: addressing economic performance and value creation metrics reported under GRI. Relevant sections of each report were reviewed and categorized using structured Excel spreadsheets to facilitate frequency tabulation and cross-company comparisons. To ensure analytical rigor, two researcher conducted independent coding of the data and resolved discrepancies through iterative discussions. Additionally, insights from recent studies on the S-curve hypothesis (Lin et al., 2021 ) were incorporated to interpret how varying levels of green strategy adoption, may influence firm performance, reflecting the potential for diminishing returns when sustainability investments exceed optimal thresholds. Overall, this methodology enables a robust comparative assessment of how structured GRI-aligned sustainability practices relate to strategic objectives, stakeholder engagement, and long-term resilience within the energy sector. The cleaned and processed dataset that reproduces all indicator-level scores, normalized values, and S-curve classifications reported in Table 4 is provided as Supplementary File S3. 3.4. Triangulation with External ESG Ratings and Assurance Reports To mitigate the limitations inherent in relying solely on self-reported sustainability disclosures—such as potential self-reporting bias or greenwashing—this study incorporates a triangulation strategy. Specifically, it complements the GRI-based content analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel with two additional external sources: (i) independent third-party ESG ratings from agencies such as MSCI and Sustainalytics, and (ii) formal assurance statements provided by auditing firms (e.g., KPMG under ISAE 3000 standards). External ESG ratings serve as standardized benchmarks that independently evaluate companies’ environmental, social, and governance performance. Integrating these scores allows for cross-validation of GRI-disclosed metrics, ensuring that corporate narratives align with market perceptions and risk assessments. For example, Enel’s AAA MSCI rating and low Sustainalytics risk score (~ 20) corroborate its advanced GRI disclosures on renewable energy and emissions reduction, reinforcing the reliability of the qualitative findings. Furthermore, assurance statements—conducted by KPMG—included in the 2023 sustainability reports of all three companies provide an additional layer of data validation. Limited or reasonable assurance engagements reduce informational asymmetries and support the credibility of key GRI indicators (GRI 302, GRI 305, GRI 403), among others, helping to mitigate risks of selective disclosure. This triangulated approach enhances the methodological rigor of the study by cross-verifying internal sustainability claims against independent evaluations. It thereby addresses common critiques in sustainability research concerning the overreliance on self-reported data, ultimately increasing the robustness and trustworthiness of the comparative analysis. 3.5. Methodological Scope and Future Research Directions This study deliberately adopts a comparative, case-based content analysis design, focusing on a purposive sample of three major energy companies. By leveraging publicly available sustainability reports, GRI-based disclosures, and external ESG ratings, the research prioritizes depth and strategic insights over statistical generalizability. This methodological approach enables a nuanced exploration of how green business strategies are operationalized across diverse corporate and regional contexts. However, it does not inherently aim to provide econometric causality tests or broad panel-level inferences. Future research should advance this agenda by employing longitudinal or large-sample panel data to rigorously test the S-curve dynamics suggested in this study and to uncover broader industry patterns. Econometric models could provide more robust evidence of the non-linear effects of green business strategy adoption on firm performance. In addition, incorporating primary qualitative evidence—such as executive interviews and facility-level observations—would enrich understanding of managerial interpretations and operational realities, helping to disentangle firm-specific narratives from wider sectoral tendencies. Such mixed-method extensions would significantly enhance explanatory power and illuminate the causal pathways between sustainability integration and long-term competitiveness. 4. Findings GRI Compliance and Sustainability Strategy Effectiveness The findings of the content analysis reveal differences in the sustainability strategies of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. While all three companies emphasize sustainability, their approaches vary in terms of investment in renewable energy, commitment to carbon neutrality, and stakeholder engagement (Sui et al., 2023 ). These differences align with the S-curve hypothesis, which suggests that firms may initially struggle with green strategy implementation but later experience performance benefits before reaching a point of diminishing returns (Lin et al., 2021 ). Table 2 Environmental Dimension (GRI 301–308) Company GRI 302 (Energy) GRI 305 (Emissions) Net Zero Target Year GRI 304 (Biodiversity) GRI 307 (Compliance) Enerjisa 0.158 million GJ, Installed GES capacity: 29.5 MWp, 46% renewable (installed capacity) Scope 1: 0.48 Mt, Scope 2: 1.7 Mt, Scope 3: 19.3 Mt 30% reduction by 2030, no absolute net zero target Strategy newly launched No environmental fine E.ON 49 million GJ, 58% renewable Scope 1: 1.98 Mt, Scope 2: 3.66 Mt, Scope 3: 60,06 Mt 2040 net zero Ecological corridor management at 19% No major environmental fine Enel 806.7 million GJ, 57% renewable Scope 1: 34.51 Mt, Scope 2: 3.28–4.51 Mt, Scope 3: 56.5 Mt 2040 net zero Habitat protection/restoration programs 39 incidents, €3.98 million fine Note. This table is compiled by the author based on data obtained from Enerjisa ( 2023a , 2023b ), Enel ( 2023a , 2023b ), and E.ON (2023a, 2023b). The comparative analysis of environmental sustainability indicators across Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel underscores distinctive strategies in their transition toward greener operations. In terms of energy consumption (GRI 302), Enel exhibits the largest footprint at 806,7 million GJ annually, followed by E.ON with 49 million GJ, while Enerjisa’s on-site renewable generation is relatively modest at 0.158 million GJ. However, both E.ON and Enel maintain substantial shares of renewable energy within their portfolios—58% and 57% respectively—indicating deep integration of renewables into their core operations (Table 2 ). Concerning emissions (GRI 305), Enel stands out with the highest Scope 1 emissions at 34.51 Mt, reflective of its vast generation scale, whereas E.ON and Enerjisa report significantly lower direct emissions at 1.98 Mt and 0.48 Mt, respectively. Notably, both E.ON and Enel have set clear net zero targets by 2040, while Enerjisa currently pursues a 30% reduction by 2030 without an absolute net zero date, suggesting differing long-term climate ambitions (Table 2 ). Biodiversity initiatives (GRI 304) vary, with Enel implementing comprehensive habitat protection programs, E.ON managing 19% of its network as ecological corridors, and Enerjisa recently launching its biodiversity strategy. In terms of compliance (GRI 307), Enel reported 39 incidents amounting to €3.98 million in fines, whereas E.ON and Enerjisa disclosed no significant environmental penalties, highlighting differences in regulatory exposure and operational impacts (Table 2 ). In terms of water management (GRI 303), all three companies demonstrate awareness of sustainability. However, Enel stands out with comprehensive sustainable water usage projects, while Enerjisa concentrates on general water-saving policies. Biodiversity initiatives (GRI 304) also reflect this hierarchy, ranging from limited efforts of Enerjisa to extensive programs of Enel. Interestingly, all three companies report full compliance with environmental regulations (GRI 307), indicating a shared baseline for regulatory adherence, though the strategic depth beyond compliance varies. Overall, the data suggest that Enel exemplifies a more mature and integrated green business strategy, aligning sustainability performance with long-term corporate goals. E.ON demonstrates strong progress, particularly in emissions and water treatment, positioning itself as a digital and environmentally responsive firm. Enerjisa, while compliant and active in local projects, appears to be in earlier phases of its green transformation journey, offering potential for strategic scaling and innovation in the near future. Table 3 Social Dimension (GRI 401–419) Company GRI 401 (Employment) GRI 403 (Health & Safety) GRI 405 (Diversity & Equality) GRI 413 (Local Communities) Enerjisa 11000 employees, 27% women TRIF: 8.7, LTIF: 5.6, SIF: ~0.71, ~ 307,000 hrs training Female manager ratio: 20% Various CSR & volunteer projects E.ON 71,600 employees, 32% women TRIF: 2.8, LTIF: 2.2, SIF: 0.03 Female manager ratio: 24% Community engagement described Enel 65,838 employees, 30% women TRIF: 1.88, LTIF: 0.61 Female manager ratio: 27% Projects described Note. This table is compiled by the author based on data obtained from Enerjisa ( 2023a , 2023b ), Enel ( 2023a , 2023b ), and E.ON (2023a, 2023b). The comparative evaluation of social sustainability indicators across Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel reveals important insights into how these companies integrate workforce development, diversity, and community engagement into their green business strategies. Regarding employment size (GRI 401), E.ON leads with 71,600 employees, followed by Enel with 65,838 and Enerjisa with approximately 11,000, reflecting differences in operational scale and stakeholder reach (Table 3 ). In terms of health and safety performance (GRI 403), Enerjisa reports a TRIF of 8.7, significantly higher than E.ON at 2.8 and Enel at 1.88, which may indicate differences in operational risk profiles or reporting methodologies. However, Enerjisa also demonstrates a strong commitment through extensive safety training totaling around 307,000 hours annually (Table 3 ). Diversity metrics (GRI 405) show that Enel has the highest proportion of female managers at 27%, with E.ON close behind at 24%, while Enerjisa stands at 20%, suggesting varying degrees of gender inclusion in leadership roles (Table 3 ). When it comes to local community initiatives (GRI 413), all three firms highlight robust community engagement programs, though Enel’s and E.ON’s reports are more structured, whereas Enerjisa emphasizes a broad range of CSR and volunteer projects without detailed quantitative disclosures. These patterns collectively illustrate how social dimensions are embedded differently within each company’s broader sustainability strategy In addition to environmental and social dimensions, the analysis also incorporates the economic aspects guided by GRI economic performance indicators, reflecting how sustainability initiatives translate into financial resilience and long-term value creation (GRI, 2022). While this study does not provide a detailed quantitative breakdown of all economic metrics, the 2023 sustainability reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel demonstrate consistent positive financial trajectories that appear intertwined with their respective green business strategies. Enel, for example, highlights steady growth in revenues and EBITDA, attributing this performance partly to operational efficiencies gained through renewable energy integration and digital grid modernization (Enel, 2023). Similarly, E.ON’s disclosures indicate stable earnings supported by investments in smart infrastructure and decarbonization projects (E.ON, 2023). Enerjisa, though in earlier stages of its green strategy adoption, reports gradual increases in sales volumes and regional returns, suggesting an emerging financial alignment with its sustainability agenda (Enerjisa, 2023). These patterns are consistent with broader research showing that firms with strong ESG and sustainability commitments often achieve improved risk-adjusted returns and capital efficiency over time (Fatemi et al., 2018 ; Eccles et al., 2014 ). Overall, this supports the perspective that integrating comprehensive GRI-aligned sustainability practices not only addresses environmental and social imperatives but also underpins economic stability and long-term competitiveness, reinforcing the multi-capital framework advocated in ESG and the integrated reporting standards (International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013). In summary, Enel consistently outperforms its peers across key social sustainability metrics, highlighting its advanced and inclusive green business strategy. E.ON also demonstrates solid performance, particularly in safety and community involvement. Enerjisa, though smaller in scale, shows foundational strengths and room for strategic enhancement, especially in diversity and local impact initiatives. 5. Results and Discussion The reported scores reflect the depth and strategic integration of sustainability disclosures rather than operational performance per se and should therefore be interpreted in a comparative and illustrative manner. 5.1. Interpretation of the Findings The findings of this study confirm that the relationship between green business strategies and firm performance is distinctly non-linear, advancing through the development, growth, and maturity stages in line with the S-curve hypothesis (Lin et al., 2021; Porter & Van der Linde, 1995). This supports theoretical expectations that initial sustainability efforts produce limited returns, which accelerate during strategic scaling and eventually plateau as firms reach high levels of sustainability integration (Gidage & Bhide, 2025; Xie et al., 2022). Enerjisa, representing the development phase, primarily concentrates on establishing core ESG frameworks with a notable emphasis on compliance (GRI 307) and initial biodiversity strategies (GRI 304). Its renewable energy share stands at 46% of the total installed capacity accompanied by approximately 0.158 million GJ of annual on-site green generation and emissions of 0.48 Mt for Scope 1 and 1.7 Mt for Scope 2 (GRI 302, 305). This suggests that while foundational sustainability structures are in place, Enerjisa has yet to achieve significant economies of scale or transformational ESG returns, consistent with Michelon et al. (2015), who argue that early-stage ESG activities largely serve legitimacy objectives. E.ON exemplifies the growth phase, in which digital integration via smart grids and ecological corridor initiatives covering 19% of its network (GRI 304) bolster both environmental performance and strategic positioning. With 58% of its energy portfolio sourced from renewables and Scope 1 emissions at 1.98 Mt (GRI 302, 305), alongside an ambitious 2040 net zero target, E.ON illustrates how mid-stage firms can harness ESG initiatives to drive operational efficiencies and build stakeholder trust. Moreover, robust governance practices and community engagement programs (GRI 413) underline the accumulation of social capital, echoing Freeman et al. (2010). Enel, situated in the maturity phase, demonstrates advanced ESG integration. Approximately 57% of its production mix comes from renewable sources. It also records the highest Scope 1 emissions at 34.51 Mt, which reflects its expansive operations. However, comprehensive habitat protection initiatives under GRI 304 and strong regulatory compliance efforts balance this, even though the company incurred €3.98 million in fines (GRI 307). Enel’s extensive local community projects (GRI 413) and long-standing sustainability commitments support Porter and Kramer’s (2011) view that shared value strategies build competitive advantage. Yet, as new ESG investments yield diminishing returns, Enel faces the challenge of shifting its focus from expansion toward optimization aligning with the suggestions of Fatemi et al. (2018). A significant contribution of this study lies in showing how the GRI standards function beyond mere compliance tools, evolving into strategic frameworks that guide digitalization, inclusive governance, and long-term decarbonization (Yadava & Sinha, 2016; Abdelbaky et al., 2024). This finding resonates with Dangelico and Vocalelli (2017), who argue that robust ESG frameworks serve as catalysts for integrating sustainability into core business models. The study also demonstrates empirically that the intensity of sustainability reporting and its strategic benefits do not evolve linearly. Enerjisa’s focus on basic ESG metrics contrasts sharply with Enel’s holistic integration across the GRI 300–400 series, illustrating, how maturity stages yield different innovation capacities and stakeholder perceptions (Porter & Kramer, 2011). This highlights the importance of managers calibrating sustainability investments according to their position on the S-curve to maximize strategic payoffs (Lin et al., 2021). This study highlights that third-party assurance, as seen in E.ON and Enel, strengthens the credibility of ESG disclosures and builds stakeholder trust, aligning with Michelon et al. (2015). It also suggests that such practices can guide policymakers toward frameworks that promote strategic ESG integration beyond compliance (Abdelbaky et al., 2024). Overall, the comparative analysis demonstrates how applying GRI standards alongside the S-curve hypothesis reveals the link between transparency, innovation, and performance, supporting the view that sustainability reporting can serve as a strategic management tool (Fatemi et al., 2018). 1. How do Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel implement green business strategies based on GRI standards across environmental, social, and economic dimensions? Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel apply GRI standards with varying levels of strategic depth across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Enerjisa uses GRI primarily for regulatory compliance and ESG foundation-building, with emphasis on biodiversity (GRI 304), occupational health and safety (GRI 403, TRIF 8.7), and local community engagement (GRI 413). E.ON adopts a more integrated approach, embedding GRI metrics into its digital and operational strategies, evidenced by 58% renewable energy (GRI 302), ecological corridor management (GRI 304), low TRIF (2.8), and balanced stakeholder initiatives. Enel showcases the most comprehensive implementation, aligning GRI indicators with core business practices, including 57% renewable generation (GRI 302), large-scale emissions disclosure (GRI 305), habitat restoration (GRI 304), and substantial community investments (GRI 413), reflecting a mature, multidimensional ESG strategy. 2. What are the key differences in their sustainability priorities and strategic approaches? Enerjisa approaches sustainability primarily as a compliance-driven effort, focusing on meeting regulatory requirements and building legitimacy, with a 46% renewable capacity and no absolute net-zero target. E.ON adopts a more growth-oriented strategy, using sustainability for technological innovation and competitive advantage, supported by its smart grid integration, 2040 net-zero goal, and inclusive governance. Enel represents the most mature model, fully embedding sustainability into its operations through extensive biodiversity initiatives, a 2040 net-zero commitment, and broad community engagement, demonstrating how advanced ESG strategies can drive market leadership despite diminishing marginal returns. 3. To what extent does the S-curve hypothesis explain the relationship between the degree of green business strategy adoption and firm performance in the energy sector? The comparative analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel supports the S-curve hypothesis by illustrating a nonlinear link between green strategy adoption and firm performance. Enerjisa, in the early stage, focuses on ESG compliance with limited returns. E.ON, in the growth phase, sees rising benefits from integrated sustainability efforts. Enel, in the maturity phase, maintains leadership through deep ESG integration, though gains begin to plateau. This pattern confirms the S-curve as a useful framework for understanding performance outcomes in the energy sector. Table 4. GRI Total Score Of Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel Criterion Enerjisa E.ON Enel GRI 302 – Renewable Energy 3 4 5 GRI 305 – Emission Reduction 3 4 5 GRI 403 – Occupational H&S 3 4 5 GRI 413 – Community Engagement 3 4 5 GRI 307 – Regulatory Compliance 5 5 3 Net Zero Commitment Year 2 5 5 Total Score 19 26 28 Normalized (%) 63.3% 86.7% 93.3% Note: Indicator-level raw disclosures are documented in Supplementary File S2, while the cleaned and processed dataset underlying this table is provided in Supplementary File S3. The comparative analysis based on selected sustainability criteria reveals clear performance distinctions among Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. Across six key indicators—spanning renewable energy use (GRI 302), emission reduction efforts (GRI 305), health and safety practices (GRI 403), community engagement (GRI 413), regulatory compliance (GRI 307), and net zero commitment timelines—Enel consistently outperforms the others, achieving the highest total score of 28 and a normalized sustainability rating of 93.3%. This underscores Enel’s robust integration of renewable energy, aggressive decarbonization strategies, and expansive community initiatives (figure 1). E.ON follows closely with a total score of 26 (normalized at 86.7%), reflecting a well-balanced and mature sustainability strategy, particularly evident in its renewable energy portfolio, emission reduction pathway, and clear net zero target for 2040. In contrast, Enerjisa records a total score of 19 (normalized at 63.3%), showing strengths in regulatory compliance and occupational health and safety, but relatively lower alignment with long-term emission reduction and climate objectives. This scoring model quantitatively positions Enel as a sustainability leader, E.ON as a strong and structured performer, and Enerjisa as a company still progressing along the ESG development curve (table 4). The S-Curve analysis offers a clear visualization of the sustainability performance of three major energy companies—Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel—benchmarked against selected Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. This model illustrates the typical progression of companies along a sustainability maturity pathway, represented by an S-shaped curve. The X-axis denotes stages from "Initial" to "Saturation," while the Y-axis reflects the normalized sustainability score (%) derived from a maximum of 30 points (Figure 2). In this analysis, Enerjisa occupies the Developing stage with a normalized score of 63.3%. This highlights that while foundational ESG practices are in place, there remains substantial room for advancement toward more integrated and strategic sustainability. E.ON is positioned within the Mature stage, achieving a robust 86.7%, underlining well-established initiatives in renewable energy, emissions management, and stakeholder engagement. Enel leads the group with a score of 93.3%, firmly situated in the Leadership/Saturation phase. This underscores Enel’s deep-rooted and comprehensive approach to sustainability, reinforcing its role as a sector leader. The S-Curve further illustrates how sustainability efforts generally intensify during the maturity phase—demanding targeted investments and innovation—before reaching a plateau as companies approach saturation. This analytical tool not only benchmarks firms relative to each other but also reveals where they stand in their sustainability trajectory and what strategic priorities are essential to drive continued progress. While this study aligns its interpretations with the well-established S-curve hypothesis in the sustainability literature (Lin et al., 2021; Porter & van der Linde, 1995; Xie et al., 2022), it should be emphasized that the findings here are primarily illustrative and derived from qualitative content analysis of corporate disclosures. This approach highlights patterns consistent with the idea that moderate, strategically integrated adoption of green business practices can optimize firm outcomes, whereas mere compliance or excessive investment might show diminishing returns. However, without econometric tests or broader panel datasets, these conclusions remain exploratory and interpretative. Table 5. Conclusion of the S-Curve Analysis Of Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel Company S-Curve Phase Strategic Characteristics Enerjisa Developing Foundational ESG practices, strong regulatory compliance and occupational safety focus, early-stage renewable integration E.ON Mature Balanced renewable portfolio, structured emission reduction and biodiversity measures, integrated stakeholder programs Enel Leader / Saturation Global ESG leadership, extensive renewable operations and habitat initiatives, deeply embedded sustainability across business lines. Table 5 presents the authors’ synthesis based on the S-curve analysis and qualitative assessment of sustainability practices, drawing on data from Enerjisa (2023a, 2023b), E.ON (2023a, 2023b), and Enel (2023a, 2023b). Sustainability strategies in the energy sector have evolved from being perceived primarily as compliance-driven or ethical imperatives to serving as key sources of competitive advantage. Today, green business models simultaneously address environmental and social responsibilities while enhancing brand equity, stakeholder trust, and long-term financial resilience (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995; Lin et al., 2021). The comparative analysis highlights several critical dimensions of this evolution. First, operational efficiency and emissions management are central. Initiatives targeting energy use (GRI 302) and emission reductions (GRI 305) deliver direct cost savings and performance gains. E.ON, with 58% of its energy portfolio sourced from renewables and clear investments in smart grid technology, exemplifies how digital solutions optimize flows and reduce losses. Net zero commitments also signal varying strategic maturity: Enel and E.ON both aim for 2040, whereas Enerjisa currently targets a 30% emission reduction by 2030, lacking an absolute net zero target, underscoring different levels of climate leadership that are attractive to ESG-focused investors. Second, market leadership and innovation are closely linked to proactive sustainability investment. Enel, with 57% of its vast production mix from renewables totaling approximately 807 million GJ, demonstrates how scale in clean energy drives competitive differentiation and long-term growth. This supports findings that such investments not only mitigate carbon footprints but also bolster innovation capabilities and stakeholder confidence (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Third, regulatory compliance and risk management remain foundational. Enerjisa scores strongly on GRI 307; it reports no environmental fines and maintains rigorous occupational health and safety systems, reflecting how adherence to global standards preempts regulatory risks and promotes operational stability. Finally, stakeholder trust and social engagement are vital levers of legitimacy and sustained performance. Both E.ON and Enel emphasize structured community initiatives under GRI 413, fostering reputational capital and resilient stakeholder relationships. This echoes Freeman et al.’s (2010) stakeholder theory, while Yu et al. (2022) argue that the success of such efforts relies on firms’ dynamic capabilities to adapt to institutional and societal expectations. Collectively, these comparative insights reinforce the S-curve framework’s relevance in mapping how different levels of sustainability integration translate into distinct competitive positions and future growth trajectories. Overall, these patterns underscore that sustainability has transcended its original compliance-oriented scope, becoming a strategic asset that enhances operational excellence, market standing, and resilience in an increasingly climate-conscious global economy. 5.2. Comparison with External ESG Ratings and Triangulation This study enhances the reliability of its findings by triangulating GRI-based content analysis with external ESG ratings and independent assurance reports. This multi-source approach reduces potential biases from selective disclosure and reinforces the empirical robustness of observed patterns. The comparative evidence illustrates a clear maturity gradient: Enerjisa, situated in the Developing phase with a normalized sustainability score of 63.3%, emphasizes regulatory compliance and occupational safety, supported by internal audits reviewed by KPMG. E.ON, positioned in the Mature phase with 86.7%, combines a balanced renewable portfolio, digital optimization initiatives, and independent limited and reasonable assurance engagements under ISAE 3000 standards. Enel, with a leadership score of 93.3%, exemplifies the Leader/Saturation phase by embedding sustainability across core operations, maintaining AAA MSCI ratings, low Sustainalytics risk scores, and comprehensive third-party audits by KPMG (Table 6). Table 6: Triangulation of GRI-Based Analysis, External ESG Ratings, and Assurance Context Company GRI-Based Maturity & Score Third-Party ESG Ratings Assurance / Audit Context Enel Leader/Saturation (93.3%) AAA MSCI, ~20 Sustainalytics Independent assurance on GRI & ESG metrics (KPMG, ISAE 3000) E.ON Mature (86.7%) A-AA MSCI Independent limited & reasonable assurance (KPMG, ISAE 3000) Enerjisa Developing (63.3%) Strong sector score, ~17 Sustainalytics COSO-compliant internal audits externally reviewed by KPMG (2023) Note. This table presents the authors’ triangulated assessment combining GRI-based maturity scores, third-party ESG ratings, and assurance information. Data are synthesized from corporate sustainability and annual reports of Enel (2023a, 2023b), E.ON (2023a, 2023b), and Enerjisa (2023a, 2023b), as well as publicly available ESG rating disclosures (e.g., MSCI ESG Ratings and Sustainalytics). These patterns empirically support the S-curve hypothesis, illustrating how advancing sustainability maturity correlates with differentiated operational efficiencies, innovation capacities, and enhanced stakeholder legitimacy. Strategically embedded ESG initiatives not only address ethical and regulatory obligations but also emerge as critical levers for sustaining long-term competitive advantage in the energy sector, in line with prior research (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995; Lin et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022). It is important to note, however, that these conclusions remain exploratory. The study primarily relies on qualitative content analysis of corporate reports, which, while revealing meaningful patterns aligned with the S-curve framework, does not employ econometric models or multi-firm panel datasets. Thus, findings here should be interpreted as illustrative, indicating that moderate, strategically aligned ESG adoption tends to optimize firm outcomes, whereas limited or excessively resource-intensive approaches may yield diminishing returns. 6. Conclusion and Recommendation This study underscores that sustainability has become a strategic necessity rather than a peripheral obligation in the global energy sector. The comparative evaluation of Enerjisa (63.3%), E.ON (86.7%), and Enel (93.3%) illustrates how firms advance along the sustainability S-curve—from initial compliance-focused practices to integrated, value-driving strategies that yield competitive advantages. Enel exemplifies maturity by embedding ambitious decarbonization targets and stakeholder engagement deeply into its operations. E.ON demonstrates strategic growth through the integration of digital technologies, proactive emissions management, and structured stakeholder programs. Enerjisa represents an emerging approach that prioritizes regulatory compliance and community investment, providing a foundation for future strategic progression. The research further reveals that when GRI frameworks are employed beyond mere reporting checklists, they function as critical instruments for driving innovation, enhancing stakeholder confidence, and strengthening long-term market positioning. The corroboration of GRI-based findings with external ESG ratings and independent assurance audits affirms the role of comprehensive sustainability strategies in boosting financial resilience and corporate reputation. From a managerial perspective, firms should leverage the synergy between digitalization, renewable investments, and inclusive governance to accelerate along the sustainability maturity curve, thereby securing long-term value creation and effective risk mitigation. Policymakers are encouraged to design regulatory regimes and incentive mechanisms—such as tax benefits, green financing tools, and transparent multi-stakeholder platforms—that promote substantive integration of sustainability into corporate strategies, moving beyond compliance toward genuine transformation. By triangulating GRI-based content analysis with external ESG ratings and assurance audits, this study reduces self-reporting bias and greenwashing risks, offering a more credible assessment of sustainability maturity and strategic positioning. The findings highlight that moderate, strategically aligned adoption of green business practices optimizes outcomes, whereas purely compliance-driven or excessively resource-intensive approaches may encounter diminishing returns, consistent with insights from Lin et al. ( 2021 ), Porter & van der Linde ( 1995 ), and Xie et al. ( 2022 ) Future research could deepen these insights by incorporating broader cross-sectoral analyses, exploring the intersection of digital transformation and ESG metrics, and employing mixed-method approaches to uncover the organizational cultures and leadership dynamics that underpin successful sustainability transitions. Such studies would further elucidate how sustainability, when strategically embedded, evolves into a pivotal driver of innovation, stakeholder trust, and enduring competitive advantage. Declarations Acknowledgments This research did not receive any funding. Author Contributions Y.F. conceived and designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote and revised the manuscript. Credit Author Statement The manuscript has a single author; therefore, there are no contributions from other authors. Declaration of Competing Interest There are no conflicts of interest to declare. Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Informed Consent This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Data Availability This study relies exclusively on publicly available corporate sustainability and integrated reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel (2023), accessed through official company websites. To support transparency and reproducibility, the GRI-based codebook and coding scheme (S1), the full raw extraction dataset (S2), the cleaned and processed dataset used in the analysis (S3), and the audit trail documenting data processing and scoring procedures (S4) are provided as supplementary materials. References Abdelbaky A, Liu T, Mingyang X, Shahzad MF, Hassanein A (2024) Real earnings management and ESG performance in China: The mediating role of corporate innovations. Int J Finance Econ 0(0):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.3074 Alazzani A, Hassanein A, Aljanadi Y (2017) Impact of gender diversity on social and environmental performance: Evidence from Malaysia. Corp Governance: Int J Bus Soc 17(2):266–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2015-0161 Belfiori ME (2021) Carbon Taxes and Renewable Energy Subsidies: A Discussion About the Green Paradox. In: Belfiori ME, Rabassa MJ (eds) The Economics of Climate Change in Argentina. The Latin American Studies Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62252-7_6 Benameur KB, Hassanein A, Mostafa MM, Elmaghrabi M, Tharwat H (2025) A decade of sustainable finance scholarly research: Performance analysis, science mapping and future pathways. J Financial Report Acc 23(1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-10-2024-0722 Benameur KB, Mostafa MM, Hassanein A, Shariff MZ, Al-Shattarat W (2024) Sustainability reporting scholarly research: A bibliometric review and a future research agenda. Manage Rev Q 74(3):823–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00319-7 Canapit MCD (2025) Sustainability risk management practices and operational performance of the liner shipping in General Santos City, Philippines. J Health Res Soc 3(2):40–49. https://doi.org/10.34002/jhrs.v3i2.61 Dangelico RM, Vocalelli D (2017) Green Marketing: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J Clean Prod 165:1263–1279 Delmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strateg Manag J 29(10):1027–1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.701 E.ON. (2023a) Integrated annual report 2023 . https://annualreport.eon.com/content/dam/eon-annualreport/documents/en/EON_GB23_engl_gesamt_final.pdf E.ON. (2023b) Sustainability Report 2023 . Retrieved from https://www.eon.com/en/about-us/sustainability.html Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manage Sci 60(11):2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984 Elmaghrabi M, Hassanein A, Diab A (2025) How do firm-level and country-level sustainability governance shape corporate sustainability? Insights from environmentally-sensitive industries. 1086–1110. Social Responsibility Journal , ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2024-0088 Enel (2023a) Integrated annual report 2023 . https://www.enel.com/content/dam/enel-com/documenti/investitori/sostenibilita/2023/sustainability-report_2023.pdf Enel (2023b) Sustainability Report 2023 . Retrieved from https://www.enel.com/investors/sustainability Enerjisa (2023a) Enerjisa Annual report 2023. https://www.enerjisainvestorrelations.com/medium/ReportAndPresentation/File/2952/enerjisaenerji2023annualreport.pdf#page=1.00&gsr=0 Enerjisa (2023b) Sustainability Report 2023 . Retrieved from https://www.enerjisa.com.tr/en/sustainability Fatemi A, Glaum M, Kaiser S (2018) ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Glob Financ J 38:45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001 Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, de Colle S (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768 Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NM, Hultink EJ (2017) The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048 Genovese A, Acquaye AA, Figueroa A, Koh SCL (2017) Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66(Part B), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015 George G, Merrill RK, Schillebeeckx SJ (2020) Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract 45(5):999–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899425 Gidage M, Bhide S (2025) Exploring the nexus between intellectual capital, green innovation, sustainability and financial performance in creative industry MSMEs. J Enterprising Communities: People Places Global Econ 19(3):457–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2024-0134 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2022) Consolidated Set of the GRI Standards , https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language Hamzah M, Suripto S, Holiawati (2025) Green accounting intervenes corporate governance and environmental performance on financial performance. Int J Educational Adm Manage Leadersh 6(1). https://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.v6i1.209 International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013) The International Framework . Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.org/ Khalid F, Curseu PL, Srivastava M, Sun X, Voinea CL (2024) Normative institutional pressures and corporate green development: evidence from a quantile regression approach. Appl Econ Lett 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2024.2334441 Liang Y, Zhao C, Lee M-J (2023) Institutional pressures on sustainability and green performance: The mediating role of digital business model innovation. Sustainability 15(19):14258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258 Lin H, Chen L, Yu M, Li C, Lampel J, Jiang W (2021) Too little or too much of good things? The horizontal S-curve hypothesis of green business strategy on firm performance. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 172:121051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121051 Lopes Cancela B, Coelho A, Neves ME (2024) The role of green strategic alliances and their impact on green organizational identity and sustainability. Benchmarking: Int J 31(10):3723–3753. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2023-0332 Martínez-Ros E, Merino F (2023) Green innovation strategies and firms’ internationalization. Ind Corp Change 32(4):815–830. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac057 Meylani, Sari MR (2025) Exploring the impact of ESG practices on financial performance: The moderating effect of green innovation in the Indonesian energy sector. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Bisnis Airlangga 9(2):196–209. https://doi.org/10.20473/jraba.v9i2.62096 Michelon G, Pilonato S, Ricceri F (2015) CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Crit Perspect Acc 33:59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003 Palinkas LA et al (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res 42(5):533–544 Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Rev 89(1–2):62–77 Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Economic Perspect 9(4):97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97 Sui Y, Luqman A, Chotia V, Jain G, Mehrotra A (2023) Unlocking sustainable success: Strategic approaches to carbon neutrality. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140216 Sułek A, Borowski PF (2024) Business models on the energy market in the era of a low-emission economy. Energies 17(13):3235. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133235 Tahat YA, Hassanein A (2024) Exploring the synergy of corporate gender diversity, sustainability committee, and reporting ESG practices: An international evidence. J Environ Manage 371:123093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123093 United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda Wan J, Wang Y, Wang Y (2025) Promoting or hindering: The impact of ESG rating differences on energy enterprises’ green transformation—A causal test from double machine-learning algorithms. Energies 18(3):464. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030464 Xie X, Hoang TT, Zhu Q (2022) Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers’ tacit green needs. J Innov Knowl 7(1):100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100165 Yadava RN, Sinha B (2016) Scoring sustainability reports using GRI 2011 guidelines for assessing environmental, economic, and social dimensions of leading public and private Indian companies. J Bus Ethics 138:549–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1 Zhang Q, Zhu X, Lee M-J (2024) Exploring institutional pressures, green innovation, and sustainable performance: Examining the mediated moderation role of entrepreneurial orientation. Sustainability, 16(5), 2058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052058 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files S1Codebook.docx S2FullRawDataset.xlsx S3CleanedProcessedDataset.xlsx S4SupplementaryFile.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8212967","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":570850563,"identity":"1fb92d35-bbd5-4f81-8988-a7fd184cfb51","order_by":0,"name":"yunus furuncu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kocaeli University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"yunus","middleName":"","lastName":"furuncu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-26 12:38:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100358203,"identity":"a8ac384d-3f16-4aed-8951-0cb5230ce33e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:44","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":256562,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REVISEDMANUSCRIPT.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/a666cc0c065b4352b7ad1714.docx"},{"id":100358171,"identity":"4602004d-c5f2-4e99-9490-e1d2dc1464ac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:41","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4185,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c8db14bb547b4544a1a8034a76c96166.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/15bb1f3dea1473068caa2782.json"},{"id":100357630,"identity":"883f1dd7-07f8-4864-8b17-5f2cdbfc4353","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:07","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27363,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S1Codebook.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/1df3577386d8ef360168a648.docx"},{"id":100358338,"identity":"21730207-354e-4925-8287-5c0280b84157","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:55","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":10557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S2FullRawDataset.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/a7fc762b24677c7a7fda4ca8.xlsx"},{"id":99873620,"identity":"60d24431-7a21-4839-9ff4-bae737c78483","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9991,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S3CleanedProcessedDataset.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/89d2a32c994d1e6ae796da34.xlsx"},{"id":99873633,"identity":"72f80449-f72f-409d-a03a-28cbfbfdf19d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:44","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":20411,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S4SupplementaryFile.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/ebacdc34abae8baa42e91a43.docx"},{"id":99873630,"identity":"ba09583c-11fd-49a2-be40-e06e9ac2b496","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":132184,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c8db14bb547b4544a1a8034a76c961661enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/9b7680b147656625d8d5dc26.xml"},{"id":100358245,"identity":"1fe73755-a86d-401e-a828-88bb4218a10e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:20:47","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":69298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/91fe7ae80670179cf1632c6d.png"},{"id":99873623,"identity":"10c9917f-4e5d-4529-993d-ca392232dbc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":24919,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/75750fedba9463f117f34cc4.png"},{"id":99873636,"identity":"08a75387-4b9f-4150-a448-4ef4fbfba53e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:44","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":130886,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"c8db14bb547b4544a1a8034a76c961661structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/9613f5626e1bfaee718bc39a.xml"},{"id":99873622,"identity":"a0c1421a-1438-4ae4-b79b-eb61896f57b7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":138548,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/467a47bd9ae32d65135c21c4.html"},{"id":99873632,"identity":"419fefb1-97db-4950-bf22-cd49ca05ae02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:44","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108896,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGRI-Based Content Analysis Of Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/d7de8dbbdb45b816e028e791.jpeg"},{"id":99873621,"identity":"2316028d-b8b9-4df1-9028-f60e60536659","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS-Curve Analysis Of Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/33e2929d8e95f274bd3b1a8d.jpeg"},{"id":103504363,"identity":"60d3aef3-5b6b-4ecf-8dbe-d8534e363438","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:19:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1213600,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/e0b06b90-6cb9-45de-8f57-52a7fdea344c.pdf"},{"id":99873637,"identity":"2f96e346-1796-46e1-9af0-d98a32c5bceb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:44","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":27363,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S1Codebook.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/24e3fb74dbcd5ad5f3ca8e94.docx"},{"id":99873628,"identity":"231a2518-42c6-4c0a-9563-7a88372c75aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S2FullRawDataset.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/58d20456c978db1589c154e5.xlsx"},{"id":100357470,"identity":"2bec9f4a-924d-48f4-b651-90a7147681ff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:19:55","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":9991,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S3CleanedProcessedDataset.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/521a509ac582c544708c7b66.xlsx"},{"id":99873626,"identity":"f223b9df-fd71-4598-a72f-30955d3f71cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-09 09:40:43","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":20411,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"S4SupplementaryFile.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8212967/v1/2b10c3cb5e7afcbe58e5f377.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Strategic Paths to Sustainability: A GRI-Based Comparative Analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel in the Energy Sector","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs sustainability transitions reshape global energy systems, firms face increasing pressure to move beyond compliance-driven environmental practices toward more strategic and innovation-oriented approaches. Understanding how companies navigate this transformation is critical for advancing debates in strategic management, corporate sustainability, organizational behaviour, and policy studies. This research examines how three major energy firms\u0026mdash;Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel\u0026mdash;integrate green business strategies into their organisational processes and competitive positioning. Grounded in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, the study evaluates how environmental, social, and economic practices are mobilised not only as reporting mechanisms but also as strategic capabilities that influence long-term performance and stakeholder legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo guide this inquiry, the article addresses the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; How do Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel apply GRI standards to embed green business strategies across environmental, social, and economic dimensions?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; What major differences arise in their sustainability priorities and strategic orientations?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; How does the S-curve hypothesis explain the nonlinear relationship between the degree of sustainability integration and firm performance?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe central objective is to compare the sustainability strategies of these firms using a structured GRI-based lens and to assess whether their trajectories align with the S-curve hypothesis, which posits diminishing or accelerating returns at different stages of sustainability adoption. In methodological terms, the study employs a qualitative content analysis of the firms\u0026rsquo; 2023 GRI-aligned sustainability reports, triangulated with third-party ESG ratings and independent assurance statements. This combination of data sources enhances interpretive depth and reduces the risk of bias associated with self-reported sustainability information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis is intentionally bounded by publicly disclosed documents, meaning that it does not include internal managerial perspectives, operational site observations, or multi-year performance data. These limitations open avenues for future research that could incorporate executive interviews, longitudinal case studies, or econometric testing to explore causality and strategic learning processes in greater depth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to current scholarship in three key ways. First, it offers a comparative, cross-national analysis of sustainability strategies in the energy sector, highlighting how different institutional contexts and governance structures shape firms\u0026rsquo; ESG orientations. Second, it positions GRI reporting not just as a compliance tool but as an organisational device that structures decision-making, stakeholder communication, and strategic differentiation. Third, by integrating the S-curve hypothesis into the assessment of sustainability maturity, the study provides a novel theoretical perspective on the nonlinear dynamics between ESG adoption and firm performance. Collectively, these contributions enrich interdisciplinary discussions at the intersection of strategic management, sustainability accounting, and energy policy, while offering actionable insights for managers, policymakers, and ESG analysts seeking to evaluate or enhance green business strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe growing urgency of environmental concerns and global decarbonization goals has brought sustainability to the forefront of corporate strategy, especially in the energy sector. In response, numerous scholars have investigated the role of Green Business Strategies (GBS) in driving environmental performance, innovation, and competitive advantage (Porter \u0026amp; Kramer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Dangelico \u0026amp; Vocalelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Integrating sustainability into core operations enhances operational efficiency, creates long-term value, and strengthens stakeholder trust (Fatemi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Freeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this, circular economy principles have gained prominence as firms transition from linear to circular business models to minimize environmental impacts and maximize resource efficiency (Geissdoerfer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Genovese et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These shifts are also shaped by institutional and regulatory pressures encouraging alignment with global initiatives such as the EU Green Deal and national climate policies (Delmas \u0026amp; Toffel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile many studies highlight the role of GRI standards in promoting transparency and accountability (Michelon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Yadava \u0026amp; Sinha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), these studies often treat GRI mainly as a compliance or legitimacy tool. This narrow perspective overlooks how structured reporting frameworks like GRI can actively shape innovation, stakeholder relations, and operational priorities. By focusing on checklists for assurance, prior analyses risk underestimating the strategic depth that GRI-aligned disclosures can offer when integrated into broader competitive positioning (Porter \u0026amp; Kramer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent research has shown that digital technologies transform how companies execute and communicate sustainability strategies, turning ESG data into strategic assets that support organizational change (George et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, empirical studies linking these digital shifts with formal reporting frameworks remain limited. Similarly, although green process innovation has been found to enhance performance under uncertainty (Xie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the intersection with structured GRI-based reporting is still underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, by focusing primarily on compliance or investor communication, prior literature often neglects how sustainability reporting serves to deepen stakeholder trust and build resilient value networks (Freeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This study, positions, therefore, GRI-based disclosures within a strategic management context, showing how transparent practices not only fulfill reputational needs but also foster innovation, risk mitigation, and stakeholder collaboration, essential for the energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the relationship between green strategy adoption and firm performance has been explained using S-curve or U-curve models (Gidage \u0026amp; Bhide, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Xie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that benefits rise nonlinearly with adoption levels. However, empirical applications of these models to energy companies remain rare. No prior study integrates the S-curve hypothesis with a GRI-based sustainability assessment to explore these nonlinear effects on efficiency and strategic outcomes. This research fills that gap by offering a structured, comparative, and theory-informed framework that enhances both scholarly understanding and practical insights into sustainability strategy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo systematically summarize the key studies underpinning this research, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e highlights selected works addressing GBS, ESG, GRI disclosures, digital transformation, and green innovation in corporate sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Selected Literature on GBS, ESG, GRI and Green Innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor \u0026amp; Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy Title\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePorter \u0026amp; Kramer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreating Shared Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual/Theoretical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGBS fosters innovation and competitiveness by embedding sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDangelico \u0026amp; Vocalelli (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability and Firm Performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRenewable energy investment increases ESG ratings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeissdoerfer et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircular Economy in Business Models\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe circular economy reduces carbon footprint and boosts efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFatemi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG and Stakeholder Capital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG builds stakeholder trust and reputation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMichelon et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability Disclosure and GRI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI improves transparency and corporate image.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeorge et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigitalization and Sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital ESG tools become strategic assets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eXie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen Process Innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancial burden initially, later gains via collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGidage \u0026amp; Bhide (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreen Innovation in MSMEs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eU-curve: initial costs, later gains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbdelbaky et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG, Innovation \u0026amp; Firm Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG plus innovation enhances long-term value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG Collaboration in Energy Firms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance boosts green innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeylani \u0026amp; Sari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG and Innovation in Energy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eESG and innovation improve returns and efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHamzah et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Performance \u0026amp; Finance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance and green accounting improve finances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLopes Cancela et al. (2023)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic Alliances \u0026amp; Identity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlliances build a green identity and a culture of innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreeman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder Theory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder engagement builds trust and legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital Models \u0026amp; Regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation drives digital innovation and green outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKhalid et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormative Pressures \u0026amp; Green Investment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGOs and partnerships increase green investment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZhang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional Pressures \u0026amp; Innovation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional pressures drive green innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies have significantly advanced the literature on green business strategies (GBS) by empirically connecting financial transparency, ESG outcomes, and innovation (Abdelbaky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence from energy firms across diverse institutional contexts underscores how both firm-level governance mechanisms and country-level factors shape ESG performance (Elmaghrabi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Bibliometric analyses reveal that sustainability reporting (SR) and sustainable finance (SF) research have evolved into multidimensional fields, increasingly intertwining with governance structures, stakeholder engagement, and assurance practices (Benameur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, findings on gender diversity and dedicated sustainability committees highlight the critical role of cultural and organizational factors in strengthening ESG disclosures (Alazzani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tahat \u0026amp; Hassanein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While traditional literature emphasizes GRI disclosures primarily as compliance tools, there is growing recognition of their strategic function in aligning with SDGs and market-based ESG assessments. However, gaps remain regarding how GRI reporting integrates with digital transformation, S-curve innovation dynamics, and broader competitive repositioning, especially within the energy sector. This study addresses these gaps by systematically comparing energy firms through a GRI-based lens, offering nuanced insights into how structured sustainability practices drive operational excellence, stakeholder trust, and long-term resilience\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a qualitative, comparative case study design to evaluate the sustainability strategies of three major energy firms: Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. By leveraging the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, the research systematically examines how these companies disclose and implement environmental, social, and economic sustainability practices. The theoretical foundation integrates insights from the S-curve hypothesis to explore the potential nonlinear relationship between the maturity of green business strategies and their operational and financial impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study strategically selected Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel to ensure a diverse cross-section of the energy sector across different geographic, regulatory, and market contexts. Enerjisa represents a rapidly developing energy market within Turkey, characterized by evolving regulatory landscapes and localized sustainability initiatives. E.ON, based in Germany, exemplifies an advanced European energy firm integrating digital and decarbonization strategies. Enel, headquartered in Italy, is a mature multinational operator with an extensive renewable portfolio and ambitious net-zero targets. These cases were chosen not through random sampling but through purposeful selection (Palinkas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) to capture heterogeneity in sustainability maturity and strategic orientation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data Collection Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected from the official 2023 sustainability reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel, retrieved directly from their investor relations websites. These reports serve as primary data sources, offering structured disclosures aligned with the GRI standards. The selected reports were independently verified through limited and reasonable assurance engagements conducted by KPMG, thereby providing an additional layer of reliability beyond self-reported data. The focus was placed on disclosures structured under the latest GRI Universal Standards, including GRI 1 (Foundation), GRI 2 (General Disclosures), and GRI 3 (Material Topics). All extracted qualitative and quantitative disclosures were recorded at the indicator level with explicit page or section references. The complete raw extraction dataset is provided as Supplementary File S2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Analysis Method\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA manual content analysis methodology was employed to systematically code and assess the sustainability disclosures of the selected companies. The analysis concentrated on key GRI indicators across three dimensions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental (GRI 301\u0026ndash;308): covering materials use, energy consumption, water management, biodiversity impact, emissions, waste handling, compliance, and supplier assessments. Social (GRI 401\u0026ndash;419): encompassing employment practices, health and safety, diversity and equal opportunity, human rights considerations, community relations, and customer privacy. Economic: addressing economic performance and value creation metrics reported under GRI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevant sections of each report were reviewed and categorized using structured Excel spreadsheets to facilitate frequency tabulation and cross-company comparisons. To ensure analytical rigor, two researcher conducted independent coding of the data and resolved discrepancies through iterative discussions. Additionally, insights from recent studies on the S-curve hypothesis (Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) were incorporated to interpret how varying levels of green strategy adoption, may influence firm performance, reflecting the potential for diminishing returns when sustainability investments exceed optimal thresholds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, this methodology enables a robust comparative assessment of how structured GRI-aligned sustainability practices relate to strategic objectives, stakeholder engagement, and long-term resilience within the energy sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cleaned and processed dataset that reproduces all indicator-level scores, normalized values, and S-curve classifications reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e is provided as Supplementary File S3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Triangulation with External ESG Ratings and Assurance Reports\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo mitigate the limitations inherent in relying solely on self-reported sustainability disclosures\u0026mdash;such as potential self-reporting bias or greenwashing\u0026mdash;this study incorporates a triangulation strategy. Specifically, it complements the GRI-based content analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel with two additional external sources: (i) independent third-party ESG ratings from agencies such as MSCI and Sustainalytics, and (ii) formal assurance statements provided by auditing firms (e.g., KPMG under ISAE 3000 standards).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExternal ESG ratings serve as standardized benchmarks that independently evaluate companies\u0026rsquo; environmental, social, and governance performance. Integrating these scores allows for cross-validation of GRI-disclosed metrics, ensuring that corporate narratives align with market perceptions and risk assessments. For example, Enel\u0026rsquo;s AAA MSCI rating and low Sustainalytics risk score (~\u0026thinsp;20) corroborate its advanced GRI disclosures on renewable energy and emissions reduction, reinforcing the reliability of the qualitative findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, assurance statements\u0026mdash;conducted by KPMG\u0026mdash;included in the 2023 sustainability reports of all three companies provide an additional layer of data validation. Limited or reasonable assurance engagements reduce informational asymmetries and support the credibility of key GRI indicators (GRI 302, GRI 305, GRI 403), among others, helping to mitigate risks of selective disclosure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis triangulated approach enhances the methodological rigor of the study by cross-verifying internal sustainability claims against independent evaluations. It thereby addresses common critiques in sustainability research concerning the overreliance on self-reported data, ultimately increasing the robustness and trustworthiness of the comparative analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Methodological Scope and Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study deliberately adopts a comparative, case-based content analysis design, focusing on a purposive sample of three major energy companies. By leveraging publicly available sustainability reports, GRI-based disclosures, and external ESG ratings, the research prioritizes depth and strategic insights over statistical generalizability. This methodological approach enables a nuanced exploration of how green business strategies are operationalized across diverse corporate and regional contexts. However, it does not inherently aim to provide econometric causality tests or broad panel-level inferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should advance this agenda by employing longitudinal or large-sample panel data to rigorously test the S-curve dynamics suggested in this study and to uncover broader industry patterns. Econometric models could provide more robust evidence of the non-linear effects of green business strategy adoption on firm performance. In addition, incorporating primary qualitative evidence\u0026mdash;such as executive interviews and facility-level observations\u0026mdash;would enrich understanding of managerial interpretations and operational realities, helping to disentangle firm-specific narratives from wider sectoral tendencies. Such mixed-method extensions would significantly enhance explanatory power and illuminate the causal pathways between sustainability integration and long-term competitiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGRI Compliance and Sustainability Strategy Effectiveness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of the content analysis reveal differences in the sustainability strategies of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. While all three companies emphasize sustainability, their approaches vary in terms of investment in renewable energy, commitment to carbon neutrality, and stakeholder engagement (Sui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These differences align with the S-curve hypothesis, which suggests that firms may initially struggle with green strategy implementation but later experience performance benefits before reaching a point of diminishing returns (Lin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Dimension (GRI 301\u0026ndash;308)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 302 (Energy)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 305 (Emissions)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNet Zero Target Year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 304 (Biodiversity)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 307 (Compliance)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnerjisa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.158\u0026nbsp;million GJ, Installed GES capacity: 29.5 MWp, 46% renewable (installed capacity)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScope 1: 0.48 Mt, Scope 2: 1.7 Mt, Scope 3: 19.3 Mt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30% reduction by 2030, no absolute net zero target\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategy newly launched\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo environmental fine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE.ON\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u0026nbsp;million GJ, 58% renewable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScope 1: 1.98 Mt, Scope 2: 3.66 Mt, Scope 3: 60,06 Mt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2040 net zero\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcological corridor management at 19%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo major environmental fine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e806.7\u0026nbsp;million GJ, 57% renewable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScope 1: 34.51 Mt, Scope 2: 3.28\u0026ndash;4.51 Mt, Scope 3: 56.5 Mt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2040 net zero\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHabitat protection/restoration programs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39 incidents, \u0026euro;3.98\u0026nbsp;million fine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote. This table is compiled by the author based on data obtained from Enerjisa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e), Enel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e), and E.ON (2023a, 2023b).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis of environmental sustainability indicators across Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel underscores distinctive strategies in their transition toward greener operations. In terms of energy consumption (GRI 302), Enel exhibits the largest footprint at 806,7\u0026nbsp;million GJ annually, followed by E.ON with 49\u0026nbsp;million GJ, while Enerjisa\u0026rsquo;s on-site renewable generation is relatively modest at 0.158\u0026nbsp;million GJ. However, both E.ON and Enel maintain substantial shares of renewable energy within their portfolios\u0026mdash;58% and 57% respectively\u0026mdash;indicating deep integration of renewables into their core operations (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning emissions (GRI 305), Enel stands out with the highest Scope 1 emissions at 34.51 Mt, reflective of its vast generation scale, whereas E.ON and Enerjisa report significantly lower direct emissions at 1.98 Mt and 0.48 Mt, respectively. Notably, both E.ON and Enel have set clear net zero targets by 2040, while Enerjisa currently pursues a 30% reduction by 2030 without an absolute net zero date, suggesting differing long-term climate ambitions (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiodiversity initiatives (GRI 304) vary, with Enel implementing comprehensive habitat protection programs, E.ON managing 19% of its network as ecological corridors, and Enerjisa recently launching its biodiversity strategy. In terms of compliance (GRI 307), Enel reported 39 incidents amounting to \u0026euro;3.98\u0026nbsp;million in fines, whereas E.ON and Enerjisa disclosed no significant environmental penalties, highlighting differences in regulatory exposure and operational impacts (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of water management (GRI 303), all three companies demonstrate awareness of sustainability. However, Enel stands out with comprehensive sustainable water usage projects, while Enerjisa concentrates on general water-saving policies. Biodiversity initiatives (GRI 304) also reflect this hierarchy, ranging from limited efforts of Enerjisa to extensive programs of Enel. Interestingly, all three companies report full compliance with environmental regulations (GRI 307), indicating a shared baseline for regulatory adherence, though the strategic depth beyond compliance varies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the data suggest that Enel exemplifies a more mature and integrated green business strategy, aligning sustainability performance with long-term corporate goals. E.ON demonstrates strong progress, particularly in emissions and water treatment, positioning itself as a digital and environmentally responsive firm. Enerjisa, while compliant and active in local projects, appears to be in earlier phases of its green transformation journey, offering potential for strategic scaling and innovation in the near future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Dimension (GRI 401\u0026ndash;419)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 401 (Employment)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 403 (Health \u0026amp; Safety)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 405 (Diversity \u0026amp; Equality)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGRI 413 (Local Communities)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnerjisa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11000 employees, 27% women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIF: 8.7, LTIF: 5.6, SIF: ~0.71, ~\u0026thinsp;307,000 hrs training\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale manager ratio: 20%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious CSR \u0026amp; volunteer projects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE.ON\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71,600 employees, 32% women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIF: 2.8, LTIF: 2.2, SIF: 0.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale manager ratio: 24%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity engagement described\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65,838 employees, 30% women\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTRIF: 1.88, LTIF: 0.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale manager ratio: 27%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProjects described\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eNote. This table is compiled by the author based on data obtained from Enerjisa (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e), Enel (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e), and E.ON (2023a, 2023b).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative evaluation of social sustainability indicators across Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel reveals important insights into how these companies integrate workforce development, diversity, and community engagement into their green business strategies. Regarding employment size (GRI 401), E.ON leads with 71,600 employees, followed by Enel with 65,838 and Enerjisa with approximately 11,000, reflecting differences in operational scale and stakeholder reach (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of health and safety performance (GRI 403), Enerjisa reports a TRIF of 8.7, significantly higher than E.ON at 2.8 and Enel at 1.88, which may indicate differences in operational risk profiles or reporting methodologies. However, Enerjisa also demonstrates a strong commitment through extensive safety training totaling around 307,000 hours annually (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversity metrics (GRI 405) show that Enel has the highest proportion of female managers at 27%, with E.ON close behind at 24%, while Enerjisa stands at 20%, suggesting varying degrees of gender inclusion in leadership roles (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to local community initiatives (GRI 413), all three firms highlight robust community engagement programs, though Enel\u0026rsquo;s and E.ON\u0026rsquo;s reports are more structured, whereas Enerjisa emphasizes a broad range of CSR and volunteer projects without detailed quantitative disclosures. These patterns collectively illustrate how social dimensions are embedded differently within each company\u0026rsquo;s broader sustainability strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to environmental and social dimensions, the analysis also incorporates the economic aspects guided by GRI economic performance indicators, reflecting how sustainability initiatives translate into financial resilience and long-term value creation (GRI, 2022). While this study does not provide a detailed quantitative breakdown of all economic metrics, the 2023 sustainability reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel demonstrate consistent positive financial trajectories that appear intertwined with their respective green business strategies. Enel, for example, highlights steady growth in revenues and EBITDA, attributing this performance partly to operational efficiencies gained through renewable energy integration and digital grid modernization (Enel, 2023). Similarly, E.ON\u0026rsquo;s disclosures indicate stable earnings supported by investments in smart infrastructure and decarbonization projects (E.ON, 2023). Enerjisa, though in earlier stages of its green strategy adoption, reports gradual increases in sales volumes and regional returns, suggesting an emerging financial alignment with its sustainability agenda (Enerjisa, 2023). These patterns are consistent with broader research showing that firms with strong ESG and sustainability commitments often achieve improved risk-adjusted returns and capital efficiency over time (Fatemi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Eccles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, this supports the perspective that integrating comprehensive GRI-aligned sustainability practices not only addresses environmental and social imperatives but also underpins economic stability and long-term competitiveness, reinforcing the multi-capital framework advocated in ESG and the integrated reporting standards (International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, Enel consistently outperforms its peers across key social sustainability metrics, highlighting its advanced and inclusive green business strategy. E.ON also demonstrates solid performance, particularly in safety and community involvement. Enerjisa, though smaller in scale, shows foundational strengths and room for strategic enhancement, especially in diversity and local impact initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe reported scores reflect the depth and strategic integration of sustainability disclosures rather than operational performance per se and should therefore be interpreted in a comparative and illustrative manner.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Interpretation of the Findings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study confirm that the relationship between green business strategies and firm performance is distinctly non-linear, advancing through the development, growth, and maturity stages in line with the S-curve hypothesis (Lin et al., 2021; Porter \u0026amp; Van der Linde, 1995). This supports theoretical expectations that initial sustainability efforts produce limited returns, which accelerate during strategic scaling and eventually plateau as firms reach high levels of sustainability integration (Gidage \u0026amp; Bhide, 2025; Xie et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnerjisa, representing the development phase, primarily concentrates on establishing core ESG frameworks with a notable emphasis on compliance (GRI 307) and initial biodiversity strategies (GRI 304). Its renewable energy share stands at 46% of the total installed capacity \u0026nbsp;accompanied by approximately 0.158 million GJ of annual on-site green generation and emissions of 0.48 Mt for Scope 1 and 1.7 Mt for Scope 2 (GRI 302, 305). This suggests that while foundational sustainability structures are in place, Enerjisa has yet to achieve significant economies of scale or transformational ESG returns, consistent with Michelon et al. (2015), who argue that early-stage ESG activities largely serve legitimacy objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eE.ON exemplifies the growth phase, in which digital integration via smart grids and ecological corridor initiatives covering 19% of its network (GRI 304) bolster both environmental performance and strategic positioning. With 58% of its energy portfolio sourced from renewables and Scope 1 emissions at 1.98 Mt (GRI 302, 305), alongside an ambitious 2040 net zero target, E.ON illustrates how mid-stage firms can harness ESG initiatives to drive operational efficiencies and build stakeholder trust. Moreover, robust governance practices and community engagement programs (GRI 413) underline the accumulation of social capital, echoing Freeman et al. (2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnel, situated in the maturity phase, demonstrates advanced ESG integration. Approximately 57% of its production mix comes from renewable sources. It also records the highest Scope 1 emissions at 34.51 Mt, which reflects its expansive operations. However, comprehensive habitat protection initiatives under GRI 304 and strong regulatory compliance efforts balance this, even though the company incurred \u0026euro;3.98 million in fines (GRI 307). Enel\u0026rsquo;s extensive local community projects (GRI 413) and long-standing sustainability commitments support Porter and Kramer\u0026rsquo;s (2011) view that shared value strategies build competitive advantage. Yet, as new ESG investments yield diminishing returns, Enel faces the challenge of shifting its focus from expansion toward optimization aligning with the suggestions of Fatemi et al. (2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA significant contribution of this study lies in showing how the GRI standards function beyond mere compliance tools, evolving into strategic frameworks that guide digitalization, inclusive governance, and long-term decarbonization (Yadava \u0026amp; Sinha, 2016; Abdelbaky et al., 2024). This finding resonates with Dangelico and Vocalelli (2017), who argue that robust ESG frameworks serve as catalysts for integrating sustainability into core business models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study also demonstrates empirically that the intensity of sustainability reporting and its strategic benefits do not evolve linearly. Enerjisa\u0026rsquo;s focus on basic ESG metrics contrasts sharply with Enel\u0026rsquo;s holistic integration across the GRI 300\u0026ndash;400 series, illustrating, how maturity stages yield different innovation capacities and stakeholder perceptions (Porter \u0026amp; Kramer, 2011). This highlights the importance of managers calibrating sustainability investments according to their position on the S-curve to maximize strategic payoffs (Lin et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights that third-party assurance, as seen in E.ON and Enel, strengthens the credibility of ESG disclosures and builds stakeholder trust, aligning with Michelon et al. (2015). It also suggests that such practices can guide policymakers toward frameworks that promote strategic ESG integration beyond compliance (Abdelbaky et al., 2024). Overall, the comparative analysis demonstrates how applying GRI standards alongside the S-curve hypothesis reveals the link between transparency, innovation, and performance, supporting the view that sustainability reporting can serve as a strategic management tool (Fatemi et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHow do Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel implement green business strategies based on GRI standards across environmental, social, and economic dimensions?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnerjisa, E.ON, and Enel apply GRI standards with varying levels of strategic depth across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Enerjisa uses GRI primarily for regulatory compliance and ESG foundation-building, with emphasis on biodiversity (GRI 304), occupational health and safety (GRI 403, TRIF 8.7), and local community engagement (GRI 413). E.ON adopts a more integrated approach, embedding GRI metrics into its digital and operational strategies, evidenced by 58% renewable energy (GRI 302), ecological corridor management (GRI 304), low TRIF (2.8), and balanced stakeholder initiatives. Enel showcases the most comprehensive implementation, aligning GRI indicators with core business practices, including 57% renewable generation (GRI 302), large-scale emissions disclosure (GRI 305), habitat restoration (GRI 304), and substantial community investments (GRI 413), reflecting a mature, multidimensional ESG strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWhat are the key differences in their sustainability priorities and strategic approaches?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnerjisa approaches sustainability primarily as a compliance-driven effort, focusing on meeting regulatory requirements and building legitimacy, with a 46% renewable capacity and no absolute net-zero target. E.ON adopts a more growth-oriented strategy, using sustainability for technological innovation and competitive advantage, supported by its smart grid integration, 2040 net-zero goal, and inclusive governance. Enel represents the most mature model, fully embedding sustainability into its operations through extensive biodiversity initiatives, a 2040 net-zero commitment, and broad community engagement, demonstrating how advanced ESG strategies can drive market leadership despite diminishing marginal returns.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTo what extent does the S-curve hypothesis explain the relationship between the degree of green business strategy adoption and firm performance in the energy sector?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel supports the S-curve hypothesis by illustrating a nonlinear link between green strategy adoption and firm performance. Enerjisa, in the early stage, focuses on ESG compliance with limited returns. E.ON, in the growth phase, sees rising benefits from integrated sustainability efforts. Enel, in the maturity phase, maintains leadership through deep ESG integration, though gains begin to plateau. This pattern confirms the S-curve as a useful framework for understanding performance outcomes in the energy sector.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4. GRI Total Score Of Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"440\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriterion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnerjisa\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eE.ON\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRI 302 \u0026ndash; Renewable Energy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRI 305 \u0026ndash; Emission Reduction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRI 403 \u0026ndash; Occupational H\u0026amp;S\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRI 413 \u0026ndash; Community Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGRI 307 \u0026ndash; Regulatory Compliance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNet Zero Commitment Year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal Score\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 251px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormalized (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Indicator-level raw disclosures are documented in Supplementary File S2, while the cleaned and processed dataset underlying this table is provided in Supplementary File S3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis based on selected sustainability criteria reveals clear performance distinctions among Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. Across six key indicators\u0026mdash;spanning renewable energy use (GRI 302), emission reduction efforts (GRI 305), health and safety practices (GRI 403), community engagement (GRI 413), regulatory compliance (GRI 307), and net zero commitment timelines\u0026mdash;Enel consistently outperforms the others, achieving the highest total score of 28 and a normalized sustainability rating of 93.3%. This underscores Enel\u0026rsquo;s robust integration of renewable energy, aggressive decarbonization strategies, and expansive community initiatives (figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eE.ON follows closely with a total score of 26 (normalized at 86.7%), reflecting a well-balanced and mature sustainability strategy, particularly evident in its renewable energy portfolio, emission reduction pathway, and clear net zero target for 2040. In contrast, Enerjisa records a total score of 19 (normalized at 63.3%), showing strengths in regulatory compliance and occupational health and safety, but relatively lower alignment with long-term emission reduction and climate objectives. This scoring model quantitatively positions Enel as a sustainability leader, E.ON as a strong and structured performer, and Enerjisa as a company still progressing along the ESG development curve (table 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe S-Curve analysis offers a clear visualization of the sustainability performance of three major energy companies\u0026mdash;Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel\u0026mdash;benchmarked against selected Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators. This model illustrates the typical progression of companies along a sustainability maturity pathway, represented by an S-shaped curve. The X-axis denotes stages from \u0026quot;Initial\u0026quot; to \u0026quot;Saturation,\u0026quot; while the Y-axis reflects the normalized sustainability score (%) derived from a maximum of 30 points (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this analysis, Enerjisa occupies the Developing stage with a normalized score of 63.3%. This highlights that while foundational ESG practices are in place, there remains substantial room for advancement toward more integrated and strategic sustainability. E.ON is positioned within the Mature stage, achieving a robust 86.7%, underlining well-established initiatives in renewable energy, emissions management, and stakeholder engagement. Enel leads the group with a score of 93.3%, firmly situated in the Leadership/Saturation phase. This underscores Enel\u0026rsquo;s deep-rooted and comprehensive approach to sustainability, reinforcing its role as a sector leader. The S-Curve further illustrates how sustainability efforts generally intensify during the maturity phase\u0026mdash;demanding targeted investments and innovation\u0026mdash;before reaching a plateau as companies approach saturation. This analytical tool not only benchmarks firms relative to each other but also reveals where they stand in their sustainability trajectory and what strategic priorities are essential to drive continued progress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study aligns its interpretations with the well-established S-curve hypothesis in the sustainability literature (Lin et al., 2021; Porter \u0026amp; van der Linde, 1995; Xie et al., 2022), it should be emphasized that the findings here are primarily illustrative and derived from qualitative content analysis of corporate disclosures. This approach highlights patterns consistent with the idea that moderate, strategically integrated adoption of green business practices can optimize firm outcomes, whereas mere compliance or excessive investment might show diminishing returns. However, without econometric tests or broader panel datasets, these conclusions remain exploratory and interpretative.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5. Conclusion of the S-Curve Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOf Enerjisa, E.ON and Enel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"576\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompany\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS-Curve Phase\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 405px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrategic Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnerjisa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 405px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFoundational ESG practices, strong regulatory compliance and occupational safety focus, early-stage renewable integration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE.ON\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 405px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBalanced renewable portfolio, structured emission reduction and biodiversity measures, integrated stakeholder programs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeader / Saturation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 405px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal ESG leadership, extensive renewable operations and habitat initiatives, deeply embedded sustainability across business lines.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 presents the authors\u0026rsquo; synthesis based on the S-curve analysis and qualitative assessment of sustainability practices, drawing on data from Enerjisa (2023a, 2023b), E.ON (2023a, 2023b), and Enel (2023a, 2023b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSustainability strategies in the energy sector have evolved from being perceived primarily as compliance-driven or ethical imperatives to serving as key sources of competitive advantage. Today, green business models simultaneously address environmental and social responsibilities while enhancing brand equity, stakeholder trust, and long-term financial resilience (Porter \u0026amp; Van der Linde, 1995; Lin et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe comparative analysis highlights several critical dimensions of this evolution. First, operational efficiency and emissions management are central. Initiatives targeting energy use (GRI 302) and emission reductions (GRI 305) deliver direct cost savings and performance gains. E.ON, with 58% of its energy portfolio sourced from renewables and clear investments in smart grid technology, exemplifies how digital solutions optimize flows and reduce losses. Net zero commitments also signal varying strategic maturity: Enel and E.ON both aim for 2040, whereas Enerjisa currently targets a 30% emission reduction by 2030, lacking an absolute net zero target, underscoring different levels of climate leadership that are attractive to ESG-focused investors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, market leadership and innovation are closely linked to proactive sustainability investment. Enel, with 57% of its vast production mix from renewables totaling approximately 807 million GJ, demonstrates how scale in clean energy drives competitive differentiation and long-term growth. This supports findings that such investments not only mitigate carbon footprints but also bolster innovation capabilities and stakeholder confidence (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, regulatory compliance and risk management remain foundational. Enerjisa scores strongly on GRI 307; it reports no environmental fines and maintains rigorous occupational health and safety systems, reflecting how adherence to global standards preempts regulatory risks and promotes operational stability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, stakeholder trust and social engagement are vital levers of legitimacy and sustained performance. Both E.ON and Enel emphasize structured community initiatives under GRI 413, fostering reputational capital and resilient stakeholder relationships. This echoes Freeman et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2010) stakeholder theory, while Yu et al. (2022) argue that the success of such efforts relies on firms\u0026rsquo; dynamic capabilities to adapt to institutional and societal expectations. Collectively, these comparative insights reinforce the S-curve framework\u0026rsquo;s relevance in mapping how different levels of sustainability integration translate into distinct competitive positions and future growth trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these patterns underscore that sustainability has transcended its original compliance-oriented scope, becoming a strategic asset that enhances operational excellence, market standing, and resilience in an increasingly climate-conscious global economy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Comparison with External ESG Ratings and Triangulation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study enhances the reliability of its findings by triangulating GRI-based content analysis with external ESG ratings and independent assurance reports. This multi-source approach reduces potential biases from selective disclosure and reinforces the empirical robustness of observed patterns. The comparative evidence illustrates a clear maturity gradient: Enerjisa, situated in the Developing phase with a normalized sustainability score of 63.3%, emphasizes regulatory compliance and occupational safety, supported by internal audits reviewed by KPMG. E.ON, positioned in the Mature phase with 86.7%, combines a balanced renewable portfolio, digital optimization initiatives, and independent limited and reasonable assurance engagements under ISAE 3000 standards. Enel, with a leadership score of 93.3%, exemplifies the Leader/Saturation phase by embedding sustainability across core operations, maintaining AAA MSCI ratings, low Sustainalytics risk scores, and comprehensive third-party audits by KPMG (Table 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Triangulation of GRI-Based Analysis, External ESG Ratings, and Assurance Context\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"577\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompany\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGRI-Based Maturity \u0026amp; Score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird-Party ESG Ratings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssurance / Audit Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeader/Saturation (93.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAAA MSCI, ~20 Sustainalytics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent assurance on GRI \u0026amp; ESG metrics (KPMG, ISAE 3000)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE.ON\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMature (86.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA-AA MSCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent limited \u0026amp; reasonable assurance (KPMG, ISAE 3000)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 79px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnerjisa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping (63.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrong sector score, ~17 Sustainalytics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 218px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCOSO-compliant internal audits externally reviewed by KPMG (2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. This table presents the authors\u0026rsquo; triangulated assessment combining GRI-based maturity scores, third-party ESG ratings, and assurance information. Data are synthesized from corporate sustainability and annual reports of Enel (2023a, 2023b), E.ON (2023a, 2023b), and Enerjisa (2023a, 2023b), as well as publicly available ESG rating disclosures (e.g., MSCI ESG Ratings and Sustainalytics).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese patterns empirically support the S-curve hypothesis, illustrating how advancing sustainability maturity correlates with differentiated operational efficiencies, innovation capacities, and enhanced stakeholder legitimacy. Strategically embedded ESG initiatives not only address ethical and regulatory obligations but also emerge as critical levers for sustaining long-term competitive advantage in the energy sector, in line with prior research (Porter \u0026amp; Van der Linde, 1995; Lin et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to note, however, that these conclusions remain exploratory. The study primarily relies on qualitative content analysis of corporate reports, which, while revealing meaningful patterns aligned with the S-curve framework, does not employ econometric models or multi-firm panel datasets. Thus, findings here should be interpreted as illustrative, indicating that moderate, strategically aligned ESG adoption tends to optimize firm outcomes, whereas limited or excessively resource-intensive approaches may yield diminishing returns.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion and Recommendation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study underscores that sustainability has become a strategic necessity rather than a peripheral obligation in the global energy sector. The comparative evaluation of Enerjisa (63.3%), E.ON (86.7%), and Enel (93.3%) illustrates how firms advance along the sustainability S-curve\u0026mdash;from initial compliance-focused practices to integrated, value-driving strategies that yield competitive advantages. Enel exemplifies maturity by embedding ambitious decarbonization targets and stakeholder engagement deeply into its operations. E.ON demonstrates strategic growth through the integration of digital technologies, proactive emissions management, and structured stakeholder programs. Enerjisa represents an emerging approach that prioritizes regulatory compliance and community investment, providing a foundation for future strategic progression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research further reveals that when GRI frameworks are employed beyond mere reporting checklists, they function as critical instruments for driving innovation, enhancing stakeholder confidence, and strengthening long-term market positioning. The corroboration of GRI-based findings with external ESG ratings and independent assurance audits affirms the role of comprehensive sustainability strategies in boosting financial resilience and corporate reputation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a managerial perspective, firms should leverage the synergy between digitalization, renewable investments, and inclusive governance to accelerate along the sustainability maturity curve, thereby securing long-term value creation and effective risk mitigation. Policymakers are encouraged to design regulatory regimes and incentive mechanisms\u0026mdash;such as tax benefits, green financing tools, and transparent multi-stakeholder platforms\u0026mdash;that promote substantive integration of sustainability into corporate strategies, moving beyond compliance toward genuine transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy triangulating GRI-based content analysis with external ESG ratings and assurance audits, this study reduces self-reporting bias and greenwashing risks, offering a more credible assessment of sustainability maturity and strategic positioning. The findings highlight that moderate, strategically aligned adoption of green business practices optimizes outcomes, whereas purely compliance-driven or excessively resource-intensive approaches may encounter diminishing returns, consistent with insights from Lin et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), Porter \u0026amp; van der Linde (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), and Xie et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research could deepen these insights by incorporating broader cross-sectoral analyses, exploring the intersection of digital transformation and ESG metrics, and employing mixed-method approaches to uncover the organizational cultures and leadership dynamics that underpin successful sustainability transitions. Such studies would further elucidate how sustainability, when strategically embedded, evolves into a pivotal driver of innovation, stakeholder trust, and enduring competitive advantage.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eY.F. conceived and designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote and revised the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCredit Author Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe manuscript has a single author; therefore, there are no contributions from other authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Competing Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are no conflicts of interest to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study relies exclusively on publicly available corporate sustainability and integrated reports of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel (2023), accessed through official company websites. To support transparency and reproducibility, the GRI-based codebook and coding scheme (S1), the full raw extraction dataset (S2), the cleaned and processed dataset used in the analysis (S3), and the audit trail documenting data processing and scoring procedures (S4) are provided as supplementary materials.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdelbaky A, Liu T, Mingyang X, Shahzad MF, Hassanein A (2024) Real earnings management and ESG performance in China: The mediating role of corporate innovations. Int J Finance Econ 0(0):1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.3074\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ijfe.3074\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlazzani A, Hassanein A, Aljanadi Y (2017) Impact of gender diversity on social and environmental performance: Evidence from Malaysia. Corp Governance: Int J Bus Soc 17(2):266\u0026ndash;283. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2015-0161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/CG-12-2015-0161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBelfiori ME (2021) Carbon Taxes and Renewable Energy Subsidies: A Discussion About the Green Paradox. In: Belfiori ME, Rabassa MJ (eds) The Economics of Climate Change in Argentina. The Latin American Studies Book Series. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62252-7_6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-62252-7_6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenameur KB, Hassanein A, Mostafa MM, Elmaghrabi M, Tharwat H (2025) A decade of sustainable finance scholarly research: Performance analysis, science mapping and future pathways. J Financial Report Acc 23(1):1\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-10-2024-0722\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JFRA-10-2024-0722\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenameur KB, Mostafa MM, Hassanein A, Shariff MZ, Al-Shattarat W (2024) Sustainability reporting scholarly research: A bibliometric review and a future research agenda. Manage Rev Q 74(3):823\u0026ndash;866. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00319-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11301-023-00319-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCanapit MCD (2025) Sustainability risk management practices and operational performance of the liner shipping in General Santos City, Philippines. J Health Res Soc 3(2):40\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.34002/jhrs.v3i2.61\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.34002/jhrs.v3i2.61\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDangelico RM, Vocalelli D (2017) Green Marketing: An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J Clean Prod 165:1263\u0026ndash;1279\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDelmas MA, Toffel MW (2008) Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strateg Manag J 29(10):1027\u0026ndash;1055. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/smj.701\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/smj.701\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eE.ON. (2023a) \u003cem\u003eIntegrated annual report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://annualreport.eon.com/content/dam/eon-annualreport/documents/en/EON_GB23_engl_gesamt_final.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://annualreport.eon.com/content/dam/eon-annualreport/documents/en/EON_GB23_engl_gesamt_final.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eE.ON. (2023b) \u003cem\u003eSustainability Report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.eon.com/en/about-us/sustainability.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.eon.com/en/about-us/sustainability.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manage Sci 60(11):2835\u0026ndash;2857. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElmaghrabi M, Hassanein A, Diab A (2025) How do firm-level and country-level sustainability governance shape corporate sustainability? Insights from environmentally-sensitive industries. 1086\u0026ndash;1110. \u003cem\u003eSocial Responsibility Journal\u003c/em\u003e, ahead-of-print. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-02-2024-0088\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SRJ-02-2024-0088\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnel (2023a) \u003cem\u003eIntegrated annual report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.enel.com/content/dam/enel-com/documenti/investitori/sostenibilita/2023/sustainability-report_2023.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.enel.com/content/dam/enel-com/documenti/investitori/sostenibilita/2023/sustainability-report_2023.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnel (2023b) \u003cem\u003eSustainability Report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.enel.com/investors/sustainability\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.enel.com/investors/sustainability\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnerjisa (2023a) \u003cem\u003eEnerjisa Annual report 2023.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.enerjisainvestorrelations.com/medium/ReportAndPresentation/File/2952/enerjisaenerji2023annualreport.pdf#page=1.00\u0026amp;gsr=0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.enerjisainvestorrelations.com/medium/ReportAndPresentation/File/2952/enerjisaenerji2023annualreport.pdf#page=1.00\u0026amp;gsr=0\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnerjisa (2023b) \u003cem\u003eSustainability Report 2023\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.enerjisa.com.tr/en/sustainability\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.enerjisa.com.tr/en/sustainability\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFatemi A, Glaum M, Kaiser S (2018) ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Glob Financ J 38:45\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar BL, de Colle S (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/CBO9780511815768\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NM, Hultink EJ (2017) The Circular Economy \u0026ndash; A new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757\u0026ndash;768. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGenovese A, Acquaye AA, Figueroa A, Koh SCL (2017) Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66(Part B), 344\u0026ndash;357. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeorge G, Merrill RK, Schillebeeckx SJ (2020) Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract 45(5):999\u0026ndash;1027. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899425\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1042258719899425\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGidage M, Bhide S (2025) Exploring the nexus between intellectual capital, green innovation, sustainability and financial performance in creative industry MSMEs. J Enterprising Communities: People Places Global Econ 19(3):457\u0026ndash;484. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2024-0134\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JEC-07-2024-0134\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlobal Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2022) \u003cem\u003eConsolidated Set of the GRI Standards\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.globalreporting.org/standards/globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamzah M, Suripto S, Holiawati (2025) Green accounting intervenes corporate governance and environmental performance on financial performance. Int J Educational Adm Manage Leadersh 6(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.v6i1.209\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.51629/ijeamal.v6i1.209\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) (2013) \u003cem\u003eThe International\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;IR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;Framework\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://integratedreporting.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://integratedreporting.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhalid F, Curseu PL, Srivastava M, Sun X, Voinea CL (2024) Normative institutional pressures and corporate green development: evidence from a quantile regression approach. Appl Econ Lett 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2024.2334441\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13504851.2024.2334441\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang Y, Zhao C, Lee M-J (2023) Institutional pressures on sustainability and green performance: The mediating role of digital business model innovation. Sustainability 15(19):14258. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su151914258\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin H, Chen L, Yu M, Li C, Lampel J, Jiang W (2021) Too little or too much of good things? The horizontal S-curve hypothesis of green business strategy on firm performance. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 172:121051. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLopes Cancela B, Coelho A, Neves ME (2024) The role of green strategic alliances and their impact on green organizational identity and sustainability. Benchmarking: Int J 31(10):3723\u0026ndash;3753. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2023-0332\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/BIJ-05-2023-0332\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez-Ros E, Merino F (2023) Green innovation strategies and firms\u0026rsquo; internationalization. Ind Corp Change 32(4):815\u0026ndash;830. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac057\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/icc/dtac057\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeylani, Sari MR (2025) Exploring the impact of ESG practices on financial performance: The moderating effect of green innovation in the Indonesian energy sector. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Bisnis Airlangga 9(2):196\u0026ndash;209. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20473/jraba.v9i2.62096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20473/jraba.v9i2.62096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichelon G, Pilonato S, Ricceri F (2015) CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Crit Perspect Acc 33:59\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePalinkas LA et al (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res 42(5):533\u0026ndash;544\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Rev 89(1\u0026ndash;2):62\u0026ndash;77\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Economic Perspect 9(4):97\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1257/jep.9.4.97\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSui Y, Luqman A, Chotia V, Jain G, Mehrotra A (2023) Unlocking sustainable success: Strategic approaches to carbon neutrality. J Clean Prod. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140216\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140216\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSułek A, Borowski PF (2024) Business models on the energy market in the era of a low-emission economy. Energies 17(13):3235. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/en17133235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/en17133235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTahat YA, Hassanein A (2024) Exploring the synergy of corporate gender diversity, sustainability committee, and reporting ESG practices: An international evidence. J Environ Manage 371:123093. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123093\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123093\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations (2015) \u003cem\u003eTransforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWan J, Wang Y, Wang Y (2025) Promoting or hindering: The impact of ESG rating differences on energy enterprises\u0026rsquo; green transformation\u0026mdash;A causal test from double machine-learning algorithms. Energies 18(3):464. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/en18030464\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/en18030464\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie X, Hoang TT, Zhu Q (2022) Green process innovation and financial performance: The role of green social capital and customers\u0026rsquo; tacit green needs. J Innov Knowl 7(1):100165. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100165\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jik.2022.100165\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYadava RN, Sinha B (2016) Scoring sustainability reports using GRI 2011 guidelines for assessing environmental, economic, and social dimensions of leading public and private Indian companies. J Bus Ethics 138:549\u0026ndash;558. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Q, Zhu X, Lee M-J (2024) Exploring institutional pressures, green innovation, and sustainable performance: Examining the mediated moderation role of entrepreneurial orientation. Sustainability, 16(5), 2058. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su16052058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su16052058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Green Business Strategy, GRI, ESG, S-curve, Energy Sector, Sustainability Reporting, Strategic Management, Institutional Pressures","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how sustainability evolves from a compliance-oriented obligation into a strategic and organizational capability within the energy sector by comparatively analysing three firms\u0026mdash;Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel. Using a qualitative content analysis of GRI-aligned sustainability reporting, triangulated with external ESG ratings, the research evaluates how environmental, social, and governance practices are embedded within broader corporate strategies. The findings reveal differentiated trajectories consistent with the S-curve hypothesis, which theorises a nonlinear relationship between the adoption of green business practices and firm performance. Enel illustrates a mature, fully integrated sustainability model that reinforces its competitive and reputational advantage; E.ON represents an expansion phase shaped by digital transformation and decarbonization initiatives; whereas Enerjisa reflects an early-stage, institutional-compliance orientation with emerging community and governance commitments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrate that when GRI frameworks are mobilized not merely as disclosure mechanisms but as managerial and organisational tools, they become catalysts for innovation, stakeholder trust, and strategic repositioning. This study contributes to social science debates on corporate sustainability by linking reporting frameworks, institutional pressures, and strategic learning dynamics within a comparative, cross-national context. It also offers policy-relevant insights for regulators seeking to strengthen sustainability governance and for managers aiming to align ESG integration with long-term value creation. Future research should explore cross-sectoral dynamics, digital\u0026ndash;ESG interactions, and the cultural and institutional conditions that enable firms to advance along the sustainability maturity curve.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Strategic Paths to Sustainability: A GRI-Based Comparative Analysis of Enerjisa, E.ON, and Enel in the Energy Sector","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-09 09:40:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8212967/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"34271c9a-3687-41c4-b3ef-42085c3050b4","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 9th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60746454,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":60746455,"name":"Social science/Business and management"},{"id":60746456,"name":"Social science/Development studies"},{"id":60746457,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":60746458,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-20T09:41:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-09 09:40:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8212967","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8212967","identity":"rs-8212967","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}