Sustainability and Profitability of Large Manufacturing Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores whether sustainability achievements—proxied through ESG (environmental, social, and governance) reporting—are associated with superior financial performance in Latvia’s manufacturing sector, where ESG maturity remains low and institutional readiness is still emerging. Building on stakeholder, legitimacy, signal, slack resources, and agency theories, this study applies a mixed-method approach (that consists of two analytical stages) suited to the limited availability and reliability of ESG-related data in the Latvian manufacturing sector. Financial indicators from three large firms—AS MADARA COSMETICS, AS Latvijas Finieris, and AS Valmiera Glass Grupa—are compared with industry averages over the 2019–2023 period using independent sample T-tests. ESG integration is evaluated through a six-stage conceptual schema ranging from symbolic compliance to performance-driven sustainability. The results show that AS MADARA COSMETICS, which demonstrates advanced ESG integration aligned with international standards, significantly outperforms its industry in all profitability metrics. In contrast, the other two companies remain at earlier ESG maturity stages and show weaker financial performance, with sustainability disclosures limited to general statements and outdated indicators. These findings support the synergy hypothesis in contexts where sustainability is internalized and operationalized, while also highlighting structural constraints—such as resource scarcity and fragmented data—that may limit ESG-financial alignment in post-transition economies. This study offers practical guidance for firms seeking competitive advantage through strategic ESG integration and recommends policy actions to enhance ESG transparency and performance in Latvia, including performance-based reporting mandates, ESG data infrastructure, and regulatory alignment with EU directives. These insights contribute to the growing empirical literature on ESG effectiveness under constrained institutional and economic conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".