Bringing Sustainable Development to the Corporate Level: Boards’ Cognitive Biases towards ESG and Relevant Debiasing Interventions

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The proposed research is an attempt to view how internationally recognised principles of sustainable development can be implemented at the corporate level, in particular, how the company’s board of directors should respond to climate and environmental challenges. Specifically, the paper examines the problem of reducing board members' repeated cognitive biases towards such a mainstream governance concept as ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance). The research focuses on the five most well-known cognitive biases of a board towards ESG, often encountered and described conceptually in behavioural literature: over-optimism, status quo effect, confirmation bias, hyperbolic discounting, and groupthink. Subsequently, the paper draws recommendations for overcoming or mitigating these biases by introducing and describing several debiasing interventions and quality control tools. These tools are conditionally divided into three groups: changing incentives, optimising choice architecture, and debiasing training. The author believes that incorporating behavioural insights into an analysis of the board’s ESG commitment would bring a fresh perspective to this research area, which now is typically dominated by a rational choice framework. The paper combines theoretical analysis of the existing literature in law, behavioural economics and psychology with qualitative research application based on data obtained from first-hand observations, board empirical studies, questionnaires, and focus groups.

About the authors

Dmitrii Ivanovich Tekutev

HSE University

Email: dtekutev@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7002-0515
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Assistant Professor, School of Legal Regulation of Business, Faculty of Law, HSE University, Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Abatecola G. (2014) Untangling Self-Reinforcing Processes in Managerial Decision Making. Co-evolving Heuristics?. Management Decision, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 934–949. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2013-0543 doi: 10.1108/MD-10-2013-0543
  2. Ainslie G. (1975) Specious Reward: A Behavioral Theory of Impulsiveness and Impulsive Control. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 463–496. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1037/h0076860 doi: 10.1037/h0076860
  3. Ainslie G. (2015) The Cardinal Anomalies that Led to Behavioral Economics: Cognitive or Motivational?. Managerial and Decision Economics, vol. 37, nos. 4–5, pp. 261–273. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2715 doi: 10.1002/mde.2715
  4. Amorelli M., García-Sánchez I. (2020) Trends in the Dynamic Evolution of Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 537–554. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2079 doi: 10.1002/csr.2079
  5. Argote L., Greve H. (2007) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm: 40 Years and Counting, Introduction, and Impact. Organization Science, vol. 18, pp. 337–349. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0280
  6. Barsade S., Ward A., Turner J., Sonnenfeld J. (2000) To your Heart's Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 802–836. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/2667020
  7. Bazerman M., Moore D. (2009) Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Bhargava S., Loewenstein G. (2015) Behavioral Economics and Public Policy 102: Beyond Nudging. American Economic Review, vol. 105, pp. 396–401. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151049 doi: 10.1257/aer.p20151049
  9. Brodbeck F., Kerschreiter R., Mojzisch A., Schulz-Hardt S. (2007) Group Decision Making under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: The Information Asymmetries Model. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 459–479. DOI:http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24351441 doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.24351441
  10. Burke J., Hotash R., Hotash U. (2017) The Heterogeneity of Board-Level Sustainability Committees and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 154, no. 4, pp. 1161–1186. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3453-2
  11. Coase R. (1937) The Nature of the Firm. Economica, vol. 4, no. 16, pp. 386–405. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  12. Cohan J. (2002) “I Didn't Know” and “I Was Only Doing My Job”: Has Corporate Governance Careened out of Control? A Case Study of Enron's Information Myopia. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 275–299. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020506501398 doi: 10.1023/A:1020506501398
  13. Cristofaro M. (2016) Reducing Biases of Decision-Making Processes in Complex Organizations. Management Research Review, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 270–291. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2016-0054 doi: 10.1108/MRR-03-2016-0054
  14. Cyert R., March J. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ, USA: Englewoods Prentice-Hall. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7202/1021288ar
  15. Ebert P., Freibichler W. (2017) Nudge Management: Applying Behavioral Science to Increase Knowledge Worker Productivity. Journal of Organization Design, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1–6. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-017-0014-1 doi: 10.1186/s41469-017-0014-1
  16. Eccles R., Ioannou I., Serafeim G. (2014) The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 2835–2857. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
  17. Ees H. van, Gabrielsson J., Huse M. (2009) Toward a Behavioral Theory of Boards and Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 307–319. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00741.x
  18. Elmagrhi M., Ntim C., Elamer A., Zhang Q. (2019) A Study of Environmental Policies and Regulations, Governance Structures, and Environmental Performance: The Role of Female Directors. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 206–220. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2250 doi: 10.1002/bse.2250
  19. Forgas J. (1983). Episode Cognition and Personality: A Multidimensional Analysis. Journal of Personality, vol. 51. no. 1, pp. 34–48. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00852.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00852.x
  20. Fox C., Sitkin S. (2015) Bridging the Divide between Behavioral Science and Policy. Behavioral Science & Policy, vol. 1, pp. 1–12. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2015.0004 doi: 10.1353/bsp.2015.0004
  21. Geletkanycz M. (1997) The Salience of “Culture's Consequences”: The Effects of Cultural Values on Top Executive Commitment to the Status Quo. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 615–634. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199709)18:8%3C615::aid-smj889%3E3.0.co;2-i
  22. Ghoshal S., Moran P. (1996) Bad for Practice: a Critique of Transaction Cost Theory, Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, pp. 13–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/258627
  23. Gneezy U., Meier, S., Rey-Biel P. (2011) When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 191–209. DOI:http://doi.org/10.2307/41337236 doi: 10.2307/41337236
  24. Greve H. (2003) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615139
  25. Groysberg B., Bell D. (2013) Dysfunction in the Boardroom. Harvard Business Review, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 88–97.
  26. Hammond S., Keeney R., Raiffa H. (1998) The Hidden Traps in Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 1–47.
  27. Hart P. (1991) Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink. Political Psychology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 247–278. DOI:http://doi.org/10.2307/3791464 doi: 10.2307/3791464
  28. Hart P. (1998) Preventing Groupthink Revisited: Evaluating and Reforming Groups in Government. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 73, nos. 2–3, pp. 306–326. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2764 doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2764
  29. Haselton M., Nettle D., Andrews P. (2005) The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In: Buss D. M. (ed.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  30. Hendry J. (2005) Beyond Self-Interest: Agency Theory and the Board in a Satisficing World. British Journal of Management, vol. 16, pp. 55–64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00447.x
  31. Hermann A., Rammal H. (2010) The Grounding of the “Flying Bank”. Management Decision, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1048–1062. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011068761 doi: 10.1108/00251741011068761
  32. Hirt E., Markman K. (1995) Multiple Explanation: A Consider-an-Alternative Strategy for Debiasing Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 69, pp. 1069–1086. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069 doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1069
  33. Howard A. (2010) Groupthink and Corporate Governance Reform: Changing the Formal and Informal Decision Making Processes of Boards'. Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 20, pp. 425–457.
  34. Huse M., Minichilli A., Schoning M. (2005) Corporate Boards as Assets for Operating in the New Europe: The Value of Process Oriented Boardroom Dynamics. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 34, pp. 285–297. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2005.06.007
  35. Janis I. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627340700115
  36. Jensen M., Meckling W. (1976) Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3., no. 4, pp. 305–360. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x
  37. Johnson E., Goldstein D. (2003). Do Defaults Save Lives?. Science, vol. 302, no. 5649, pp. 1338–1339. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721
  38. Kahneman D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-013-0533-y doi: 10.1007/s00362-013-0533-y
  39. Kahneman D., Knetsch J., Thaler R. (1990) Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Goase Theorem, European Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, pp. 1325–1348. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1086/261737 doi: 10.1086/261737
  40. Kahneman D., Knetsch J., Thaler R. (1991) Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 193–206. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
  41. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1973) On the Psychology of Prediction. Psychological Review, vol. 80, pp. 237–257. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747 doi: 10.1037/h0034747
  42. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 263–291. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  43. Kamalnath A. (2017) Gender Diversity as the Antidote to Groupthink on Corporate Boards. Deakin Law Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 85–106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art723
  44. Korobkin R. (1998) Status Quo Bias and Contract Default Rules. Cornell Law Review, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 608–687. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/e683302011-044
  45. Korobkin R., Ulen T. (2000) Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics. California Law Review, vol. 88, pp. 1051–1144. DOI:http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.229937 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.229937
  46. Kraakman R., Armour J., Davies P., Enriques L., Hansmann H., Hertig G., Hopt K., Kanda H., Pargendler M., Ringe W.-G., Rock E. (2017) The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, Oxford, Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739630.001.0001
  47. Kunreuther H. (2014) Aiding Decision Making to Reduce the Impacts of Climate Change. Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 397–411. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9251-z doi: 10.1007/s10603-013-9251-z
  48. Laibson D. (1997) Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 443–477. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
  49. Langer E. (1975) The Illusion of Control. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 311–328. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.32.2.311
  50. Langevoort D. (1997) Organized Illusions: A Behavioral Theory of Why Corporations Mislead Stock Market Investors (And Cause Social Harms). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 146, no. 101, pp. 101–172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3312706

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Tekutev D.I.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).