농업⋅농촌 공익적 가치 기반 ESG 경영 평가지표 인식 분석 - 한국농어촌공사를 대상으로 -
Analysis of Perceptions on ESG Management Evaluation Priorities based on Agricultural and Rural Public Value - Focusing on the Korea Rural Community Corporation -
1
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to identify perceptions on ESG management evaluation priorities based on public value in the agricultural and rural sector with the focus on the Korea Rural Community Corporation. We conduct Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to analyze how ESG management evaluation priorities are perceived by distinctive groups across industrial fields. To this end, experts working in the agricultural and rural sector and the general public in non-agricultural sector were questioned to derive and compare the weights for each class of ESG management. Results show the followings: First, the weight for the environment (E) was derived as 0.51774 in the first layer, which was found to be the most important evaluation item among the environment (E), society (S), and governance (G). Second, “ecosystem restoration,” “urban-rural exchange expansion and regional development,” and “increasing transparency” were the most important items in the second layer. Third, priorities between the agricultural and non-agricultural respondents groups were different in environmental (E) and social (S) categories, which explained that perceptions on ESG management by workers and policy makers in the agricultural and rural sector are different from those by general public in the non-agricultural sector.
Abstract
This study aims to identify perceptions on ESG management evaluation priorities based on public value in the agricultural and rural sector with the focus on the Korea Rural Community Corporation. We conduct Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to analyze how ESG management evaluation priorities are perceived by distinctive groups across industrial fields. To this end, experts working in the agricultural and rural sector and the general public in non-agricultural sector were questioned to derive and compare the weights for each class of ESG management. Results show the followings: First, the weight for the environment (E) was derived as 0.51774 in the first layer, which was found to be the most important evaluation item among the environment (E), society (S), and governance (G). Second, “ecosystem restoration,” “urban-rural exchange expansion and regional development,” and “increasing transparency” were the most important items in the second layer. Third, priorities between the agricultural and non-agricultural respondents groups were different in environmental (E) and social (S) categories, which explained that perceptions on ESG management by workers and policy makers in the agricultural and rural sector are different from those by general public in the non-agricultural sector.
참고문헌 (24)
- Bang, J. h., "Focusing on the Development and Utilization of ESG Evaluation Indicators for Small and Medium Businesses", Journal of the Korean Society of Management Science, pp.4271~4277 (2022)
- 변혜영, "Impact of ESG Factors on Firm Value in Korea", 무역연구, 14(5), pp.135~160 (2018), 한국무역연구원[DOI]
- Friede, G., "ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies", Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), pp.210~233 (2015)
- 허정회, "지속가능한 농업 발전에 대한 영향 요인 분석", 농업경영.정책연구, 45(4), pp.721~741 (2018), 한국농식품정책학회[DOI]
- Jeong, H. Y., "Approaches to ESG factors in Construction Industry for Administrative Use by Municipality", Korea Institute Of Ecological Architecture And Environment, 22(1), pp.110~111 (2022)
- 강원, "비재무지표와 기업의 시장성과 간의 관계에 대한 연구: ESG지표 개발에 사용되는 사건의 시장반응 분석", 연세경영연구, 57(2), pp.1~22 (2020), 경영연구소
- A Study on the Improvement of Agricultural Competitiveness through Analysis of Disrupting Agricultural Competitiveness, "Kim, B. R.", Korea Rural Economic Research Institute, ~ (2009)
- A study on applying multi-criteria analysis to pre-feasibility study, "Korea Development Institute", Public and Private Infrastructure Investment Management Center, Korea Development Institute, ~ (2000)
- 권순원, "기업의 사회적책임(CSR)과 사회책임투자(SRI)를 위한 선별지표 연구", 경영교육연구, 26(1), pp.319~342 (2011), 한국경영교육학회
- "I will make it a key space for the Korean New Deal in rural areas, Agricultural and fishery newsletter" (2020)[URL]
- 이정기, "“지속가능경영” 연구의 현황 및 발전방향: ESG 평가지표를 중심으로", 전략경영연구, 23(2), pp.65~92 (2020), 한국전략경영학회[DOI]
- Lee, H. J., "The Strategic Paradigm of the ESG Management Era", Samsung KPMG Economic Research Institute’s presentation data, 1~15 (2020)
- 임욱빈, "비재무적 정보가 기업성과에 미치는 영향 : ESG 점수를 중심으로", 국제회계연구, (86), pp.119~144 (2019), 한국국제회계학회[DOI]
- 민재형, "지속가능경영을 위한 기업의 환경적, 사회적, 지배구조적 요인이 주가수익률 및 기업 가치에 미치는 영향", 한국경영과학회지, 39(4), pp.33~49 (2014), 한국경영과학회[DOI]
- "Declared ‘The Green Value 2030’, Korea Rural Economic Daily" (2021)[URL]
- National Assembly Budget Office, "Public Institutions of the republic of Korea 2022", pp.1~226 (2022)
- 노석호, "AHP를 이용한 농촌주민 삶의 질 지표의 중요도 설정", 농촌계획, 28(1), pp.27~35 (2022), 한국농촌계획학회
- OECD, "Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability in Korea, OECD Food and Agricultural Reviews" (2018), OECD Publishing
- Park, S. R., "The impact of ESG management on investment decision: Institutional investors’perceptions of country-specific ESG criteria", International Journal of Financial Studies, 9(3), pp.48~ (2021)
- The Policy Agenda and Direction for Enhancing Multifunctionality in Agriculture, "Rhew, C. H.", Korea Rural Economic Institute, 1~260, pp.R844 (2018)
- Saaty, T. L., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process", pp.20~108 (1980), McGraw-Hill
- Saaty, T. L., "Decision making for leaders" (1990), RWS Publications
- Sood, K., "How does an investor prioritize ESG factors in India? An assessment based on fuzzy AHP", Managerial Finance (2022)
- 윤성욱, "AHP를 이용한 농업생산기반정비사업 타당성평가 개선방안", 농촌계획, 25(2), pp.35~45 (2019), 한국농촌계획학회[DOI]