SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES  
IN EMERGING ECONOMIES: 
THE ACHILLES’ HEEL OF CORPORATE  
ESG RESPONSIBILITY PRACTICES?
ECONOMICS -  MENA ENTERPRISE SURVEY REPORT WORKING PAPERS: Volume 4

SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES  
IN EMERGING ECONOMIES: 
THE ACHILLES’ HEEL OF CORPORATE  
ESG RESPONSIBILITY PRACTICES?
ECONOMICS -  MENA ENTERPRISE SURVEY REPORT WORKING PAPERS: Volume 4

Small and medium enterprises in emerging economies: The Achilles’ heel of corporate ESG responsibility practices?
MENA Enterprise Survey Report Working Papers: Volume 4
© European Investment Bank, 2022. ©European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2022. ©World Bank, 2022. All rights reserved. Short 
sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted in the original language without explicit permission provided that the source is 
acknowledged.
All questions on rights and licensing should be addressed to publications@eib.org.
About this publication
This is a joint publication of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the 
World Bank (WB).
Authors: Matteo Ferrazzi, Annamaria Tueske 
Disclaimer
The views expressed in the publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development, the European Investment Bank, or the World Bank.
Published by the European Investment Bank. 
Printed on FSC® paper
The EIB uses paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Because it’s made by people who like trees.
FSC promotes environmentally sound, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests.
We all know reading is good for you. It’s good for the planet, too ­— as long as you read on the right paper.
pdf:
QH-07-22-306-EN-N ISBN 978-92-861-5325-9 doi:10.2867/789657

Small and medium enterprises in emerging economies:  
The Achilles’ heel of corporate ESG responsibility practices? 
Matteo Ferrazzi, Annamaria Tueske1 
March 2022 
Short Abstract 
The information contained in the Enterprise Survey—administered by the World Bank (WB), the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the European Investment Bank 
(EIB)—is used to build a firm-level “Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance 
Responsibility” composite indicator. The novelty of the indicator, compared with the corporate 
social responsibility scores and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores already available, is 
due to its unique coverage, namely, a large number of private sector small and medium-size enterprises in 
selected emerging economies (more than 40 economies covered by the Enterprise Survey). The 
composite indicator summarizes information on private sector actions on environmental, social, and 
governance factors. The analysis shows that the actions of private sector small and medium-size 
enterprises in emerging economies to foster sustainability and green growth significantly lag in the 
transition to a more sustainable business environment, and large gaps persist. Among emerging 
economies, those in the Middle East and North Africa—which deserve special attention due to the 
urgent need to green their growth model—are among the worst performers. Larger companies in the 
Middle East and North Africa show better environmental, social, and governance performance than 
small and medium-size enterprises in other areas;  but smaller firms in the Middle East and North Africa 
show extremely weak performance in many aspects, even if controlling for the relative level of 
economic development. The weakness of environmental, social, and governance practices among firms 
in the Middle East and North Africa is due to the social (with large gaps in female participation in the 
workforce and management) and environmental topics. This calls for urgent policy action to address 
such weaknesses and exploit the full potential of the region.  
JEL codes: C43, M14, Q56, R11 
Keywords: ESG, environmental, social, governance, sustainability, corporate responsibility, SME, Middle East and 
North Africa, index aggregation 
1 m.ferrazzi@eib.org, Senior Economist, European Investment Bank, Economics Department; a.tueske@eib.org, Economist, 
European Investment Bank, Economics Department. The opinions expressed in this papers are those of the authors only and do 
not necessarily reflect those of the European Investment Bank (EIB). All errors and omissions are the authors’ responsibility. We 
are thankful to Francesca Maritati (EIB Corporate Responsibility) and other colleagues from EIB, EBRD and World Bank for 
comments. We would also like to thank the participants of two workshops hosted by the World Bank, EBRD, and EIB for their 
feedback.

1 
1 Introduction 
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations play a key role in companies’ business 
strategy worldwide. They guide investors, financial institutions, customers and suppliers to 
understand the capability of companies to produce value for a broad range of stakeholders (not 
only for companies’ shareholders, but also communities, workers, consumers, the environment, 
etc.) in a long-term perspective. 
Investors are generating an increased and more sophisticated demand for ESG information, but 
producing such information is generally complex. Disclosure of ESG information by firm is very 
limited everywhere; it is mainly done by listed companies. However, SMEs not only represent 98% 
of firms, and 67% of total employment in Europe (Saez-Martinez, 2016) and even more in 
emerging countries (ILO, 2019), they are also responsible for 60%-70% of pollution globally 
(Hillary, 2017, and Miller, 2011). Smaller companies, despite a large number of initiatives,2 have 
neither legal obligations, resources, nor relevant incentives to put in place systems to give full 
disclosure of ESG-relevant information. The picture is even more complex in emerging countries, 
where only a small number of firms is listed, the average company size is smaller, and ESG 
information is even more limited if not totally absent. For SMEs (typically not covered by ESG 
rating agencies) and especially for emerging countries, the urgent need for ESG firm-level 
information and disclosure is in sharp contrast with its scarce availability.  
Between 2018 and 2020, the World Bank Group (WBG), the European Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development (EBRD), and the European Investment Bank (EIB) fielded the Enterprise 
Survey (ES) in 41 countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Southern Europe, 
Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and Central Asia. More than 28,000 interviews were 
completed, answered by business owners and top managers. The survey addresses formal 
(registered) companies with more than 5 employees, in the manufacturing and (selected) services 
sectors. The ES covers a broad range of business environment topics, including access to finance, 
innovation, trade participation, and performance measures.  
In various aspects, the ES questionnaire is compatible with some components of ESG ratings, 
even though the ES questionnaire has not been designed following any ESG standards, nor for 
possible use on any aspects of ESG topics. However, the questionnaire has a number of questions 
related to the environmental component of ESG in a special Green Economy Module, and useful 
inputs concerning the firms’ governance and social aspects as well. For this reason, the information 
derived from the ES can be a precious source of information regarding these topics: looking at the 
characteristics of ES firms in different macro-regions, sectors, and size classes can improve the 
understanding of where firms stand in terms of climate transition, social responsibility and 
sustainability. 
Leveraging on the firm-level information of the ES, we built a “Corporate ESG Responsibility” 
composite indicator, which is an “ESG-type” and “sustainability-type” score, partially inspired by 
ESG scores produced by ESG rating agencies. Our aim is not to reproduce ESG scores of listed, 
large companies to serve investors’ needs, but to shed some light on these aspects related to smaller 
                                                           
2 On corporate climate governance, for instance, non-binding guidelines and reccomendations were put forward, for instance, by 
the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) of the Financial Stability Board; by the Network for Greening 
the Financial System (NGFS); and by the EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEG, Haralampieva, 2020).

2 
unlisted companies in emerging countries. The indicator is unique, being the only one based on a 
wide sample of ES respondents.3  
By analyzing the actions of private sector SMEs in emerging countries to foster sustainability and 
green growth, we aim to better understand their contribution to the transition towards a more 
sustainable business environment. Given the increasingly ambitious social and environmental 
goals, measuring what matters for the planet and for people is something that cannot be ignored 
any longer, despite the obstacles of obtaining the relevant information for SMEs in emerging 
countries. The firm-level composite indicator helps to understand the performance of countries, 
sectors and size classes in each of the ESG pillars. Moreover, the determinants of the “Corporate 
ESG Responsibility” composite indicator can help to identify the drivers of the ESG performance 
in emerging countries as well as to understand how much ESG aspects are contributing to firms’ 
performance in the various dimensions.  
In particular, we focus on MENA countries for a number of reasons. First, the region is 
significantly exposed to climate change - in terms of water scarcity, exposure to heat and in some 
cases to sea level rise - and to social developments (with relevant gender issues). Second, MENA 
countries need to green their growth model, as the region has seen CO2 emissions in absolute 
terms and even in per capita terms rising during the last years (between 2005 and 2018, absolute 
CO2 emissions increased by almost 50 percent). Finally, given the need to step up the climate 
ambition in MENA, there are relevant investment opportunities for adaptation and mitigation.  
This contribution is structured as follows. Section 2 underlines the challenges of assessing ESG 
components and presents a high level literature review on ESG topics. In section 3, we discuss the 
methodology and in section 4, we show some results for emerging economies with a particular 
focus on the MENA region, where firms are showing the worst results across emerging markets. 
 
2 The challenges of  assessing ESG: A review of  existing 
methodologies 
Under increasing regulatory and market pressure, firm-related ESG disclosure developed 
significantly over the last couple of years. However, while ESG topics require consistent and 
comparable metrics in order to compare firms’ performances, a consensus has not been reached 
on the relevant dimensions to assess the performance of firms. 
Typically, ESG rating agencies4 use firm-level quantitative and qualitative information to produce 
ESG ratings. They engage with firms directly – often using questionnaires to obtain financial and 
non-financial data – and they also review public information (produced by the company or by 
                                                           
3 Survey information is widely used for assessing ESG/Sustainability ratings. It is normally complementing financial information, 
hard data and public domain information.  
4 The main ESG rating agencies are the following: Vigeo Eiris, which is part of Moody's (Moody's acquired a majority stake of 
Vigeo Eiris in April 2019); ISS-oekom (Institutional Shareholder Services group of companies - “ISS”) which has been integrated 
with oekom research in 2018; Sustainalytics, which is part of Morningstar; MSCI ESG Rating (which in 2019 acquired Carbon 
Delta, a Zurich-based environmental fintech and data analytics firm specializing in climate change scenario analysis).

3 
other sources of information). Such direct, full assessment of the ESG practices of each 
counterpart is not always feasible given the large amount of information to be processed and the 
large number of firms. The spectrum of firms covered by the main rating agencies is very wide, as 
each agency may cover from 1,000 to 10,000 companies (Moody’s, 2021). However, the coverage 
of smaller companies, less regulated industries and emerging countries by the main rating agencies 
is particularly patchy.  
To address the data constraints issues related to SMEs, Moody’s is complementing its firm-level 
approaches with another methodology, namely with a “deductive” top-down approach (“ESG 
Score Predictor”). It developed a model of ESG ratings for a set of companies whose metrics are 
known, which it then applies to “unscored” companies (Moody’s, 2021). By this method, it 
enlarges the spectrum of companies with an ESG rating (potentially to an infinite number). It does 
so by leveraging on only 3 firm-level dimensions: company size (based on assets or turnover), 
location and industry (615 NACE4 industries). The firm-level information (size, location and 
industry) is complemented with numerous country level data (more than 50 criteria) on 
socioeconomic indicators and scores. If size, location and industry are known, the model leverages 
on these three inputs to generate an ESG rating for any company. Hence the Moody’s ESG Score 
Predictor methodology, which is very partial (with less information available, it generates an output 
covering by far more firms compared to “traditional” ESG ratings), does not rely on any firm-
level ESG-related information, as the full assessment of each company is not possible. This is 
different from our methodology, which is entirely based on firm-level information of the 
Enterprise Survey and does not leverage any country data, despite the availability of ESG country 
data for numerous emerging countries (World Bank, 2021). 
The rating methodologies provided by the main ESG rating agencies differ from each other 
significantly (in terms of building blocks, materiality assessment, weights used to aggregate the 
information, etc.) and cannot be reconciled under one single approach. The main building blocks 
utilized by the ESG rating agencies are typically the following (sometimes similar concepts appear 
under different names): 
• Environmental: 
o Environmental strategy or green management 
o Environmental impact or footprint 
• Social 
o Gender 
o Human resources, including education and training 
o Labor conditions 
o Community involvement 
• Governance 
o Corporate governance and stakeholders 
o Audit and internal controls 
o Management remuneration policies 
o Business ethics and business behavior 
In all these aspects, ESG rating agencies are using significantly different approaches (Berg et al., 
2020; Chatterji et al., 2016; Gibson, 2019; Durand and Touboul, 2014). ESG scores provided by 
different agencies have very low correlation with one another (Berg et al., 2019) and there are

4 
widespread changes to the historical ratings, generating an “unpredictable past” of ESG ratings 
(Berg et al., 2020).  
This lack of an “industry standard”, or “surprising lack of agreement” among agencies (Chatterji 
et al., 2016), or even “aggregation of confusion” (Berg et al., 2020) which is determining  the 
“alphabet soup” (derived from the acronym-heavy measurement and reporting standards) in the 
ESG rating realm makes it problematic to build an indicator relying only on one of the agencies’ 
methodologies.  
Even the choice of a standard among the various, existing frameworks is a challenge, as the field 
is populated by different players and frameworks. The main ones include: 
i. 
The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) guides companies to disclose 
sector-specific and financially-material sustainability information to investors. In 
November 2020, SASB announced that it would merge into a unified organization with 
the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) to create the Value Reporting 
Foundation (VRF).  
ii. 
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an independent, international organization 
providing the world’s most widely used standards for sustainability reporting – the GRI 
Standards.  
iii. 
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) runs a global disclosure system 
for investors, companies, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental 
impacts. 
iv. 
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which was created 
by the Financial Stability Board, aims to improve and increase reporting of climate-
related financial information (rather than to develop standards) to support informed 
capital allocation.  
v. 
The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) were developed by an international 
group of institutional investors reflecting the increasing relevance of environmental, 
social and corporate governance issues to investment practices. In signing the six 
Principles, investors commit to adopt and incorporate ESG factors into their 
investment and ownership decisions. 
While most of the above organizations are collaborating to achieve a more standardized version 
of sustainability reporting (World Economic Forum, 2020), there are still significant differences 
and deviations in their approaches. Different accounting requirements in terms of ESG may add 
costs, complexity and risk to companies and investors, and they cannot be ignored. Moreover, the 
idea of standardized ESG reporting remains highly contested, as companies argue that the unique 
nature of their operations will make comparisons difficult (Financial Times, 2021). At the same 
time the “Big Four” accounting firms (KPMG, EY, Deloitte, PwC), responding in part to a rise in 
clients’ budgets for developing net zero emissions plans and other sustainability initiatives, have 
been working to set new international principles for measuring sustainability and to push forward 
the sustainability consulting business (Financial Times, 2021).

5 
SASB has developed a complete set of 77 globally 
applicable industry standards, providing sector-
specific guidance on an extensive range of ESG 
topics. The main building blocks of SASB standards 
are the following: Environmental (E), Social and 
Human Capital (S), Business Model & Innovation 
and Leadership & Governance (G). We have 
aggregated these five dimensions into the three main 
dimensions of E, S and G. Next, we adapted the 
SASB methodology to take into account the structure 
of the ES questionnaire. In particular, the SASB 
subcategories were converted and aggregated into 
broader 
categories 
(for 
example, 
Energy 
Management, Water & Wastewater Management and 
Waste and Hazardous Material Management appear  
under a unified category called Green Management). 
This eclectic approach - which reflects the SASB 
framework, takes into account the approach of ESG 
rating agencies, and adapts to the structure of the ES 
questions – made it possible to match the survey’s 
questions with the ESG frameworks already in use.  
ESG regulation is also evolving fast and is becoming more ambitious. Sustainability disclosure is 
among the priorities of the world’s largest investors, and the evolution of regulation is 
accompanying it. In most of the cases, these new regulations or standards are not only regulatory 
requirements, but “business imperatives” for companies and financial institutions, to serve the 
growing needs of investors and consumers.  
The European Union is in the lead on ESG disclosure and the European Commission is 
developing extensive regulation both to provide a common language for environmentally 
sustainable activities, and to accelerate mainstreamed ESG disclosures:  
• The Taxonomy Regulation (in force since July 2020) provides a common classification 
system for determining whether an economic activity qualifies as “environmentally 
sustainable”. The Taxonomy applies to (i) financial market participants, (ii) entities in scope 
of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), and (iii) Member States and the Union 
when setting out requirements for financial products considered environmentally 
sustainable.  
• The European Green Bond standard proposal (July 2021) will create a voluntary “gold 
standard” for issuers seeking to use green bonds to raise funding on the capital markets. 
• The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR, in force since 2019) requires 
financial markets participants and financial advisers to report sustainability-related 
information at entity and product level for the use of end investors.  
• The Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD, in force since 2014) applies to large 
public-interest companies with more than 500 employees, who need to disclose 
information on environmental protection, on social responsibility, on respect for human 
SASB Dimensions and Categories
Dimension
General Issue Category
GHG Emissions
Air Quality
Energy Management
Water & Wastewater Management
Waste & Hazardous Materials Management
Ecological Impacts
Human Rights & Community Relations
Customer Privacy
Data Security
Access & Affordability
Product Quality & Safety
Customer Welfare
Selling Practices & Product Labeling
Labor Practices
Employee Health & Safety
Employee Engagement, Diversity & Inclusion
Product Design & Lifecycle Management
Business Model Resilience
Supply Chain Management
Materials Sourcing & Efficiency
Physical Impacts of Climate Change
Business Ethics
Competitive Behavior
Management of the Legal & Regulatory Environment
Critical Incident Risk Management
Systemic Risk Management
Source: SASB
Environment
Social Capital
Human Capital
Business Model 
& Innovation
Leadership & 
Governance

6 
rights, on diversity, on anti-corruption and bribery, as well as on diversity on company 
boards.  
• The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, not yet in force) is a proposal 
adopted by the Commission in April 2021 to amend the reporting requirements of the 
above-mentioned NFRD, with the aim of bringing sustainability reporting on a par with 
financial reporting. The CSRD (i) extends the scope of NFRD to all large companies and 
all companies listed on regulated markets (except listed micro-enterprises), (ii) requires the 
audit (assurance) of reported information, (iii) introduces more detailed reporting 
requirements according to mandatory EU sustainability reporting standards, and (iv) 
requires companies to digitally ‘tag’ the reported information. Companies will have to 
report both on how sustainability issues affect their business as well as on the impact of 
their activities on the environment and on people. 
The Taxonomy Regulation, together with the NFRD and the SFDR are the central components 
of the sustainability reporting requirements underpinning the EU’s sustainable finance strategy.  
Figure 1 - Sustainability reporting requirements underpinning the EU’s sustainable 
finance strategy 
 
Until now, SMEs have largely been left out from sustainability reporting. Although the new CSRD 
proposal – planned to enter into force in 2023 - will extend the scope to include listed SMEs, the 
majority of smaller companies would not have this obligation (although they can report on a 
voluntary basis) (i) significant impacts of companies on the environment and society do not 
depend on their size or legal status, and (ii) the redirection of investments towards green activities 
should not be limited to listed firms.  
In the United States, any implementation of an ESG disclosure framework by a company remains 
voluntary (Clarkin, Sawyer and Levin, 2020), despite public companies facing mounting pressure 
from investors.5 The picture is direr for emerging countries, which tend to have less stringent 
regulations and lag in implementing them (Moody’s, 2021). While in the EU, current and upcoming 
                                                           
5 Many influential institutional investors have indicated that they are in support of companies making ESG disclosures aligned with 
SASB and TCFD frameworks.

7 
regulation will gradually bring some standardization of ESG information, in other countries (and 
particularly emerging economies) this could take much longer, in same countries even decades. 
3 Methodology 
The aggregation of the components of ES to obtain “sustainability-type” scores is an exercise 
facing problems similar to those encountered by the ESG rating agencies, and in most of the cases 
not fully solved by the same ESG rating agencies, i.e. i) how to assess materiality, ii) what weight 
to put on the components, iii) the relevance of company size. 
Materiality: When selecting the relevant dimensions, it is of primary importance to assess the 
materiality: what is relevant for one business or one sector may be less important for another (for 
instance, the consumption of gasoline is significantly impacting a company active in the transport 
sector, but is not so relevant for an IT company). In addition, the concept of materiality should be 
interpreted in a dual way (the “double materiality”), accounting for both the impact that a given 
company has on the environment and the society, as well as the impact that ESG factors have on 
the company itself. Materiality typically differs across sectors: sustainability issues are likely to 
affect the financial conditions or operating performance of companies in a very different way 
across sectors.6 The ES has information on the 4-digit industry the firm generates most of its 
revenue in, but in most countries, the sample is representative at the level of Manufacturing, Retail 
and Other Services7 (in bigger countries, the sample representativeness is more detailed, both 
within manufacturing and other services).  
Weights: Weighting the different components (i.e. attributing importance to each component) to 
obtain an aggregated score is a non-trivial exercise (OECD-JRC, 2008). The ES is composed of 
more than 200 questions, with a subset relevant for this exercise. The redundancy of indicators 
may cause an underestimation of the relevant ones, as their weight in the score decreases. The 
main ESG rating agencies attribute significantly different weights to each component. For 
instance, the weight of the E component may vary from 12% to 60%. However, the divergence in 
ratings across the different ESG rating agencies is mainly driven by the scope of categories and 
their different measures, and less by the weights (Berg, Kölbel, Rigobon, 2020). 
Relevance of companies’ size: Firm size is a determinant of ESG practices: larger companies 
typically have better ESG ratings compared to SMEs. This is partially due to not only their intrinsic 
ability to have more sustainable business models and better management practices, but also their 
ability to provide the ESG rating agencies with adequate information (Berg, Kölbel, Rigobon, 
2020).  
Our novel “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator derived from the ES is inspired 
by the ESG ratings produced by the ESG rating agencies, but it does not follow any of them 
closely. It relies more on the structure of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).  
                                                           
6 This is recognized by some ESG rating agencies and some Standards. For instance, the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board 
provides a matrix for assessing the materiality (SASB Materiality Map).  
7 Utilities, financial companies, and public sector entities are excluded from ES.

8 
Taking into account the above mentioned challenges and the available benchmarks, the 
“Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator has been built taking the following steps: 
i. 
Assess the entire questionnaire of the Enterprise Survey (more than 200 questions) and 
select the questions related to ESG practices, allocating them to each pillar (E, S, or G).  
ii. 
Identify the sub-pillars of E, S and G, and the respective variables, based on relevant 
frameworks such as SASB and on their relevance in the assessments of the main ESG 
rating agencies, aiming at identifying a “common denominator” among agencies and 
standard frameworks. 
iii. 
Match the topics (i.e. set of questions) covered by the ES with the main building blocks 
and the sub-pillars used by SASB and ESG rating agencies. 
iv. 
Align the sub-pillars with SASB standards to the maximum possible extent. We included 
3 sub-pillars for E (Environmental awareness, Green management practices, Green 
measures8), 3 for S (Gender, Education & skills, Training), and 5 for G (Corporate 
governance, Management practices, Internal controls & audit, Compensation, Innovation).  
v. 
Manage missing data,9 use imputation when possible (in line with the OECD-JRC 
Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators methodology; OECD-JRC, 2008). In 
the case of filter questions, answers are imputed to replace some missing values when this 
is logically straightforward. Answers in the Enterprise Survey can be binary (yes/no), 
discrete (when various answers are possible), or continuous (a percentage for instance). 
Others were transformed into percentages.  
vi. 
Reduce the 60 ESG-related initial questions to 40, for one of the following reasons: i) too 
many missing data: if more than 55% of answers are missing, (e.g. because some questions 
are not asked from all firms due to eligibility or based on the sector they belong to), the 
component is excluded; ii) redundancy of some of the questions: if highly correlated with 
other variables/questions, they are not adding relevant information.  
vii. 
Transform the variables (21 related to E, 6 to S and 13 to G for a total of 40) into z-scores 
with mean 0 and standard deviation 1 (a z-score of 1.0 would indicate a value that is one 
standard deviation from the mean) over the sample including all 41 economies and 
companies covered in the ES.  
viii. 
Calculate sub-pillar, pillar (E, S, G), and the overall composite indicator (ESG index) 
aggregating the z-scores. 
ix. 
Weigh the main building blocks (E, S, G) and the sub-pillars taking into account their 
relevance; the components within each sub-pillar, however, are equally weighted. The 
weight for E has been set at 40%, the one for S at 25%, the one for G at 35%.10 
x. 
Perform various other robustness checks:  
o Correlation matrices 
o Benchmarking of different versions of scores built using different definitions in 
terms of: 1. Inclusion, or not, of specific sub-pillar; 2. Different weights  
                                                           
8 “Environmental awareness” is related to monitoring and target setting; “Green management” is related to the strategic objectives, 
to managerial responsibility of green targets and to green certifications; “Green measures” are the investments done by firms to 
improve their environmental impact. The latter can be pure green investments (energy management, waste minimization, air 
pollution control measures, more climate-friendly energy generation on site, etc.) or mixed green investments (that reduce the 
environmental impact as a byproduct of achieving other objectives: heating and cooling improvements, machinery and equipments 
upgrades, upgrade of vehicles, improvements of lighting system, etc.) (EBRD, 2020). 
9 Missing values partially result from directly instructing companies to answer only questions relevant to them rather than receiving 
non-response from them. Answers can include refusal or don’t know, which are also typically treated as missing in the analysis, but 
can sometimes be used as valid information – this is determined on a question-by-question basis.  
10 Scores where each component has the same importance have been tested as well.

9 
xi. 
Generate the final output, represented by firm level “Corporate ESG Responsibility” 
scores and its building blocks (E, S, and G). 
xii. 
Aggregate firm-level scores by sector, economy and company size for analysis and 
comparisons. 
Figure 2 - Building the firm-level “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator 
 
Figure 3 - “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator: building blocks (left) and 
Enterprise Survey questions (right) 
 
Note: E – environmental; S – social; G – governance. 
4 Main results: Small and medium-size enterprises in MENA show 
significant gaps 
 
Looking at the average performance of our firm-level “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite 
indicator, firms in emerging economies are lagging behind significantly in terms of ESG practices. 
South EU and Central and Eastern Europe perform better, followed respectively by Central Asia,

10 
Eastern Neighborhood11 and Western Balkans, while firms in MENA, the Russian Federation and 
Turkey are among the worst performers. Among emerging economies, we focus on Middle East 
and North African countries: as mentioned, MENA countries are exposed to climate change (heat, 
water scarcity, sea level rise) and they are in urgent need to green their growth model (the region 
has seen CO2 emissions in absolute terms and even in per capita terms rising during the last years). 
Some of the MENA countries are the worst performers across the entire spectrum of the countries 
covered by the Enterprise Survey. The average MENA country’s performance is significantly 
worse than the average of both the Upper Middle Income countries (UMI) and the Lower Middle 
Income countries (LMI) as well. At the same time, MENA economies may also offer a potential 
for larger improvements of the ESG practices once the problem is recognized and appropriate 
policy actions are taken into consideration.  
Figure 4 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility composite indicator in 
emerging countries (z-score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weights: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. The abbreviations refer to the following countries: CEE: Central and Eastern Europe; WB: Western Balkans; CA: Central 
Asia; EN: Eastern Neighborhood. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data 
 
Within the MENA region, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the West Bank and Gaza have the 
highest potential for improvement in terms of firms’ ESG practices, followed by Lebanon and 
Morocco. Egypt and the West Bank and Gaza appear to be not only the worst among MENA 
economies, but also the worst across the 41 economies covered by the ES. Lebanon and Morocco 
also appear to be in a weak position compared with other emerging countries. Jordan and Tunisia 
are the best performers among MENA economies, thanks to relatively positive results on firms’ 
governance, but their performance is not better than the average of emerging economies.  
                                                           
11 Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia; Western Balkans (WB): Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, 
Serbia; Central Asia (CA): Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan; Eastern Neighborhood (EN): Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
Belarus, Georgia, Moldavia, and Ukraine.

11 
Figure 5 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility composite indicator (z-score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
Figure 6 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility composite indicator, by 
country (z-score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
The absolute level of the Corporate ESG Responsibility composite indicator should be considered 
taking into account the level of economic development of the country. The Corporate ESG 
Responsibility composite indicator is positively correlated with income levels (expressed in the 
chart below in terms of GDP per capita of 2020, in Purchasing Power Parity): higher incomes are 
correlated with better average ESG practices. Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco appear to have average 
quality of ESG practices coherent with their level of income (low income, low ESG). Lebanon, 
the West Bank and Gaza, and Egypt, on the other hand, have lower average quality of ESG 
practices than expected given their level of economic development.

12 
Figure 7 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility composite indicator and 
income levels (in terms of per capita GDP, in PPP; 2020) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Regression line is based on the sample of the 41 countries covered in the Enterprise Survey. Source: Authors’ calculations 
based on Enterprise Survey data and IMF (World Economic Outlook, October 2021). 
Figure 8 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility pillars (composite indicator, z-
score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
Assessing the ESG pillars separately, MENA countries’ poor performance is mainly driven by the 
environmental component and the social component. From the weak performance on green 
aspects among MENA economies – the lowest performance after Russia – Morocco is the only 
exception, with a better environmental score. The governance component, on the other hand, has 
a better performance than the E and S among MENA firms, due to the positive results of Jordan, 
Lebanon and Egypt.

13 
Figure 9 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility pillars in MENA countries 
(composite indicator, z-score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
MENA countries’ social component score, on the other hand, is the lowest among all regions. The 
gender subcomponent – which, together with education and training of the workforce, is 
determining the S component – is particularly weak. Female participation in the workforce in 
MENA countries is low: the share of female workers in MENA (considering the firms that are 
part of the Enterprise Survey) is 25%, significantly lower than in the other areas (apart from 
Turkey). The female representation in management is poor: only 5% of MENA firms have females 
in management, while this ratio is more than 20% in Russia, Central and Eastern Europe and 
Central Asia. At the country level, Morocco and Tunisia have more female participation in the 
workforce (higher than 30% of total workforce in the Enterprise Survey sample) and Tunisia has 
a better performance in terms of presence of female management as well (10% of the firms).  In 
this respect, the West Bank and Gaza and Jordan have the lowest presence of females in 
management (1% and 3% of firms respectively), with Lebanon, Morocco and Egypt around 5%-
6%.  
Figure 10 – Female participation (percentage on total) 
 
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Russia
CEE
CA
EN
WB
MENA
Turkey
Firms with female in
management
Share of female
workers

14 
 
As described earlier, ESG practices differ by sector. Since the ES sample is representative in a 
relatively small number of sectors, there is limited room for deeper analysis. Firms in the 
manufacturing sector tend to have the highest “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite 
indicator, while firms in the retail sector tend to have the lowest. Firms in MENA countries have 
a poor performance across all sectors, with the retail segment - where small companies are more 
prevalent - showing the worst results. The manufacturing sector in MENA is significantly weaker 
than manufacturing in most of the other regions in terms of ESG practices.  
Figure 11 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility, by sector and region 
(composite indicator, z-score) 
 
Note: Z-scores are calculated based on the entire Enterprise Survey sample. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
Our “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator not only confirms that company size 
matters for Corporate ESG Responsibility practices - SMEs are the weakest in terms of ESG 
performance - but it also gives an idea of the relevance of the gaps. It is well documented that 
company size appears among the relevant drivers of a firm’s ability and willingness to implement 
sustainable business practices (Moody’s, 2021). Especially for social and governance aspects, larger 
companies tend to be more structured in terms of procedures, audits and control systems, and 
they are scrutinized in more detail by authorities, unions and investors, in terms of labor rights 
and other social and governance aspects (and in recent years also regarding environmental 
practices). Governance practices are by far more developed for large, listed companies. Large firms 
tend to appear greener perhaps because they are more resourceful (Oh and Noh, 2021). Such 
findings even raise the question of whether the way the ESG scores measure corporate 
sustainability gives an advantage to larger firms with more resources, while not providing the 
investors with the information needed to make informed decisions (Drempetic, Klein and 
Zwergel, 2020).

15 
The “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator shows that small companies (with fewer 
than 20 employees) are the weakest in terms of ESG performance in each region.12 Small firms in 
MENA are the worst performers across all economies and categories. Medium-sized firms (20-99 
employees) in MENA are the worst among medium-sized firms in other countries, with the 
exception of Turkey and Russia. In addition, firms with at least 100 employees (“Large” according 
to Enterprise Survey definition) in practically any region score better than small firms in the best 
performing regions of South or Central and Eastern Europe.  
Figure 12 - Average quality of Corporate ESG Responsibility, by size and region (composite 
indicator, z-score) 
 
Z-score calculation is based on the Enterprise Survey sample of 41 countries. Corporate ESG weighted: 40% for E, 25% for S, 35% 
for G. CEE: Central and Eastern Europe; WB: Western Balkans; CA: Central Asia; EN: Eastern Neighborhood; MENA: Middle 
East and North Africa. Source: Authors’ calculations based on Enterprise Survey data. 
There are several factors that may explain the large differences in corporate ESG responsibility 
composite indicator scores across firms within a given country. Besides the firm’s sector, these 
include other firm characteristics such as size, age and ownership, as well as external factors such 
as customer or regulatory pressure, and experiencing environmental and climate change-related 
problems.  
Looking at firms in MENA, customer pressure is the most important determinant of the quality 
of corporate ESG responsibility practices. Indeed, estimates from a firm-level regression (Figure 
11) indicate that firms whose customers require environmental certifications or adherence to 
certain environmental standards as a condition of doing business with them on average have better 
corporate ESG responsibility practices than firms whose customers do not require this. This is 
closely followed by whether a firm is an exporter. Several other determinants also play a role, such 
as being a large, old firm, having experienced monetary losses due to pollution by others or due to 
extreme weather events, or having at least 25% foreign ownership. Such results regarding the 
determinants of the “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator for firms in MENA 
countries are similar to those of the entire sample of emerging economies in the ES. The only 
relevant differences appear being a listed firm (as listed companies have better ESG practices 
                                                           
12 The Enterprise Survey thresholds are small – fewer than 20 employees; medium-sized – 20-99 employees; large: at least 100 
employees.

16 
among emerging markets but not in MENA) and being subject to the energy tax (firms subject to 
energy tax have better ESG performance in emerging markets but not in MENA).  
Figure 13 - Determinants of “Corporate ESG responsibility” composite indicator for 
MENA countries 
 
Note: This figure shows the standardised coefficients from a regression estimated using weighted ordinary least squares. The dots 
represent standardised coefficient estimates, and the lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Regression includes the variables 
shown in the figure and controls for locality size; it also includes country, sector, accuracy and truthfulness fixed effects, and uses 
robust standard errors. Young firms are defined as those less than 5 years old. SMEs have fewer than 100 employees. Foreign-
owned firms are those with at least 25% foreign ownership. Sectors are based on ISIC Rev. 3.1. Emission-intensive sectors include 
paper and paper products (21), printing and publishing (22), coke and petroleum (23), chemical products (24), rubber and plastic 
products (25), non-metallic mineral products (26), basic metals (27), land transport (60), water transport (61) and air transport (62). 
Source: Enterprise Surveys and authors’ calculations. 
 
5 Conclusion 
The information (i.e. set of questions and respective answers) contained in the Enterprise Survey 
(ES) - administered by the World Bank (WB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) – has been used to build a firm-
level “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator. The indicator contains a large set of 
firm-level information on private sector actions regarding environmental, social and governance 
practices. The survey’s questions, which were asked before the Covid-19 pandemic, have been 
aggregated to match the main Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) pillars and sub-pillars 
and generate a synthetic index. Such composite indicator does not fully match any ESG standard, 
including the variegated approaches of ESG rating agencies, but it is based on a similar logic and 
it is inspired by such methodologies (especially by SASB standards). The aim of building such 
composite indicator is not to reproduce ESG scores of listed large companies to serve investors’ 
needs or to add another ingredient to the “alphabet soup” (the ESG acronym-heavy measurement 
and reporting standards), but to shed some light on the ESG aspects related to smaller companies 
in emerging countries, which are not covered by ESG agencies.

17 
The main advantage of such approach is indeed related to its unique coverage, as it captures 28,000 
firms, mainly Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), in selected emerging countries (more than 
40 countries covered by the Enterprise Survey), which is exceptional among the ESG scores 
already available on the market. Indeed, ESG disclosure covers mainly large, listed firms, while the 
large majority of companies is neither subject to it nor is assessed regarding ESG aspects. EU 
regulation, which is the most advanced worldwide on ESG topics, will gradually enlarge the 
spectrum of companies covered, but SMEs’ disclosure will remain extremely limited. In the United 
States, any ESG disclosure remains voluntary, while the situation in emerging countries is by far 
worse (no visibility on ESG topics of non-listed firms).  
The “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator suggests that firms in emerging 
economies lag significantly in terms of ESG practices. South EU and Central and Eastern Europe 
perform better, followed respectively by Central Asia, the Eastern Neighborhood, and the Western 
Balkans, while firms in Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Russia and Turkey are among the 
worst performers. Among emerging economies, our analysis focused on firms in the Middle East 
and North Africa as some of those countries are in urgent need to decarbonize their economies. 
They have seen their CO2 emissions rising in absolute terms and also in per capita terms during 
the last years, and are significantly exposed to climate change (especially to climate “chronic” risk, 
and heat and water scarcity in particular) and the social development (including gender issues) is 
lagging. MENA economies are the worst performers across the entire spectrum of the economies 
covered by the ES in terms of Environmental, Social and Governance practices. Egypt and the 
West Bank and Gaza appear to be the worst among the MENA economies, followed by Lebanon, 
but also the worst among the 40 economies covered by the ES. MENA economies’ poor 
performance is mainly driven by the social component (worst performer among all regions, 
especially due to the gender subcomponent, as female representation in the workforce and among 
management is much lower than in other areas) and by the environmental component (second 
worst performer after Russia). Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco have ESG scores more in line with 
their level of economic development (represented by their per capita income). 
Our composite indicator shows that SMEs’ Corporate ESG Responsibility practices lag those of 
large firms, particularly in emerging economies such as those in MENA. SMEs, which provide 
a staggering 70% of employment worldwide (ILO, 2019), face major challenges when it comes to 
working conditions, productivity and informality. Small firms in MENA are the worst performers 
across all economies and categories.  
Poor ESG practices in emerging countries, especially for SMEs, call for urgent policy action to 
address such weaknesses: 
SMEs’ ESG aspects, but also those of micro enterprises, cannot be neglected or addressed at a 
later stage. The challenges of the green and social transitions cannot be met without the timely 
involvement of SMEs.  
ESG practices should not be left solely in the realm of financial investors: commercial banks also 
need to assess the ESG performance of borrowers, SMEs included; insurance companies need to 
evaluate the ESG risks; and public authorities, national and local, must also be interested in the 
ESG risks of the non-listed companies in their territories. Consequently, disclosure and target 
setting on ESG topics cannot be confined to large, listed firms (mainly in developed markets), as

18 
is currently happening. And it cannot be confined to the European Union markets, which is setting 
numerous standards in this regard. 
ESG information disclosure should become “at par” with financial information – sharing the same 
rigor, level of implementation and enforcement, quality control systems and IT infrastructures.  
In this sense, it is important to evaluate and quantify the gaps and take action subsequently, 
designing a roadmap for SMEs and emerging markets on ESG topics.  
Governments or international financial institutions should scale up support to improve SMEs’ 
ESG practices and provide help on the ground to fill the biggest gaps.  
In conclusion, the transition towards a more sustainable business environment at the global level 
cannot be successful unless a broader spectrum of companies - including SMEs in emerging 
economies - are fully part of the game.   
 
6 References 
Berg, F., K. Fabisik, and Z. Sautner, Is History Repeating Itself?: The (Un)Predictable Past of ESG 
Ratings (August 24, 2021). European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper 
708/2020  
Berg, F., J. F. Koelbel, and R. Rigobon, Aggregate Confusion: the Divergence of ESG ratings, MIT 
Sloan School of Management, August 2019 
Chatterji, A. K., R. Durand, D. I. Levine, and S. Touboul, Do ratings of firms converge? Implications 
for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8):1597–1614, 
2016. 
Clarkin, C.M., M. Sawyer and J. L. Levin, The Rise of Standardized ESG Disclosure Frameworks in 
the United States, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, June 2020 The Rise of 
Standardized ESG Disclosure Frameworks in the United States (harvard.edu) 
Drempetic, S., C. Klein and B. Zwergel, "The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate 
Sustainability Ratings Under Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 333-
360, November 2020. 
Durand, R., S. Touboul, "Do Ratings of Firms Converge? Implications for Managers, Investors and 
Strategy Researchers," HEC Research Papers Series 1076, HEC Paris, 2014. 
European Banking Authority (EBA), On management and supervision of ESG risks for credit 
institutions and investment firms, EBA Discussion Paper, EBA/DP/2020/03, 2020  
EBRD, Transition report 2020. 
Financial Times, Big Four accounting firms rush to join the ESG bandwagon, 30 August 2021Big 
Four accounting firms rush to join the ESG bandwagon | Financial Times (ft.com) 
Financial Times, Measuring what matters: the scramble to set standards for sustainable business, 14 
May 2021 Measuring what matters: the scramble to set standards for sustainable business | Financial 
Times (ft.com) 
Gibson, R., P. Krueger, N. Riand, and P. S. Schmidt, ESG Rating Disagreement and Stock Returns. 
SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3433728, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2019.

19 
Haralampieva, V., Ramping Up Climate Action by Enhancing Companies' Governance Framework, 
Law in Transition Journal, 2019 Articles | EBRD LiT 2019 (lit-ebrd.com) 
ILO, Small matters, Global evidence on the contribution to employment by the self-employed, 
micro-enterprises and SMEs, International Labour Organization, 2019 
ILO, The power of Small: Unlocking the potential of SMEs, International Labour Organization, 
October 2019 
OECD-JRC, 
Handbook 
on 
Constructing 
Composite 
Indicators, 
2008, 
https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/handbookonconstructingcompositeindicatorsmethodologyanduser
guide.htm 
Moody’s, ESG Score Predictor: Applying a Quantitative Approach for Expanding Company 
Coverage, July 2021 
60ec66d0af57878032604495_ESG Score Predictor_090721.pdf (website-files.com) 
SASB, SASB Conceptual Framework and Rules of Procedure 
Academic ESG data review | PRI Web Page | PRI (unpri.org) 
World Economic Forum, Statement of Intent to Work Together Towards Comprehensive Corporate 
Reporting (Summary of alignment discussions among leading sustainability and integrated reporting 
organisations CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB), September 2020 Statement-of-Intent-to-Work-
Together-Towards-Comprehensive-Corporate-Reporting.pdf (netdna-ssl.com) 
Oh, S., D. Noh, Are Corporations feeling the heat?, World Bank Sovereign ESG Data Framework, 
September 2021 Sovereign ESG Data Framework | Sovereign Environment Social Governance 
Data | World Bank

20 
7 Annex 
 
Note: number of observations is representing the number of firms answering to the specific question (before imputation – see 
chapter 3 on methodology) 
Enterprise Survey: questions used to build the “Corporate ESG Responsibility” composite indicator
Component Sub-Component
Question
N. Observations
S
Gender
Amongst the owners of the firm, are there any females? 
28,161
S
Gender
What percentage of the firm is owned by females? 
8,136
S
Gender
Is the Top Manager female? 
28,161
S
Gender
How many full-time seasonal or temporary employees were female (in %)?
6,666
S
training
Did this establishment have formal training programs for its permanent, full-time employees? 
28,157
S
education
% of full-time permanent workers employed which completed secondary school
15,710
G
Corp Governance
Does this firm have formalized, written business strategy with clear key performance indicators?
27,732
G
Corp Governance
Does the firm have a board of directors or a supervisory board?
27,732
G
Corp Governance
Was this establishment formally registered when it began operations?
28,161
G
Corp Governance
In a typical week, how often does the top manager meet with suppliers?
8,553
G
Manag. Practices
 how many performance indicators were monitored at this establishment? 
9,476
G
Manag. Practices
Did this establishment have production targets? 
14,825
G
Manag. Practices
What was the primary way non-managers were promoted? 
14,825
G
Audit
Does this establishment have an internationally-recognized quality certification?
28,161
G
Audit
Did this establishment have its financial statements checked and certified by an external auditor?
28,158
G
Compensation
Did this establishment have performance bonuses for managers?
14,825
G
Innovation
Does this establishment use technology licensed from a foreign-owned company (excl. software)?
28,160
G
Innovation
Did this establishment spend on research and development activities within the establishment?
27,731
G
Innovation
Did this establishment purchase any new or used fixed assets (such as machinery, vehicles, etc.)?
28,159
E
Green manag.
did this firm have strategic objectives that mention environmental or climate change issues?
27,383
E
Green manag.
whom did the manager responsible for environmental issues directly report to?
2,823
E
Green manag.
did any of the customers require environmental certifications as a condition to do business?
27,383
E
Environ. Awareness How often did this establishment monitor its energy consumption?
14,620
E
Environ. Awareness Did this establishment complete an external audit of its energy consumption?
14,620
E
Environ. Awareness Over the last three years, did this establishment emit CO2?
27,381
E
Environ. Awareness  did this establishment monitor CO2 emissions along its supply chain?
27,383
E
Environ. Awareness  what sort of targets for energy consumption did this establishment have? 
7,158
E
Environ. Awareness  what sort of targets for CO2 emissions did this establishment have?
1,355
E
Environ. Awareness  Did this establishment adopt any measures to enhance energy efficiency?  
27,383
E
Environ. Awareness Did this establishment use energy from its own renewable sources?
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Heating and cooling improvements
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: More climate-friendly energy generation on site
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Machinery and equipment upgrades
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Energy management
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Waste minimization, recycling and waste management 
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Air pollution control measures
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Water management
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Upgrades of vehicles 
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Improvements to lighting systems
27,383
E
Green measures
Measures adopted: Other pollution control measures
27,383

© European Investment Bank, 06/2021   EN
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES IN EMERGING  
ECONOMIES: THE ACHILLES’ HEEL OF CORPORATE  
ESG RESPONSIBILITY PRACTICES?
ECONOMICS -  MENA ENTERPRISE SURVEY REPORT WORKING PAPERS: Volume 4
PDF:
ISBN 978-92-861-5325-9
© European Investment Bank, 06/2022   EN