This work tackles from an empirical perspective the widely debated relationship between sustainability in business practices and profitability, focusing on a sample of listed European firms. To measure the extent of sustainable practices at the firm level, the Comprehensive Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score is proposed. The indicator, computed using the Mazziotta‐Pareto method, combines qualitative ratings on adherence to ESG standards with quantitative observations on the extent of data disclosure. Firms failing to pursue full disclosure are penalized. Focusing on the constituents of the Euro Stoxx 300 index, a dynamic panel model is implemented, where profitability is explained by the indicator. The results show that sustainability in business practices reduces profitability. These findings are in line with a strand of literature that highlights the role of strategic disclosure of ESG information on part of firms. Strategic disclosure occurs as a combination of greenwashing and social washing, with firms overstating the extent of their positive behaviors. The integration of sustainable practices within successful business models thus remains a relevant societal problem. The current EU policy framework is discussed in line with our findings.

Purpose: In recent years, European banks have been required to integrate environmental and social objectives into their business practices. At the same time, they have become increasingly exposed to environmental, social and governance (ESG) controversies. This paper empirically examines the relationship between the board characteristics of banks (i.e. size, gender diversity, meeting frequency, sustainability compensation incentives and the presence of a sustainability committee) and exposure to ESG-related controversies.Design/methodology/approach: The empirical analysis focuses on a sample of 61 European banks between 2012 and 2021. Employing generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation, the authors examine the relationship between board characteristics and ESG controversies.Findings: The results of the study indicate that banks featuring certain board characteristics (i.e. larger and more gender-diverse boards, facing sustainability compensation provisions and having sustainability committees) experience lesser exposure to ESG controversies. Additionally, the authors ascertain that prior instances of ESG controversies play a role in influencing current levels of such controversies. This result highlights the relevance of a bank's historical trajectory.Research limitations/implications: The authors' sample contains banks based in the European Union (EU). Future research should broaden the analysis to encompass banks operating in other advanced countries, as well as in emerging countries. This expansion would offer more insights into the relationship between board characteristics and ESG controversies under different regulatory frameworks.Practical implications: The authors' findings provide relevant implications for several stakeholders, including shareholders, regulators and supervisors. Certain board characteristics should be taken into consideration to limit exposure to ESG controversies.Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this paper represents the first attempt to provide evidence of the link between strong corporate governance standards and reduced exposure to ESG controversies.