Ethical investment dynamics in emerging economies: an assessment of key determinants across the top financial firms in BRICS markets

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract: Ethical investment has gained increasing importance in emerging economies; however, how financial institutions strategically communicate ethical investment priorities remains underexplored. This study investigates ethical investment dynamics in BRICS countries by conducting a website-based thematic content analysis of the vision and mission statements of 25 leading financial institutions (five from each BRICS economy). Drawing on institutional, stakeholder, and legitimacy perspectives, the study identifies and compares core ethical themes articulated through corporate digital communication. The findings reveal substantial cross-country variation in ethics-focused emphasis. India exhibits the strongest explicit focus on ethics, primarily framed through governance, integrity, and accountability narratives, followed closely by China, where ethics is embedded within compliance-oriented and institutionally disciplined discourse. South Africa demonstrates a sustainability-led ethical narrative, integrating ethics with environmental and social responsibility, while Brazil adopts a purpose- and stakeholder-driven approach in which ethics supports broader value-based identity construction. In contrast, Russia places comparatively less explicit emphasis on ethics, framing ethical responsibility more implicitly through service orientation and stakeholder support. Overall, the results highlight that ethical investment in emerging markets is context-dependent and strategically communicated, rather than uniformly defined. By shifting attention from quantitative ESG indicators to qualitative corporate narratives, this study contributes to the ethical investment literature by offering a comparative, firm-level understanding of how ethics is constructed, prioritized, and legitimized across major emerging economies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.