research paper on corporate finance in india

Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: a study of Indian companies

• Original Article
• Published: 01 August 2020
• Volume 17 , pages 208–217, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Preeti Sharma 1 ,
• Priyanka Panday   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1144-8957 1 &
• R. C. Dangwal 2  

3463 Accesses

83 Citations

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between financial performances and the extent of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure of Indian companies. The content analysis was used to analyse the ESG performance of the sample companies from their annual and sustainability reports. For this purpose, ESG disclosure index is constructed with the help of GRI framework, Clause 49 of listing agreement and relevant literature. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method was used to examine the relationship between the ESG disclosure index and the independent variables, namely the financial performance, market performance, FIIs stake and leverage after statistically controlling the effects of a firm’s size and the industry type of the companies; results based on the formulated model indicated that financial and market performance have a positive and significant association with the level of ESG disclosure, whereas FIIs stake and leverage have a negative and significant association with the level of ESG disclosure. The findings are limited to the context of the study, and it was limited to Indian companies listed at Bombay Stock Exchange for the period 2013–2016. The sources of data in this study were companies’ annual and sustainability reports. The study may be constructive for organizations and statutory bodies to take into consideration in identification of corporate attributes that will enhance ESG disclosure, since it had been shown in literature that the voluntary corporate social responsibility and corporate governance reporting in India is generally low. In recent times, there has been an increase in ESG reporting, to address the increasing concerns of the stakeholders. Thus, this study will emphasize the level of activities through ESG reporting in Indian companies and help the government to ascertain the level of ESG activities through corporate social responsibility reporting among Indian companies. The study reveals the extent of the disclosure of ESG to companies annual and sustainability reports and constructed the CSR index based on GRI framework and Clause 49 of listing agreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

Tahniyath Fatima & Said Elbanna

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Hadiqa Ahmad, Muhammad Yaqub & Seung Hwan Lee

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Hans B. Christensen, Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz

Aboud, A., and A. Diab. 2018. The impact of social, environmental and corporate governance disclosures on firm value. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 8(4): 442–458.

Google Scholar  

Aghdam, S.A. 2015. Determinants of voluntary environmental disclosure: The case of Iran. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research 4 (6): 343–349.

Atan, R., F.A. Razali, J. Said, and S. Zainun. 2016. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and its effect on firm’s performance: A comparative study. International Journal of Economics and Management 10: 355–375.

Aupperle, K., A.B. Carroll, and J. Hatfield. 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal 28: 446–465.

Balatbat, Maria C.A., Renard Y.J. Siew, and David G. Carmichael 2012. ESG Scores and its influence on firm performance: Australian evidence. School of Accounting Seminar Series Semester.

Bassen, A., and A.M.M. Kovacs. 2008. Environmental, social and governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik 9 (2): 182–192.

Bourghelle, D., H. Jemel, and C. Louche. 2009. The integration of ESG information into investment processes: Toward an emerging collective belief?

Branco, M.C., and L.L. Rodrigues. 2008. Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (4): 685–701.

Breuer, N., and C. Nau. 2014. ESG performance and corporate financial performance. Master’s dissertation, School of Economics and Management, Lunds University.

Brooks, C. 2019. Introductory Econometrics for Finance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brooks, C., and I. Oikonomou. 2018. The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance. The British Accounting Review 50 (1): 1–15.

Chaklader, B., and P.A. Gulati. 2015. A study of corporate environmental disclosure practices of companies doing business in India. Global Business Review 16 (2): 321–335.

Chek, I.T., Z.Z. Mohamad, J. Yunus, and N.M. Norwani. 2013. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in consumer products and plantation industry in Malaysia. American International Journal of Contemporary Research 3 (5): 118–125.

Chetty, S., R. Naidoo, and Y. Seetharam. 2015. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firms’ financial performance in South Africa. Contemporary Economics 9 (2): 193–214.

Clarkson, P.M., Y. Li, G. Richardson, and A. Tsang. 2015. Voluntary external assurance of corporate social responsibility reports and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index membership: International evidence. Unpublished working paper, UQ Business School.

Cormier, D., M.J. Ledoux, and M. Magnan. 2011. The informational contribution of social and environmental disclosures for investors. Management Decision . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1327044 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Crifo, P., and V.D. Forget. 2013. The economics of CSR: A firm-level perspective survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 29: 112–130.

Dangwal, R.C., and P. Sharma. 2014. Environmental disclosure practices of selected pharmaceutical companies in India. Journal of Accounting and Finance 28 (2): 30–43.

Eccles, Robert G., and George Serafeim. 2011. Accelerating the Adoption of Integrated Reporting. CSR INDEX, eds. Francesco de Leo, Matthias Vollbracht. InnoVatio Publishing Ltd. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1910965 .

Eccles, N.S., and S. Viviers. 2011. The origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues in the academic literature. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (3): 389–402.

El Ghoul, S., O. Guedhami, and Y. Kim. 2017. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (3): 360–385.

Erhemjamts, O., Q. Li, and A. Venkateswaran. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and its impact on firms’ investment policy, organizational structure, and performance. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2): 395–412.

Farooq, S.U., S. Ullah, and D. Kimani. 2015. The relationship between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: Evidence from the USA. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences 8 (2): 197–212.

Fauzi, H., and K. Idris. 2009. The relationship of CSR and financial performance: New evidence from Indonesian companies. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 3 (1): 66–87.

Friede, G., T. Busch, and A. Bassen. 2015. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 5 (4): 210–233.

Galani, D., E. Gravas, and A. Stavropoulos. 2011. The relation between firm size and environmental disclosure. In International Conference on Applied Economics. hlm , 179–186.

Galani, D., E. Gravas, and A. Stavropoulos. 2012. Company characteristics and environmental policy. Business Strategy and the Environment 21 (4): 236–247.

Gautam, R., and A. Singh. 2010. Corporate social responsibility practices in India: A study of top 500 companies. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal 2 (1): 41–56.

Ghosh, A. 2013. Corporate sustainability and corporate financial performance: the Indian context, working paper, WPS No. 721/ January 2013, IIM Calcutta.

Gujarati, D.N. 2004. Basic Econometrics . New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Ho, S.S.M., and K.S. Wong. 2003. Preparers’ perceptions of corporate reporting and disclosures. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 1: 71–81.

Jemel-Fornetty, H., C. Louche, and D. Bourghelle. 2011. Changing the dominant convention: The role of emerging initiatives in mainstreaming ESG. In Finance and Sustainability: Towards a New Paradigm , ed. W. Sun, C. Louche, and R. Perez, 85–117. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Joshi, P.L., M.S. Suwaidan, and R. Kumar. 2011. Determinants of environmental disclosures by Indian industrial listed companies: Empirical study. International Journal of Accounting and Finance 3 (2): 109–130.

Kansal, M., M. Joshi, and G.S. Batra. 2014. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from India. Advances in Accounting 30 (1): 217–229.

Lapinskienė, G., and M. Tvaronavičienė. 2012. Environmental, social and governance performance of companies: The empirical research on their willingness to disclose information. In 7th International Scientific Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Lokuwaduge, C.S.D.S., and K. Heenetigala. 2017. Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (4): 438–450.

Lydenberg, S. 2014. The Potential Use of Sustainability Scenarios as a Supplement to Stock Price in Equity Valuation by Long-Term Investors . New York: Domini Social Investments LLC.

Mallin, C. 2013. International journal of disclosure and governance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 10: 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.27 .

McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21 (5): 603–609.

Mitra, S., S. Dhar, and K.M. Agrawal. 2008. Assessment of corporate environmental proactiveness. South Asian Journal of Management 15 (3): 101–135.

Montabon, F., R. Sroufe, and R. Narasimhan. 2006. An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 25 (5): 998–1014.

Navi, B.S. 2014. Students’ perceptions about corporate social responsibility at the academic level. International Journal of Management and Development Studies 3 (4): 9–19.

Nurhayati, D. 2015. The Effectiveness of using collaborative strategic reading (CSR) on students’ reading comprehension of narrative text. Doctoral dissertation, Thesis. Jakarta: State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah. Retrieved on February 21th, 2018 from http://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/Dede/Nurhayati/FITK.pdf .

Otman, K.A.M. 2014. Corporate governance and firm performance in listed companies in the United Arab Emirates. Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University.

Purnomo, P.K., and L.P. Widianingsih. 2012. The influence of environmental performance on financial performance with corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure as a moderating variable: Evidence from listed companies in Indonesia. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 1 (1): 57.

Ragini, 2012. Corporate disclosure of intangibles: A comparative study of practices among Indian, US, Japanese companies. Journal for Decision Makers 37 (3): 51–72.

Raithatha, M., and V. Bapat. 2012. Corporate governance compliance practices of Indian companies. Corporate Governance 3(8): 19–26.

Rouf, D. 2011. The relationship between corporate governance and value of the firm in developing countries: Evidence from Bangladesh. The International Journal of Applied Economics and Finance 5: 237–244.

Sahut, J.M., and H. Pasquini-Descomps. 2015. ESG impact on market performance of firms: International evidence. Management International/International Management/Gestiòn Internacional 19 (2): 40–63.

Sen, A. 2011. Corporate governance in India: Clause 49 of the listing agreement. Gupta, SC 275 Gupta, Sonia 423 Gupta, Swati 353 Gupta, Vishal 569, 238.

Siew, R.Y., M.C. Balatbat, and D.G. Carmichael. 2013a. A review of building/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart and Sustainable Built Environment 2: 106–139.

Siew, R.Y., M.C. Balatbat and D.G. Carmichael. 2013b. The relationship between sustainability practices and financial performance of construction companies. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment .

Smith, M., K. Yahya, and A. Marzuki Amiruddin. 2007. Environmental disclosure and performance reporting in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 15 (2): 185–199.

Taliento, M., C. Favino, and A. Netti. 2019. Impact of environmental, social, and governance information on economic performance: Evidence of a corporate ‘sustainability advantage’ from Europe. Sustainability 11 (6): 1738.

Tarmuji, I., R. Maelah, and N.H. Tarmuji. 2016. The impact of environmental, social and governance practices (ESG) on economic performance: Evidence from ESG score. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 7 (3): 67–74.

Tripathi, V., and V. Bhandari. 2014. Socially responsible investing—An emerging concept in investment management. FIIB Business Review 3 (4): 16–30.

Tseng, M.L., P.A. Tan, S.Y. Jeng, C.W.R. Lin, Y.T. Negash, and S.N.A.C. Darsono. 2019. Sustainable investment: Interrelated among corporate governance, economic performance and market risks using investor preference approach. Sustainability 11 (7): 2108.

Umlas, E. 2008. The global expansion of SRI: Facing challenges, meeting potential. Development and Change 39 (6): 1019–1036.

Uwuigbe, O.R. 2011. Corporate governance and financial performance of banks: A study of listed banks in Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation, Covenant University.

Waddock, S.A., and S.B. Graves. 1997. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18 (4): 303–319.

Watson, L. 2015. Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 34: 1–16.

Weber, O. 2014. The financial sector’s impact on sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 4 (1): 1–8.

Yao, S., J. Wang, and L. Song. 2011. Determinants of social responsibility disclosure by Chinese firms. The University of Nottingham-China Policy Institute. Discussion paper, 72, 1–30.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DIT University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Preeti Sharma & Priyanka Panday

Department Of Commerce, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, India

R. C. Dangwal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priyanka Panday .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sharma, P., Panday, P. & Dangwal, R.C. Determinants of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure: a study of Indian companies. Int J Discl Gov 17 , 208–217 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00085-y

Download citation

Received : 23 June 2020

Published : 01 August 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00085-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Environmental
• Social and corporate governance (ESG)
• Disclosure practices
• Corporate attributes
• Indian companies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Corporate Financing Pattern in India: Changing Composition and Its Implications

The IUP Journal of Applied Finance; Vol. 20 (4), 2014: 5-21

This paper examines the financing pattern of private corporate sector in India. Several studies in the last three decades have increasingly emphasized the role of finance in influencing investment activities of firms. In India, the state had actively fostered the development of financial system till the 1980s, though it favored bank-based system. With the ushering in of financial sector reforms since the early 1990s, the emphasis on equity market has gone up. This paper finds that while corporate sector relied more on bank/institution sources of funding till the early 1990s, its reliance on equity market has gone up since then. The paper ends with a discussion on the implications of such changing financing pattern.

Related Papers

Dennis J Rajakumar

Of the various financial sector reform measures initiated since the early 1990s, a greater emphasis was placed on broadening the equity market by removing control over the terms and pricing of capital issues. In response to this, the corporate financing pattern shifted towards greater equity financing. However, contrary to expectations, this has not had the desired impact on investment (capital formation), thereby undermining the efficiency of the financial system. The relationship between corporate financing patterns and investment has been explored using panel data analysis, incorporating investment theories and financial practices.

IUP Journal of Public Finance, Vol VII, No 3&4

This paper examines the pattern of corporate financing, particularly, behavior and composition of internal sources of funds. As firms’ capacity to generate funds internally are mostly affected by reserves and surplus, and depreciation provisions, this paper discusses how corporation taxation policies and various tax relief measures provided by the government time and again have significantly affected the generation of internal funds.

Annalisa Ferrando , Petra Köhler-Ulbrich

Family Businesses in Transition Economies

Yulia Rodionova

Sistemas & Gestão

Eleuterio Vallelado , Felix Lopez-Iturriaga

Brookings papers on …

Redae Kahsay

Policy Research Working Papers

cherian samuel

... Another crucial difference between the Indian and Japanese and German financial system is that commercial banks in India do not own equity in corporations. ... It is in this sense that the Indian financial system can be termed as a bank-oriented one. ...

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Özgür Orhangazi

Page 1. &)Fs /G6 3 POLICY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 1663 Internal Finance Firms rely on internal finance for capital expenditures and Investment because of managerial considerations instead of Another Look informatior-theoretic considerations. That is, rather ...

Dr. Manoj S Kamat

This study aims to find the macroeconomic factors that determine the dividend policy decisions in India using longer frame of panel data 1971-2015. It is also examined whether the economic reform processes affect these determinants. The study uses the temporal-spatial analysis over a longer period controlling for the firm, inter and intra industry effects across groups and also the time and random effects, by pooling time series and cross sectional data for an emerging market. The specified models reveal that the tangibility of assets, size, and earnings have positive loading as the prime movers of dividends while the factors like that of financial slack, operating risk, corporate tax, cost of borrowings and the growth of the firm are major constraints on the dividend payout in India. Very interestingly we find that the industry dummy variables are correlated with the risks of financial distress that are captured by the firm effects as per Lowe and Shuetrim (1992) while the Hausman tests suggest that the random effects model may be inconsistently estimated because of endogeneity in the variables that vary over both firms and time. INTRODUCTION There is no consensus in the financial markets or in the financial literature about the need, importance and factors affecting dividend policy behavior. The theories in the financial literature dealing with the determinants of dividend can be grouped into two categories. Those based on the implicit assumption of asymmetric information and those based on the explicit assumption of the asymmetric information. The seminal work in that of Lintner (1956), Fama and Babiak (1968) and Marsh and Merton (1987) hypothesizes asymmetric information, whereas the theories based on the explicit assumption of dividends include the agency theory, the pecking order theory and dividend signaling theories. This paper tries to find out the various factors that determine the dividend policy decisions in India using longer frame of panel data. Although tax policy, depreciation policy, retention policy, interest rate, size of the firm, age of the firm and investment opportunities etc. are the major determinants of the corporate dividends, in India in the light of lower

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Macroeconomics

Hans Van Ees

Valentina Hartarska

Contemporary Business Studies

Ravinder Arora

Ssrn Electronic Journal

LEONARDO HERNANDEZ

Giuseppe Torluccio

Stijn Claessens

SSRN Electronic Journal

Dominique Guellec

Journal of Economic Surveys

Marian Rizov

REVUE D ETUDES …

Todor Yalamov

Asli Demirguc-kunt

Bronwyn Hall

… , Financial Systems and Corporate Performance (EIFC)

Jaime Sierra

EIFC-Technology and Finance Working …

World Bank Policy Research …

Latin American Business Review

Farhana yasmin

IFC Technical paper

Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

F. Schiantarelli

Daniel Detzer

Amanda Carmignani

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

Besnik A Krasniqi

Fabio Chaddad

Kim Kaivanto

Attaullah Shah

sciepub.com SciEP

Suleman Sarwar

International Journal of Economics and Finance

Jason Hecht

Economic Systems

Bersant Hobdari

Focus on Austria

Engelbert Stockhammer

Acta Oeconomica

Urmas Varblane

The Quarterly Journal of …

Takeo Hoshi

Strategic Change

Ciaran Mac an Bhaird

Krishna Reddy Chittedi

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Economic conditions outlook, March 2024

Executives’ latest views on the global economy and their countries’ economies lean much more positive than they did at the end of 2023.

In the latest McKinsey Global Survey on economic conditions, 1 The online survey was in the field from March 4 to March 8, 2024, and garnered responses from 957 participants representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP. the outlook on domestic conditions in most regions has become more hopeful, despite ongoing shared concerns about geopolitical instability and conflicts. In a year brimming with national elections, 2 Katharina Buchholz, “2024: The super election year,” Statista, January 19, 2024. respondents increasingly see transitions of political leadership as a primary hazard to the global economy, particularly in Asia–Pacific, Europe, and North America.

Furthermore, respondents now view policy and regulatory changes as a top threat to their companies’ performance, and they offer more muted optimism than in December about their companies’ prospects.

Optimism builds over global and domestic conditions

Respondents share much brighter assessments of the global economy and conditions in their countries than they did at the end of 2023, and views of the global economy are the most positive they’ve been since March 2022 (Exhibit 1). In the December survey, respondents were equally likely to say the global economy had improved and worsened. Today, respondents are twice as likely to report improving rather than deteriorating conditions. Looking ahead to the next six months, respondents are also more optimistic than they were last quarter. Forty-six percent expect the global economy to improve—nearly double the share expecting worsening conditions—while 37 percent expected improvement in the previous survey.

Likewise, respondents offer hopeful views when asked about the most likely near-term scenario for the global economy, suggesting confidence in central banks. They are more likely to expect a soft landing overall—with either slowing or accelerating growth compared with 2023—than a recession (Exhibit 2). The largest share of respondents expect a soft landing, with slowing growth relative to 2023.

Respondents’ views on their own economies have also become more upbeat. Nearly half of respondents say economic conditions at home are better now than they were six months ago, up from 41 percent in December, while just 22 percent say conditions have gotten worse. Respondents in Europe—who offered the most negative assessments of any respondents in September and December—are now nearly twice as likely as in December to say conditions have improved in the past six months, though it is unclear what has prompted that change and whether it is a durable finding.

McKinsey’s original survey research

More than half of respondents expect their economies to improve over the next six months. It’s the first time in two years that a majority of respondents have said that. In most regions, larger shares of respondents express optimism about economic conditions at home now than in December (Exhibit 3).

Geopolitical instability remains top of mind as concerns over political transitions rise

Geopolitical instability and conflict continues to be the most cited risk to global growth, selected by two-thirds of respondents for the second quarter in a row (Exhibit 4). Yet in this first quarterly survey of 2024—a year in which more than 60 countries will hold national elections 3 Katharina Buchholz, “2024: The super election year,” Statista, January 19, 2024. —transitions of political leadership have jumped from the fifth-most-cited to the second-most-cited threat to the world economy. The share of respondents in Europe reporting political transitions as a top threat is 2.4 times the share in December, while the shares in North America and Asia–Pacific have nearly doubled. 4 Prior to the latest survey, respondents in Mexico were included in Latin America in analyses but are now included in North America. We see a smaller uptick in concern about supply chain disruptions, which is cited as a threat by the largest share of respondents since December 2022.

Looking at risks to growth in respondents’ countries, geopolitical instability and conflict remains the top perceived threat, cited by a larger share than in any quarter since March 2022. Uneasiness about domestic political conflicts and transitions of political leadership, now the second- and third-most-cited risks, have overtaken concerns about inflation, which was the second-most-cited risk in December. Among respondents in North America, transitions of political leadership are cited nearly twice as often as in December (Exhibit 5). In Greater China, multiple risks now appear to carry equal weight, whereas in December, inflation was the top concern.

Policy and regulatory changes top the list of cited threats to companies’ growth

As respondents’ concerns about inflation as a domestic threat wane, the survey results suggest that companies are holding off on price increases. For the first time since we began asking about companies’ prices in September 2022, less than half of private-sector respondents in the latest survey—45 percent—say their companies increased the price of their goods or services over the past six months, down from 56 percent in December.

For five quarters, respondents’ most cited risk to their companies’ performance in the next 12 months was weak customer demand. Now, they most often point to policy and regulatory changes as a threat. In December 2023, policy and regulatory changes weren’t even one of the top five perceived risks. This increased wariness of policy changes cuts across most regions, though we see the largest increase in Europe.

Even though weak demand is no longer the most cited risk for companies, optimism over expected demand has tapered  since December. Fifty-one percent of respondents expect an increase in customer demand over the next six months, down from 57 percent in December. Yet expectations about profits remain upbeat: about six in ten respondents expect increasing profits in the months ahead, in line with expectations in much of 2023.

The survey content and analysis were developed by Jeffrey Condon , a senior knowledge expert in McKinsey’s Atlanta office; Krzysztof Kwiatkowski , a capabilities and insights expert in the Boston office; and Sven Smit , chair of insights and ecosystems, chair of the McKinsey Global Institute, and a senior partner in the Amsterdam office.

They wish to thank Jan Mischke for his contributions to this work.

This article was edited by Heather Hanselman, a senior editor in the Atlanta office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Geopolitics and the geometry of global trade

Survey results: Expectations for company performance, by industry

Global Economics Intelligence executive summary, February 2024