A Study on the Development of Library ESG Management Evaluation Indicator and the Evaluation Result of Library ESG

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainable development was introduced by the United Nations in 1972, while recognizing the counterproductive effects of economic development that had continued since the Industrial Revolution and paying attention to the prosperity and well-being of future generations. Ever since, the discussions revolving sustainability began to expand, and the concept of sustainability, which initially focused on environmental aspects, incrementally evolved into an integrated meaning that which considers economic, social, and environmental aspects in a balanced manner.

The origin of the ESG management may be said to be the Club of Rome report. The Club of Rome, which published the Club of Rome Report, was named after the experts from across various fields gathered in Rome with a critical mind on the finitude of the earth. After the first report entitled “The Limits of Growth” was published in 1972, the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ was introduced in 1988 with the publication of Our Common Future. In 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also called the Rio Summit, ‘The Rio Declaration’ for global environmental problems and sustainable development and the ‘Agenda 21’ containing detailed codes of action was adopted, and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) was organized.

As such, the efforts for sustainable development have continuously continued, and at the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)’ were set, and at the World Summit on Sustainable (WSSD) in 2002, the ‘Johannesburg Declaration’ was declared, and in 2012, ‘The Future We Want’ was declared at the Rio+20 Summit (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, UNCSD), and as an important tool for sustainable development, the ‘Green Economy’ agenda was adopted, and in 2015, at the 70th UN General Assembly, it was agreed to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replacing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Thereafter, the term “ESG” was first used by the UN Global Compact (UNGC) in 2004 and refers to a company’s non-financial factors. ESG is the core concept of sustainability, that is, it lies with the extension of sustainable development (Sustainable Development). Sustainability is a term first used by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in the 1987 Declaration of Our Common Future.

Ever since, with the Rio Declaration in 1992, the term “sustainable development” settled internationally, and discussions on the environment and development began full fledgedly. Sustainability means ‘the demand for development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987).

Schaltegger and Hörischs (2017) defined sustainability management as the “management activities aimed at reducing social and environmental negative impacts and contributing to sustainable development”. Mayer (2017) viewed sustainability as an intersecting element of the three basic axes (Triple Bottom Line: TBL) of environmental protection, economic development and social development, and considered economic, social and environmental opportunities and risks, placing the emphasis on maintaining a balance between long-term benefits. Such three basic axes, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), have become an important theoretical foundation for the ESG philosophy.

Knecht and Reich (2014) view that in order to survive through the global competition, as an important factor for success, companies consider strengthening the link between environment, society and governance value creation according to ESG standards, and Werner and Romeike (2020) suggest that the ESG risk has a significant impact on the companies.

ESG, which has become such a viral topic around the world as such, is a combination of the first letters of the English words of environment, society, and governance, and is the three key elements to achieve sustainability in corporate management. They are the core values that are directly related to the sustainable growth and survival of a company, and the detailed elements that form ESG include climate change and carbon emissions, environmental pollution and environmental regulations, the environment including ecosystems and biodiversity, data protection and privacy, among social including human rights, diversity such as gender equality, and community relations, and governance including composition of the board of directors and audit committee, bribery and corruption, and corporate ethics, etc.

ESG has been emphasized because, given the recent increase in the influence of companies on society, such as climate change, there is an increasing perception that ‘non-financial’ indicators may be even more important in evaluating the actual value of companies, and there is a growing perception of corporate social responsibility, and while a discourse has been formed, the investors and consumers have come to value non-financial values rather than financial values when evaluating companies. Hence, many global financial institutions also reflect the ESG evaluation information and use it for corporate evaluation. Spearheaded by the United Kingdom, which introduced the mandatory ESG information disclosure system in 2000, western countries such as Germany, Canada, Belgium, France, and Sweden have also begun to introduce a system that requires the ESG information disclosure. In January 2021, Korea also declared that the ESG disclosures would be mandatory for stock market listed companies with total assets of KRW 2 trillion or more from 2025, and that it plans to expand to all KOSPI listed companies from 2030 (Stella, 2021).

The attempts made to introduce the ESG management to libraries have been found across many places. Hence, in this study, a library ESG evaluation indicators specialized for libraries was developed, and based on which, a survey was conducted targeting actual libraries to evaluate the ESG level of libraries.

2. Previous Studies

As the perception of social and environmental issues increased due to the blast of ESG management, the interest in the ESG management increased, and accordingly, corporate activities corresponding to the ESG evaluation became far more active (Keller, 2015). The influence of ESG evaluation is growing stronger, and companies, institutional private investors, and state institutions investing in consideration of ratings are also increasing (Sparkes & Cowton, 2004). Furthermore, the studies that demonstrate that non-financial performance has a great impact on companies are also actively conducted, with a focus on ESG. Lim (2016) said that the ESG evaluation information and managerial profit management have a positive effect on the corporate value, and Kang and Jeong (2020) demonstrated that ESG activities have a significant positive correlation with the corporate value.

Byeon and Woo (2022) analyzed the history of ESG, the background of its introduction, and its impact on business performance through a literature analysis of domestic and foreign studies. Based on which, they confirmed that finance, personnel, marketing, and production strategies have a direct impact on the company’s growth and increase corporate sustainability through the creation of attractive market factors that companies that introduce and operate ESG have a strong long-term financial as well as non-financial factors, and as such, it is a strong competitive strategy, and presented theoretical and practical implications accordingly.

Kim (2022), in his study of HRD model for sustainability in the ESG management environment, presented the concept of defined sustainable HRD and defined it as “a strategic activity that promotes the accumulation of human, structural, and social capital to create organizational value and enhance sustainability considering the environment, society, and governance.” Furthermore, human capital is accumulated through the understanding and acceptance of ESG management, structural capital is organizational practice and change for ESG management, and social capital is accumulated through strategies to promote interaction with stakeholders, which in turn enhances corporate sustainability, as explained based on the model of operation for enhancement. In conclusion, he also presented the fact that the future sustainable HRD studies ought to fill in the gap between the conceptual framework and field practice, and at the same time pursue theoretical advancement. A study on the sustainable HRD model in the ESG management environment was also conducted by Kim and Baek (2022), and the sustainable HRD (sustainable HRD) was developed based on the development of the macro environment focused on sustainability discourse and an integrated understanding of ESG management, whose conceptual model of was presented.

Lim and Jeong (2021) presented the ESG management directions for the SMEs through best practices of the SME ESG. First, the activities to develop R&D and eco-friendliness of the distribution supply chain through cooperation with universities were presented. Furthermore, a work environment improvement program was presented through the company-wide communication considering the size of SMEs, and finally, the establishment of governance structure through trust formation by giving autonomy to members was presented.

Suh and Kim (2022) analyzed the ESG management philosophy of Coupang, a domestic company, looked at how Coupang’s delivery system called “Rocket Delivery” practices the ESG management, and analyzed the effects of Coupang’s ESG management. Based on which, by studying the relationship between the expansion of ESG value creation through sustainable development and Coupang’s growth, and revealing the correlation, it is demonstrated that the company’s efforts for ESG have a great impact not only on the company’s growth but also on our environment and society, and it was claimed that it would be an opportunity to enhance the corporate social responsibility.

Park (2021) specifically presents the reason as to why insurance companies ought to introduce the ESG management. That is, the Insurance Business Act and the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies provide for the risk management systems to protect the interests of stakeholders in insurance companies, such as policy holders, and hence, to comply with this system, insurance companies must consider the ESG factors for their management. Furthermore, insurance companies must manage their assets to ensure stability, liquidity, profitability, and public interest, and must manage their assets with fiduciary duties, so the ESG risks must be considered in compliance with these principles and obligations. And since the directors of an insurance company have fiduciary duties or fidelity to the company under the Commercial Act, the ESG factors must be considered in a way that does not violate such duties.

Meanwhile, it may be seen that a number of studies on ESG using big data have also been conducted, and Lim (2021) utilizes ‘Text Mining’ to extract ESG related issues and to support ESG management of SMEs, and emphasized that it ought to be actively reflected in the policy for supporting the SMEs’ ESG management. Park and Lee (2022) performed semantic network and text mining analysis to reveal the direction of the ESG management activities for the future financial industry and implications for the government. Park et al. (2022) explored domestic ESG research trends through text mining using key keywords and titles of ESG academic papers. Text mining is a big data analysis technique that extracts useful information by discovering certain patterns and rules from various forms of unstructured text such as news, social media, correspondence, and diaries (Park & Ahn, 2019).

Kim and Kim (2021) claimed that financial groups have a great influence on other industries through the analysis using ‘Bigkinds’, so there is a need to develop continuous issues to improve the overall level of domestic ESG management. Bigkinds2) is a new news analysis service that combines big data analysis technology with Korea’s largest article database, including comprehensive daily newspapers, economic newspapers, regional daily newspapers, and broadcasting companies (Kwon & Son, 2021).

It was surveyed that there was no research conducted in connection with the library ESG management. However, as an example of the library’s efforts to practice ESG management, there is a small library in Namsan Library. Lotte Home Shopping signed a business agreement with Namsan Library as part of its resource circulation and ESG management practice, and uses bookshelves and desks, furniture made from upcycling materials such as waste banners, waste vinyl, and waste clothing, to create an eco friendly library, which is a small library. This is a public facility creation using waste resources and an example of establishing an ESG eco friendly environment model in collaboration with public and private institutions (https://blog.naver.com/tdp0806/222744234548). Furthermore, there are Shinhan Card’s ‘Areumin Library’ and Hanwha Geolsol’s ‘Forena Library Creation Project’, which are the results of ESG management activities. It has also been claimed that the Neutinamu Library has been carrying out ESG management since its inception. The Neutinamu Library has an impact on the local community (S), maintains transparency of operation and validity of decision-making (G), and this library is environmentally friendly while carrying out various activities (E) in terms of this campaign, recycling, climate action meeting, etc., as it is claimed to be a library that practices the ESG management (https://blog.naver.com/slowpeaceful/222664254913).

Building upon the insights gleaned from the analysis of prior studies, it becomes evident that there is a substantial gap in the application and understanding of ESG management within the library sector. Therefore, future research should concentrate on creating and refining a comprehensive ESG management model tailored specifically for libraries. This model should not only incorporate the positive impacts of ESG management highlighted in previous research but also address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by libraries in implementing ESG principles. By doing so, this research could significantly contribute to the sustainable development of libraries, ensuring they remain resilient and relevant in addressing the social, environmental, and governance challenges of our time.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1 Research contents and research procedures

As the interest in changes in the climate environment has increased due to the natural disasters caused by climate changes or the expansion of sudden viruses such as COVID-19, and now, even in evaluating companies, they do not simply determine the performance of the financial part, but also include non-financial parts. Based on which, the corporate value and sustainability are also included for the corporate value evaluation. In the future, it would be impossible to discuss corporate management without the environment, and corporate social responsibility and transparent governance have become the standard for correctly determining companies, and ESG management is at the foundation (Choi, 2021). Libraries, as a tremendous infrastructure organization in this society, are also in a situation where they have no choice but to introduce the ESG management.

Accordingly, in this study, 1) research and analysis of the previous ESG related studies, 2) derivation of library ESG preliminary evaluation indicators based on previous studies, 3) collection of expert FGI opinions on preliminary evaluation indicators, 4) development of the 1st library ESG evaluation indicators based on the expert FGI opinion collection, and 5) through the process of surveying the fitness of the primary library ESG evaluation indicators, the final library ESG evaluation indicators was finalized. Based on which, the extent of ESG management of the actual library was evaluated, and the research procedures are as follows.

The processes from steps 1 to 5 in the above table <Table 1> were conducted in the previous study (Noh, 2023), while steps 6 and 7 were carried out in this study. Therefore, <Table 2> represents the final outcomes of the previous study, upon which the actual evaluation of libraries was conducted in this study.

Table 1.

Research contents and research procedures

Table 2.

FGI-based primary library ESG management evaluation index (126 Question)

4. Results of the Library ESG Management Evaluation

4.1 Demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the respondents who responded to the survey in this study consisted of questions necessary to understand the library ESG management evaluation results. In particular, the question to identify whether there is a difference in the ESG management depending on the size of the library is important, yet the number of respondents for each size is not large enough to cross-analyze, and so cross-analysis is meaningless, and only the descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

First, as a result of analyzing the characteristics of the respondents who participated in the survey, in terms of gender, 18.75% were male and 81.25% were female, and in terms of age, 75% were in their 30s. 96.88% of the respondents were working-level workers and 3.13% were middle managers, and for the library size, 250,000 books or more were 31.25%, 50,000 books or more to less than 100,000 books were 28.13%, and 100,000 or more to 150,000 were 18.75% in their respective order.

Table 3.

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

4.2 Environmental (E) field

The environmental field is largely classified into 1) environmental management plan, 2) environmental management execution, and 3) environmental performance management and reporting, and consists of a total of 25 questions. Examining the average for each area, it turned out that the environmental management execution area was 2.97, the environmental management plan area was 2.81, and the environmental performance management and reporting area was 2.43. It turned out that the total average of the environmental field was 2.74, which was the lowest compared to the social and governance fields.

Table 4.

Average for each area of environmental field

4.2.1 Environmental management plan

As a result of analyzing the library’s environmental management plan area, it turned out that ‘library is built with energy efficiency in mind’ was the highest at 3.16, and along with which, ‘library is planning environmental strategies and policies, such as management strategies and policies and whether to integrate them’ at 2.97, ‘library provides educational programs to raise employees’ perception of environmental management’ and ‘library establishes an environmental protection plan and invests money to implement it’ at 2.78 in their respective order.

Table 5.

Results of the ‘Environmental Management Plan’ evaluation

The average score is 2.81, which may be said that the level of environmental management plan is below average, which is very low. Based on which, it may be seen that the security library is considering energy efficiency, and also planning environmental strategies and policies, such as management strategies and policies and whether to integrate them.

4.2.2 Implementation of environmental management

As a result of evaluating the library’s environmental management practice area, it turned out that ‘library is making efforts to reduce air pollutants generated when providing services’ was the highest at 3.28, and along with which, ‘library is making efforts to reduce air pollutants generated when providing services’ was 3.22, ‘library is building an environment friendly supply chain management system and purchasing environment friendly products’ at 3.19 in their respective order.

Based on which, library is making efforts to implement environmental management through air pollution, efforts to improve user perception, and purchase of eco friendly products, yet it may be seen that the effort is not being attempted in more than 60% of libraries. It seems that it is realistically difficult for libraries to build a climate change management system.

Table 6.

Results of the ‘Environmental Management Implementation’ evaluation

4.2.3 Environmental performance management and reporting

As a result of evaluating the library’s environmental performance management and reporting areas, all questions demonstrated an average of less than 2.6, and the overall average was the lowest at 2.43 among all 15 areas, demonstrating that the current library has a part on environmental performance management and reporting, which is inadequate.

Examining each question, it turned out that ‘libraries have established an appropriate environmental audit system and are regularly implementing it’ was 2.66, ‘libraries disclose major matters and questions related to environmental management activities’ at 2.59, and ‘environmental protection related library management activities are reviewed by the board of directors’ at 2.56 in their respective order.

Table 7.

Evaluation results of the ‘Environmental Performance Management and Reporting’

4.3 Social (S) field

The social area may be largely classified into 1) social contribution and local community, 2) stakeholders (cooperating organizations or competing organizations), 3) equal employment/workers, 4) user rights protection, 5) industrial safety, and 6) accessibility, for a total of 56 questions. Examining the average for each area, it turned out that the overall average was 3.70, followed by industrial safety for 3.98, user rights protection 3.93, and social contribution and local community for 3.72 in their respective order.

Table 8.

Average of each area for social field

4.3.1 Social contribution and local community

As a result of evaluating the library’s social contribution and community areas, it turned out that ‘library strives for the development of local culture and art’ was the highest with 4.22, along with ‘library as a member of the community develops society and supports the underprivileged’ at 4.19, and ‘libraries have had the effect of improving the quality of life of local residents and beneficiaries’ at 4.13 in their respective order.

Table 9.

Results of the ‘social contribution and local community’ evaluation

4.3.2 Stakeholders (cooperating organizations or competing organizations)

As a result of evaluating the stakeholder area of the library, it turned out that ‘library conducts ethics education to prevent corruption’ was the highest at 4.03, and along with which, ‘library faithfully complies with laws and regulations in transactions with cooperating organization companies’ at 4.00, ‘library strives to fulfill its social responsibilities in all areas of supply’ at 3.84, and ‘library strives for win-win cooperation, such as supporting the growth of relatively small subcontractors’ at 3.81 in their respective order.

Table 10.

Evaluation results of ‘stakeholders (cooperating organizations or competing organizations)’

4.3.3 Equal employment/workers

As a result of the evaluation of the library’s employment equality/worker area, it turned out that ‘library establishes a safety and health policy for workers’ was the highest at 3.75, and ‘library guarantees basic rights in the workplace (prohibition of forced labor, prohibition of child labor, etc.)’ at 3.72, ‘library strives to ensure the health and safety of its workers’ at 3.69, and ‘various members of the library organization have equal rights without discrimination according to job and employment type’ at 3.66 in their respective order.

Table 11.

Evaluation results of ‘employment equality/worker’

4.3.4 Protection of user rights

As a result of the evaluation of the library’s user rights protection area, it turned out that ‘library establishes a user personal information management policy’ was the highest at 4.16, ‘library establishes a policy to enhance user satisfaction’ at 4.13, ‘library regularly evaluates and manages user complaints/complaints’ at 4.06, and ‘library conducts evaluation and certification for user safety’ at 3.94 in their respective order.

Table 12.

Results of the ‘User Rights Protection’ Evaluation

4.3.5 Accessibility

As a result of evaluating the library’s accessibility area, it turned out that ‘library is providing facilities and equipment so that everyone, including the disabled and the elderly, can easily use it without restrictions’ was the highest at 4.03, ‘Outreach services are being implemented for the socially underprivileged, those who are excluded from information, and special users who have difficulty coming to the library’ at 4.00, and ‘libraries are fully equipped with available facilities and have excellent physical accessibility’ at 3.91 in their respective order.

Table 13.

‘Accessibility’ evaluation results

4.3.6 Industrial safety

As a result of the evaluation of the occupational safety area of the library, it turned out that ‘library continuously manages factors that threaten the safety and health of members of the organization and strives to reduce the accident rate’ was 3.63, and ‘library is establishing a safety and health promotion system such as reducing safety risks and promoting health and welfare in order to prevent economic losses and social costs such as loss of industrial manpower and demoralization of members’ at 3.44 in their respective order.

Table 14.

‘Industrial safety’ evaluation results

4.4 Governance (G) area

The governance area may be largely classified into 1) fairness of library, 2) library’s cooperation, 3) library’s transparency, 4) library fidelity, 5) director of library and board of directors, and 6) sustainable management infrastructure, for a total of 32 questions. Examining the average for each area, it turned out that the overall average was 3.70, and in detail, library’s transparency was 4.04, fairness of library was 3.92, and library fidelity was 3.69 in their respective order.

Table 15.

Average for each area of governance field

4.4.1 Fairness of library

As a result of the evaluation of the library’s fairness area, it turned out that ‘library does not engage in unfair trade practices’ and ‘library does not engage in unfair subcontracting practices’ was 4.19 each, and ‘library conducts business management fairly and ethically in accordance with government policies and laws’ and ‘library makes decisions through discussions between the parties based on the management guidelines for partner institutions’ was 4.06 each, and ‘library is making efforts not to violate the rights of various stakeholders’ at 4.00 in their respective order.

Table 16.

Results of the ‘fairness of library’ evaluation

4.4.2 Library’s cooperation

As a result of the evaluation of the cooperation area of the library, it turned out that ‘library is cooperating with business stakeholders such as local organizations and local residents’ was 3.84, ‘library is sufficiently engaged in staff participation and value empathy’ at 3.53, and ‘libraries have channels and systems that can facilitate communication for cooperation’ at 3.47 in their respective order.

Table 17.

Evaluation results of ‘cooperation of library’

4.4.3 Library’s transparency

As a result of evaluating the library’s transparency area, it turned out that ‘library executes the budget fairly and transparently’ was the highest with 4.25, and ‘library does not violate accounting standards or undermine the independence of accounting audits’ and ‘library’s business process and performance are shared through appropriate procedures’ was 4.03 each, in their respective order.

In particular, the transparency area demonstrated the highest average score of 4.04 among all 15 areas, indicating that the library currently has fairness and transparency in information disclosure, budget execution, and performance sharing, etc.

Table 18.

Evaluation results of ‘transparency of library’

4.4.4 Fidelity of library

As a result of the evaluation of the faithfulness area of the library, it turned out that ‘library derives performance that meets the established business plan’ was 3.84, and ‘library has a dedicated organization for business promotion’ was 3.53 in their respective order.

Table 19.

Evaluation results of ‘fidelity of library’

4.4.5 Director of library and the board of directors

As a result of evaluating the areas of the director of library and board of directors, it turned out that ‘protect the director of library’s rights from being violated’ was the highest at 3.88, and ‘director of library actively exercises voting rights for library development’ was 3.69, ‘director appointment method and director candidate selection process are transparent and objective’ was 3.36, and ‘library’s outside directors are selected as the persons who have no significant interest in the library’ was 3.59 in their respective order.

Table 20.

Evaluation results of ‘director of library’

4.4.6 Sustainability management infrastructure

As a result of evaluating the library’s sustainability management infrastructure area, it turned out that ‘Library is establishing company-wide ethical standards and programs to prevent ethical problems’ was the highest at 3.41, and ‘library is transparent in its obligation to disclose sustainability management’ was 3.38, and ‘library is building an organization for the practice of sustainable management’ was 3.34 in their respective order.

Table 21.

Results of the‘Sustainable Management Infrastructure’ evaluation

5. Discussion and Proposal of the Modification of Evaluation Indicators

5.1 Discussion

In this study, a fact-finding survey was conducted with 239 libraries based on the ESG evaluation indicators, and based on the results, it is intended to discuss the four perspectives.

First, as for which field of ESG evaluation indicators the library will demonstrate the highest, as demonstrated in the table below, the social area and governance area are demonstrating high indicators. The social area has a high score of 3.70 because the protection of users’ rights, occupational safety, and contribution to society and the local community are very closely related to the original role of the library. Furthermore, it seems that the governance structure is closely related to the library philosophy that the library ought to be operated transparently and fairly. In the case of the environmental field, the score is very low at 2.74 because the library has not yet established a system for establishing an environmental management plan, and while executing it based on which, and reporting on regular environmental performance management, yet this must be achieved through systemic changes and education towards improvement.

Table 22.

Average for each area of environmental field

Second, when the evaluation indicators was developed, it turned out that the adequacy of the index for the governance structure was the lowest. However, will this phenomenon appear similar in the actual evaluation? As demonstrated in the table below, the averages are the same, yet there are differences between the questions. In the case of library’s cooperation, it was 3.94 in the necessity evaluation of the evaluation indicators, but it was lowered to 3.61 in the actual library situation evaluation. Meanwhile, in connection with the activities of the director of library and the board of directors, it may be seen that the index evaluation increased from 3.32 to 3.58 for the actual evaluation.

Table 23.

Analytical results for differences between indicator evaluation and actual evaluation

Third, on the contrary, the value of the adequacy of the evaluation indicators in the social area was the highest, and this phenomenon will appear similarly in the actual evaluation. As a result, the importance and adequacy of the evaluation indicators appeared high at 3.88, but in the actual evaluation, it may be seen that it is lowered to 3.70. In particular, the question with the most difference is accessibility, and for the index evaluation, the accessibility was very high at 4.19, but in the actual evaluation, it may be seen that it is considerably low at 3.54. This seems to be due to the fact that libraries are often located on the outskirts of the city rather than downtown or in areas with good traffic. Furthermore, for employment equality, the index evaluation of 3.97 is lowering to 3.47 in the actual evaluation. Since the maintenance of equal rights in employment and the maintenance of the appropriateness of the employment conditions of workers are very important parts, it is considered to be a part that must be improved moving forward.

Table 24.

Analytical results for differences between indicator evaluation and actual evaluation

Fourth, in the case of the environmental area, the difference between the evaluation of the index and the actual evaluation was compared and analyzed to see if there would be a difference between the adequacy evaluation of the evaluation indicators and the actual evaluation result. As a result, for the index evaluation, it turned out that the average index evaluation value was 3.44, which was in the middle, but in the actual evaluation, it is very low at 2.74. It is recognized that it is very important to establish an environmental protection plan for ESG management, establish a strategy to implement it, and implement it based on specific goals and evaluate its performance. However, in the field, this part is very inadequate as demonstrated. Perhaps, the library ESG management evaluation indicators developed in this study may serve as a guideline which the libraries ought to pursue it in the future.

Table 25.

Analytical results for differences between indicator evaluation and actual evaluation

Based on the results above, it may be said that the librarians revealed through the survey that the proposed library ESG management evaluation indicators is highly recommended, but there is a significant difference from the actual field. This study proposes the development of the library ESG management evaluation indicators for the first time at home and abroad, and it is necessary to improve through continuous discussions in the future.

5.2 Proposal for the revision of evaluation indicators

Based on the results of this study, as demonstrated in <Table 26>, the areas to be considered in the future were proposed based on the evaluation results of the indicator contents and indicator adequacy, and the actual library ESG management evaluation results. If at least one of the adequacy of the indicator and evaluation result exceeds 4.0, the adoption indicator must be selected (◎). It is proposed that if at least one of the adequacy of the indicator and evaluation result is 3.5 or more and less than 4.0, the adoption indicator (○), at least one of the adequacy of the indicator and evaluation result must be 2.5, and if it is less than 3.0, it is proposed as an indicator that needs to be re-verified based on expert opinion (△), and if both are less than 2.5, it is proposed as an indicator that ought to be abolished (X).

Table 26.

Modification of the library ESG management evaluation index based on FGI/indicator adequacy evaluation/actual evaluation

From the results of this study, three implications can be derived:

Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of ESG management for non-profit institutions. This study underscores the necessity of ESG management for non-profit institutions such as libraries. It suggests that public cultural and artistic institutions should also adopt ESG management strategies to establish sustainable management models.

Secondly, it highlights the social role of libraries. The findings demonstrate the significant role that libraries play in contributing to social values and local communities. Particularly, the high scores in social ESG evaluation indicators, such as user rights protection and societal contribution, underscore the close alignment of libraries with their original missions.

Thirdly, it emphasizes the importance of environmental protection. The study reveals a lack of environmental ESG management in the evaluated libraries. It emphasizes the necessity of establishing and implementing environmental protection plans with specific goals and evaluating their performance.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Since ESG management has been presented as a survival strategy for the sustainable growth of companies amidst various crises of social change, it has been mainly applied for the institutions that generate profits. However, Chang (2022) claimed for the need to introduce the ESG management strategies for public cultural and artistic institutions, and if public cultural and arts institutions introduce ESG management and operate smoothly, it can serve as a model for sustainable management for private arts organizations and institutions. Furthermore, he claimed that the art management model that incorporates management strategy will provide a positive impact on the future development of the management field. Libraries are non-profit institutions such as public cultural and artistic institutions, and are mainly evaluated based on the social or educational values rather than economic output, and the ESG management strategies and evaluation indicators of such institutions are likely to be different. The attempts to introduce the ESG management for the libraries have been found across many places.

Hence, in this study, the library ESG evaluation indicators specialized for libraries were developed, and based on which, a survey was conducted targeting the actual libraries to evaluate the ESG level of libraries.

Towards this end, in this study, 1) research and analysis of the previous ESG related studies, 2) derivation of library ESG preliminary evaluation indicators based on previous studies, 3) collection of expert FGI opinions on preliminary evaluation indicators, and 4) development of the 1st library ESG based on expert FGI opinion collection, and 5) through the process of fitness survey of the primary library ESG evaluation indicators, the library ESG evaluation indicators were finally confirmed. Based on which, the extent of ESG management of the actual library was evaluated.

As a result of the study, first, among the ESG evaluation indicators, the indicators of the social field and the governance field are demonstrating high in which field of the library’s ESG evaluation indicators will appear the highest. The social area’s high score of 3.70 seems to be because the protection of users’ rights, occupational safety, and contribution to society and the local community are very closely related to the original role of the library.

Second, it may be seen that there is a difference between the questions in the corporate governance part, while the averages are the same. In the case of library’s cooperation, it turned out that it was 3.94 in the necessity evaluation of the evaluation indicators, but it was lowered to 3.61 in the actual library situation evaluation. Meanwhile, in connection with the activities of the director of library and the board of directors, it may be seen that the index evaluation increased from 3.32 to 3.58 in the actual evaluation.

Third, in the case of the social area, it turned out that the importance and adequacy of the evaluation indicators was high at 3.88, but in the actual evaluation, it may be seen that it is lowered to 3.70. In particular, the question with the most difference is accessibility. In the index evaluation, the accessibility turned out to be very high at 4.19, but in the actual evaluation, it may be seen that it is considerably lowered to 3.54.

Fourth, in the evaluation of the indicators in the environmental area, the average of the index evaluation values turned out to be 3.44, which was in the middle, yet in the actual evaluation, it is very low at 2.74. It is recognized that it is very important to establish an environmental protection plan for the ESG management, establish a strategy to implement it, and implement it based on specific goals and evaluate its performance, yet in the field, such part is very inadequate.

In this study, the library ESG management evaluation indicators were developed across five stages, and based on which, the extent of ESG management in actual library sites was evaluated. However, as may be seen in other fields, it is very difficult to evaluate the extent of ESG management evaluation of any institution, and since the indicator itself is very important, it may be seen that caution is exercised. Hence, it is absolutely necessary for the various researchers or research institutes to reach an agreement with all stakeholders on indicators over many years of experimental research and discussions from various angles. This study would provide the first domestic and overseas library ESG management evaluation indicators, and it is necessary to develop the library ESG management evaluation indicators by approaching them from various angles by many research institutes and researchers moving forward. In particular, since the libraries around the world have different societies, countries, and economic systems, it would be necessary to apply and utilize the results of this study for the libraries operating in each country.

References

• Byun, Youngjo, & Woo, Seung Han (2022). Research Trend on ESG Management of Corporation. Clean Technology, 28(2), 193~20.
• Hwang, Su Deok, Kim, Hee Beom, & Lee, Young Jae (2022). A Study on the Improvement of Evaluation System for ESG Management in Public Institutions. Journal of the Korean Society of Cadastre, 38(2), 87-105. [https://doi.org/10.22988/ksc.2022.38.2.008]
• Jeong, Kyeo Woon (2022). A Study on the Development of Consumer Based ESG Scale. Ph. D. dissertation of Department of Business Administration Graduate School of Chosun University. http://chosun.dcollection.net/public_resource/pdf/200000638437_20230109025849.pdf
• Joint Government Offices (2021). K-ESG Guidelines V1.0. Sejong: Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.
• Kang, Won, & Jung, Mookwon (2020). Effect of ESG Activities and Firm’s Financial Characteristics. Korean Journal of Final Studies, 49(5), 681-707. [https://doi.org/10.26845/KJFS.2020.10.49.5.681]
• Keller, S. (2015). Chancen und Grenzen von ESG-Rating. University of Zurich.
• Kim, Eun-Hae, & Ma, Hee-Young (2020). A Study on the Value Relevance of Corporate Sustainability Managemen. Review of Accounting and Policy Studies, 25(2), 251-277. [https://doi.org/10.21737/RAPS.2020.05.25.2.251]
• Kim, Jiyeon (2021). A Study on ESG Evaluation Indicators for Corporate-led Public Design. Master Thesis of Public Design Major The Graduate School of Industrial Arts Hongik University. https://dcoll.hongik.ac.kr/public_resource/pdf/000000027508_20230109021533.pdf
• Knecht, F., & S. Reich (2014). Wertschöpfungsketten: ESG als kritischer Erfolgsfaktor für das Management des gesamten Lebenszyklus. in CSR und Finance: Beitrag und
• Korea Economic Daily (2021). ESG Concept to Practice: K Corporate Survival Plan, Seoul: Korea Economic Daily.
• KOTRA (2021). 2021 Global Market Report 21-026: A successful case of ESG response by foreign companies.
• KPMG (2021). ESG management, corporate answers for a sustainable world and business. SAMJONG KPMG Newsletter.
• Lee, Jeongki, & Rhee, Jay Hyuk (2020). Current Status and Future Directions of Research on “Sustainable Management”: Focusing on the ESG Measurement Index. Journal of Strategic Management, 23(2), 65-92. [https://doi.org/10.17786/jsm.2020.23.2.06]
• Lee, Jihye (2022). A Study on the Necessity of Promoting ESG Management of SMEs Through Empirical Analysis of ESG Ratings. The Journal of Humanties and Social Sciences, 21, 40(3), 2787-2802. [https://doi.org/10.22143/HSS21.13.2.195]
• Lim, Hyung-Chul, & Jung, Moo-sup (2021). Strategies to Expand SMEs ESG Management through Domestic and Foreign ESG Cases. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business, 44(4), 179-192. [https://doi.org/10.32599/apjb.12.4.202112.179]
• Lim, Jong-Ok (2016). Effects of Business Value of ESG Evaluation Information and Earnings Management. Korean Business Education Review, 31(1), 111-139.
• Mayer, K. (2017), Nachhaltigkeit: 111 Fragen und Antworten: Nachschlagewerk zur Umsetzung von CSR im Unternehmen. Springer Gabler.
• Neutinamu Library ESG. https://blog.naver.com/slowpeaceful/222664254913, .
• Noh, Y. (2023). A Study on the Development of ESG Management Evaluation Index for Library. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 57(1), 309-338.
• Schaltegger, S., & J. Hörisch (2017). In Search of the Dominant Rationale in Sustainability Management: Legitimacy-or Profit-Seeking?. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 259-276.
• Sejong the Law Firm (2022). The main contents and implications of the new government’s national agenda. file:///D:/%EC%B9%B4%EC%B9%B4%EC%98%A4/%EC%83%88%20%EC%A0%95%EB%B6%80%20%EA%B5%AD%EC%A0%95%EA%B3%BC%EC%A0%9C%EC%9D%98%20%EC%A3%BC%EC%9A%94%20%EB%82%B4%EC%9A%A9%EA%B3%BC%20%EC%8B%9C%EC%82%AC%EC%A0%90.pdf
• Small Library in Namsan Library_Lotte Home Shopping signed a business agreement for resource circulation and ESG management practice. &lt;https://blog.naver.com/tdp0806/222744234548, &gt; 2022.07, 20.
• Sparkes, R., & C. J. Cowton (2004). The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment. A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 45-57.
• Stella (2022). ESG Management Company Case SK Telecom Introduction:: Meaning, necessity, etc. file:///D:/%EC%B9%B4%EC%B9%B4%EC%98%A4/%EC%83%88%20%EC%A0%95%EB%B6%80%20%EA%B5%AD%EC%A0%95%EA%B3%BC%EC%A0%9C%EC%9D%98%20%EC%A3%BC%EC%9A%94%20%EB%82%B4%EC%9A%A9%EA%B3%BC%20%EC%8B%9C%EC%82%AC%EC%A0%90.pdf
• Suh, Yonggu, & Kim, Tammy (2022). A Study on Coupang’s ESG Management: Centering on Rocket Delivery. Journal of Product Research, 40(1), 67-75. [https://doi.org/10.36345/kacst.2022.40.1.009]
• Suk, Jung Il (2021). A Study on the Influence of ESG Indicators on the Continuous Socially Responsible Investment of Financial Consumers, Ph. D. dissertation of Major of Asset Management Service Graduate School of Service Business Kyonggi University. http://dcollection.kyonggi.ac.kr/public_resource/pdf/000000056255_20230109024543.pdf
• Sustin Best (2021). Sustin Best Company ESG Analysis Report. Seoul: Sustin Best
• WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, 17(1), 1-91.
• Werner, G., & F. Romeike (2020). ESG-Risiken und ihre Quantifizierung. in Social Credit Rating: Reputation und Vertrauen Beurteilen.
• Windolph, S. E. (2013). Assessing Corporate Sustainability Through Ratings: Challenges and Their Causes. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 37-57.