This chapter focusses on environmental sustainability and provides a better understanding of the corporate governance levers that can direct behaviours towards environmental goals. We explore the relationship between risk culture and board members’ intention to adopt pro-environment strategies (PES) through individual beliefs. These factors, according to Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour (ATPB), refer to what is convenient to do to achieve expected findings (behavioural beliefs), what should be done as required by regulators and induced by stakeholders’ pressure (normative beliefs) and the conviction of possessing skills, resources and opportunities to perform a specific behaviour (control beliefs). According to ATPB, behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs represent, in turn, predictors of an individual’s attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control beliefs. All these variables affect the intention to perform a behaviour and, in this case, to adopt pro-environmental strategies. The research analyses data obtained from a survey of 120 Italian board members, using a partial least square methodology to test the relationship between individual risk culture and beliefs, attitudes and norms and, finally, intention to adopt PES. Our findings add to previous work on the role of risk culture and provide a new theoretical perspective to guide green policy and changes aimed at increasing environmental sustainability.

The chapter analyses disclosure obligations of environmental and social sustainability risks that apply to companies in light of the growing importance to disclose sustainability risks. In doing so, it discusses the potential cross-border strategies for countries to develop international standards to support global convergence. It considers the international developments justifying the rationale for sustainability-related disclosures along with a discussion of the three models of cross-border disclosure regulation: (i) the home state approach, (ii) the host state approach and (iii) the equivalence approach. The chapter argues that the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (2022) has adopted a mix-and-match model between the host state approach and the equivalence approach. Our analysis emphasises the extraterritoriality of EU sustainability disclosure regulation and compares it with the models followed by the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. The different sustainability disclosure requirements between EU countries and non-EU countries suggests, therefore, that cross-border regulatory coordination is important. The paper recommends a model of ESG disclosure for capital markets that is based on the EU policy of equivalence modified by a recognition of the compliance approaches of certain foreign jurisdictions.

Frame Semantics is foundational to Construction Grammar in both chronological and conceptual terms. Originally developed by Charles J. Fillmore in the late 1970s to 1980s as a theory of semantics that prioritizes language users’ human experience, it views the meaning of linguistic elements in terms of a network of empirical information, which, in turn, motivates the concept represented by the linguistic elements. The theory laid a rich foundation for a variety of approaches associated with Construction Grammar and remains an intellectual resource for further research developments. This chapter focuses on the seminal ideas of Frame Semantics, further advanced in relation to Construction Grammar and the FrameNet project. After an overview of the theory, a variety of frame concepts (e.g., cognitive frame, interactional frame, and linguistic frame) are discussed. We then turn to how frames can effectively explain grammatical ‘well-formedness’ as illustrated by two case studies that were conducted on the path from Frame Semantics to the establishment of Construction Grammar. The last section discusses implications and prospects for the theory of Frame Semantics.

This chapter provides an overview of empirical support for Construction Grammar in the form of behavioral evidence, that is, information derived from the behavior of language users on certain tasks, typically through controlled experiments. Three types of evidence are discussed in particular: (i) evidence from language comprehension tasks that syntactic patternsconvey meaning independently of individual lexical items, (ii) evidence that constructions prime each other both in form and in meaning, and (iii) evidence that grammar consists of a network of related constructions of varying degrees of generality. Many of the cited studies come from the psycholinguistic literature, and even though they were originally not necessarily framed in terms of constructions, their findings are largely in line with the constructional approach. Throughout the discussion, it will be shown how these findings provide evidence for some of the core tenets of Construction Grammar.

This chapter documents the parallel paths the US, UK, and EU have taken in transmuting voluntary corporate ESG commitments into hard law – statute, regulation, and judicial precedent.Whereas stakeholder capitalism was originally the province (mainly) of academics, international organizations, and special interest groups, in the years immediately preceding the 2020 pandemic, major businesses worldwide publicly declared their commitment to the so-called stakeholder model in the US, UK, and in continental Europe. These corporate behaviours were encouraged by proxy advisors andinstitutional investors.The chapter questions the extent to which the current generation of ESG-stakeholderism is in fact a sustainable business practice, capable of maintaining its current pace over a longer-term horizon. We also discuss how voluntary corporate ESG commitments have, over a short period of time, hardened into more formal sources of law and regulation, with examples from the US, EU, and UK. In conclusion, we identify some adverse consequences to this trend.

The framework of Construction Grammar extends naturally to morphology. Constructions in a lexicon–grammar continuum elegantly capture the regularities and idiosyncrasies that typically co-occur in complex words. Yet, Construction Morphology is not just Construction Grammar applied to morphology. Morphological phenomena come with their own challenges and place specific demands on the theory. This chapter outlines the contributions that a constructionist approach to morphology makes to constructionist thinking more broadly. The focus is on two construction-based approaches: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Three topics are highlighted especially. First, idiomaticity and other types of non-compositionality are discussed in the context of the relations within and across morphological constructions. Second, the chapter addresses productivity, specifically limited productivity as is often seen in word-formation. The third topic is paradigmaticity and the role of ‘horizontal’ connections between complex words and between morphological schemas. The chapter aims to show that morphology, the grammar of words, is instructive for the larger theoretical framework.

Construction Grammar offers several assets that foster the learning and teaching of foreign languages. The constructionist approach focuses on well-entrenched form–meaning mappings of different degrees of complexity and abstraction. Thus, if learners have acquired the syntax and semantics of specific foreign constructions, they should be able to understand the semantic motivation behind the syntactic forms and infer the meaning of new instantiations. Moreover – an economical principle in the learning process – these units can be learned as part of a network of semantically related constructions. In learning L2-constructions, construction-based teaching strategies can be implemented, that is, the scaffolding strategy, structural priming and embodied construction practice. The scaffolding strategy elaborates on the semantic link between constructions of different degrees of syntactic complexity and on the family resemblance concept. Structural priming focuses on the creative repetition of similar structures with different slot-fillers. Finally, embodied practice applies to constructions referring to concrete events which can be represented with pictures or objects or can be enacted.

We introduce a novel sustainable capital instrument: the skin-in-the-game bond. With features inspired by contingent convertibles (CoCos), this bond is an alternative for the green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds available on the market. A skin-in-the-game bond is linked to the performance of a benchmark that relates to the broad concept of sustainability in at least one of its pillars, being the environment (E), society (S) or corporate governance (G). When the benchmark hits a preset trigger level, (part of) the bond’s face value is withheld and directed into a government-controlled fund by the issuer. The skin-in-the-game bond offers a higher yield to investors than a standard corporate bond, in order to compensate for the risk of losing out on (part of) the investment. Both issuer and investor have skin-in-the-game; the embedded financial penalty incentivizes the preservation of a favourable benchmark value. In this work, we elaborate on the general concept of a skin-in-the-game bond, as well as on a tailored valuation model, illustrated by two examples: the ESG and nuclear skin-in-the-game bonds.

The chapter assesses the extent of integration of sustainable finance into the MiFID II and the IDD investor protection frameworks. The chapter explains why retail investors do not always act upon their investment preferences and the role of the investment product distributor in remedying investors’ value-action gap. The chapter discusses the main changes to the MiFID II and IDD frameworks by analysing the new sustainability-related definitions, the amended product suitability assessment, the amended product governance process, and the amended conflicts of interest procedure. The analysis argues that full cross-sectional consistency will not be achieved in the EU investor protection framework as only the MiFID II and IDD frameworks have been amended while rules covering other product distributors remain the same. It also highlights the problems of inconsistency caused by sustainable finance amendments to existing legislation, including when it comes to applying the definition of sustainability preferences, which refer to concepts of the Taxonomy Regulation and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, and the lack of a complete Taxonomy covering social and governance perspectives in the amended MiFID II and IDD obligations.

The chapter explains the importance of stakeholder relations in supporting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, focussing on the essence of stakeholder engagement management in financial firms, for in their case, relational capital is of particular importance, given the importance of mutual trust between an entity and its stakeholders. We begin by explaining the concept of interest groups, linked to contract theory and corporate social responsibility. Both the micro context (corporate stakeholder theory) and the macro context (the concept of stakeholder capitalism) are pointed out. Contemporary corporate governance codes emphasise a company’s accountability to a wide range of its stakeholders, which is especially important in the case of financial firms – due to the specific nature of their activities. Therefore, different dimensions of financial institutions’ responsibilities are discussed, stressing those aspects that justify strengthening stakeholder relationship management in those firms. The chapter emphasises the process of managing relationships with stakeholders. The core part is a discussion of the key stages of stakeholder engagement management: from the identification of main interest groups, their analysis and segmentation, prioritisation of stakeholders, and selection of an engagement strategy, to monitoring and evaluation of engagement.

The question of whether ‘specialist’ securities such as use-of-proceeds green bonds should be subject to a greater level of regulation has attracted considerable attention among policymakers and market actors. Much is at stake, especially because the green bond market has seen significant growth over the years. In this chapter we consider the role that EU prospectus disclosure regulation should play in relation to instruments such as green bonds. We examine the rationale for mandatory prospectus regulation and consider the role played by different market initiatives that have hitherto filled the regulatory gap. We are critical of current practices and argue in favour of mandatory ‘green bond’ prospectus requirements.

This chapter analyses the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) by proposing that we should think about the SFDR as a layered system of sustainability-related disclosures, which combine the concepts of “single materiality” and “double materiality”. The authors offer a new perspective on popular proposals to turn the SFDR into a labelling scheme but argue that supervisors should avoid such avenues. The chapter emphasises that it is not the definition of “sustainable investment” which is relevant, but the additional disclosure requirements that apply as soon as a financial market participant deems its financial product to be in line with the definition. The SFDR encourages robust internal assessments over blind reliance on opaque ESG rating agencies and provides financial market participants with the freedom to justify what a contribution to an environmental or social objective means. This freedom sets it apart from a labeling mechanism with a clearly defined threshold of what a contribution should entail. The chapter also analyzes proposed guidelines by ESMA for regulating the names of investment funds that involve sustainable investment, and concludes that those guidelines do not create a clear labelling regime.

Chapter 22 analyzes whether and to what extent sustainability can be integrated into EU fit and proper testing for members of the management body of banks, insurers and investment companies. It concludes that (prospective) members should indeed have sufficient knowledge, skills and expertise in sustainability, both as a collective and individually. The extent to which this knowledge is required depends on the institution and the specific role and responsibilities of the director. However, every director must have basic sustainability knowledge and expertise to adequately perform his or her role. It is argued that EU supervisors, including the ECB, should use the fit and proper test, or at least engage in serious dialogue with financial institutions, to ensure that there is sufficient ESG expertise in the management body. This is well within their mandate since core prudential values such as the solidity of the institution and stability of the financial sector may be at stake. To ensure a level playing field within the EU, it is recommended that EU regulators set out more specific requirements regarding ESG expertise in Level 1 or 2 legislation. This would also provide greater legal certainty for financial institutions and (proposed) members of the management body.