Paying for Resilience: Continuity-Led ESG and the Financing Gap in an Emerging-Market FMCG Organisation

The conventional business case for environmental, social and governance (ESG) integration assumes that organisations invest because consumers, investors and markets reward them for doing so. This study examines what drives ESG investment when that market reward is absent. Drawing on twelve semi-structured interviews across executive and functional roles in a South African fast-moving consumer goods manufacturer serving low-income consumers, the findings show that ESG adoption is continuity-led rather than demand-led. Participants consistently explain environmental investment in terms of protecting organisational continuity by maintaining production during power outages, reducing exposure to climate-related disruption, and lowering operating costs in a market where price is decisive. Sustainability is therefore pursued not because the market rewards it, but because the operating environment makes its absence increasingly costly. Yet the same market cannot finance these investments. Because the organisation serves highly price-sensitive consumers through cash-and-carry channels, the additional costs cannot be recovered through higher prices. The study identifies an endorsement–funding gap in which stakeholders support responsible organisational conduct while resisting the expenditure needed to achieve it. In this case, the gap is bridged by an owner–principal with direct authority over capital in an organisation without a formal board. This study contributes a continuity-led explanation of ESG adoption in constrained emerging-market settings, identifies the endorsement–funding gap as a distinct barrier facing low-margin organisations, and suggests that ownership structure shapes ESG adoption by determining who has the authority to finance investments that markets cannot support. It further argues that where ESG depends on individual authority rather than institutionalised systems, its long-term durability remains uncertain. Beyond the case, the findings suggest that in comparable emerging-market settings the binding constraint on ESG adoption may be finance rather than motivation, so that policy instruments which close the financing gap, together with measurement and assurance systems that institutionalise commitment, may matter more for sustainable business conduct in these settings than demand-side incentives designed for affluent markets.