Assessing the Link between Corporate Sustainability Disclosure and National Health Security Core Capacities in South Africa

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Highlights a gap in corporate disclosure literature regarding health security, offering a framework to extend ESG to global health topics.

🏢実務担当者:Suggests that animal protein firms should integrate health security metrics (e.g., AMR surveillance) into their sustainability reports to meet emerging investor expectations.

🏛政策担当者:Provides evidence for regulators to consider mandating health-security-related disclosures alongside climate and environmental ones.

Abstract Global Health Security (GHS) has become a strategic priority in an interconnected world where supply-chain vulnerabilities can rapidly escalate into cross-border crises affecting public health, economies, and food systems. Despite the central role of private-sector actors in high-risk animal protein value chains in strengthening biosecurity, surveillance, and resilience, the conceptualization and empirical measurement of their contributions to GHS remain limited. This study examines how firms listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange within South Africa’s animal protein sector address GHS core capacities in their corporate disclosures. Using systematic content analysis of integrated reports, sustainability disclosures, and annual filings published between 2018 and 2024, we evaluate references to domains aligned with the International Health Regulations. Findings reveal a stark contrast in reporting patterns. Environmental metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions, water stewardship, and waste management are routinely quantified and benchmarked, while animal welfare gains increasing visibility amid consumer and investor pressure. In contrast, explicit engagement with GHS issues is sparse, fragmented, and predominantly narrative. Food safety and basic animal health dominate mentions, but these are typically framed narrowly as regulatory compliance or reputational safeguards rather than strategic contributions to national and global preparedness. Notably absent are standardized indicators, linkages to public-health surveillance data, or commitments to cross-sectoral One Health collaboration. AMR initiatives and proactive epidemiological monitoring appear infrequently and lack depth. This “GHS reporting gap” signals a misalignment between corporate ESG priorities and the imperatives of international health security. Enhanced disclosure frameworks, tailored health-security ESG metrics, and incentives for public-private alignment could empower investors to better assess bio-risk exposure, strengthen corporate accountability, and foster more resilient food systems in an era of emerging pandemics.

• openaire https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8944048/v1first seen 2026-05-14 22:33:40