Submitted:
15 July 2024
Posted:
16 July 2024
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses
2.1. Impact on Operational Performance Using the Return on Assets (ROA)
2.2. Impact on Financial Performance using the return on equity (ROE)
2.3. Impact on Market Performance using Tobin’s Q
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sample
3.2. Data Description
3.3. The Model and Estimation Technique
3.4. Estimation Technique
3.5. ESG Index Construction
4. Results and Discussion
- Talent attraction and retention: Ethical practices and sustainability initiatives can create a positive work environment, attracting and retaining skilled employees who, in turn, can increase productivity [38].
- Risk mitigation: Robust ESG practices can help companies better manage operational risks associated with environmental and social issues [60].
- Enhanced brand reputation: Better ESG practices can improve a company’s image, potentially leading to increased customer loyalty and sales [39].
- Improved access to capital: Companies with strong ESG performance may attract socially responsible investors, potentially lowering their cost of capital [5].
- Risk management: ESG practices can help mitigate various risks, potentially leading to more stable financial performance over time [60].
- Investor perception: Companies with strong ESG practices are viewed as having better long-term prospects, leading to higher market valuations [37].
- Risk premium: ESG-focused companies are perceived as less risky, potentially commanding a higher market valuation [21].
- Future growth potential: Strong ESG practices will signal better management quality and potential for future growth, reflected in higher market valuations [31].
Comparative Analysis of the ESG Disclosure
- Tarmuji, Maelah, and Tarmuji [17] found positive relationships between ESG scores and financial performance in emerging markets.
- Alareeni and Hamdan [8] reported positive associations between ESG practices and firm performance among S&P 500 companies.
- Zhou, Liu, and Luo [30] demonstrated that ESG performance positively impacts financial performance and market value in the Chinese context.
- In the manufacturing sector, ESG disclosure shows a negative relationship with the ROA and ROE, which is contrary to our hypotheses. This could be due to the high initial costs of implementing ESG practices in manufacturing industries, which may negatively impact their short-term profitability [17,25].
- For Tobin’s Q, ESG disclosure shows a negative relationship in the manufacturing sector but a positive one in the non-manufacturing sector. This indicates that market perceptions of ESG practices may differ across sectors, which is possibly due to varying investor expectations or industry-specific challenges [13].
- Firm Age: This is generally positive but with varying significance levels across models. This suggests that older firms may benefit from accumulated experience and established market positions [38].
- Financial Leverage: This had mostly negative relationships with the performance measures, indicating that higher debt levels may constrain financial flexibility and performance [54].
5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
- The sample should be expanded to include a broader range of companies, including non-listed firms.
- Longitudinal studies should be conducted to examine the long-term impacts of ESG practices on firm performance.
- The specific ESG factors that drive performance differences across industries should be investigated.
- The impacts of ESG practices on non-financial performance measures, such as employee satisfaction and customer loyalty, should be explored.
- ESG disclosure is positively associated with operational performance via the ROA, financial performance via the ROE, and market performance via the Tobin’s Q.
- The relationships between ESG disclosure and firm performance vary between the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, highlighting the importance of the industrial context.
- The impact of ESG disclosure on firm performance remains significant even after controlling for various firm characteristics.
- Encouraging ESG disclosure: Regulators should continue to promote and potentially mandate comprehensive ESG disclosure practices among listed companies.
- Sector-specific guidance: Industry-specific ESG disclosure guidelines that account for sector-specific challenges and opportunities should be developed.
- Investor education: Programs should be implemented to educate investors about the importance and interpretation of ESG information in investment decision making.
- Incentive structures: The creation of incentives for companies that demonstrate strong ESG performance and disclosure practices should be considered.
- Long-term perspective: A shift towards long-term thinking in corporate governance and investment practices in alignment with the typically longer-term nature of ESG benefits should be encouraged.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kirkby, J., P. O’Keefe, and L. Timberlake, ■ Sustainable Development: An Introduction, in The Earthscan reader in sustainable development. 2023, Routledge. p. 1-14.
- Meng, T. , et al., ESG performance, investor attention, and company reputation: Threshold model analysis based on panel data from listed companies in China. Heliyon, 2023.
- Ren, X., G. Zeng, and Y. Zhao, Digital finance and corporate ESG performance: Empirical evidence from listed companies in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 2023, 79, 102019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balatbat, M., R. Siew, and D. Carmichael. ESG scores and its influence on firm performance: Australian evidence. in Australian school of business school of accounting, school of accounting seminar series semester. 2012. University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia.
- Bao, X. , et al., Corporate integrity culture on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2024, 31, 1399–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfalih, A.A. , ESG disclosure practices and financial performance: a general and sector analysis of SP-500 non-financial companies and the moderating effect of economic conditions. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 2023, 13, 1506–1533. [Google Scholar]
- Buallay, A. , Sustainability reporting and firm’s performance: Comparative study between manufacturing and banking sectors. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 2020, 69, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alareeni, B.A. and A. Hamdan, ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 2020, 20, 1409–1428. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, D.T., T. G. Hoang, and H.G. Tran, Help or hurt? The impact of ESG on firm performance in S&P 500 non-financial firms. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 2022, 16, 91–102. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L. , et al., ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance 2023, 65, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bose, S. , Evolution of ESG reporting frameworks. Values at work: Sustainable investing and ESG reporting, 2020: p. 13-33.
- Gupta, A., U. Sharma, and S.K. Gupta. The role of ESG in sustainable development: An analysis through the lens of machine learning. in 2021 IEEE International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IHTC). 2021. IEEE.
- Lydenberg, S. , Ethics, politics, sustainability and the 21st century trustee, in Socially Responsible Investment in the 21st Century: Does it Make a Difference for Society? 2014, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 197-213.
- Yeoh, P. , The Sustainability of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Reporting in the US and the UK. Business Law Review, 2021. 42(6).
- Bassen, A. and A.M. Kovács, Environmental, social and governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective. 2020: Springer.
- Carnini Pulino, S. , et al., Does ESG disclosure influence firm performance? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarmuji, I., R. Maelah, and N.H. Tarmuji, The impact of environmental, social and governance practices (ESG) on economic performance: Evidence from ESG score. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 2016, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydoğmuş, M., G. Gülay, and K. Ergun, Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review 2022, 22, S119–S127. [Google Scholar]
- Lokuwaduge, C.S.D.S. and K. Heenetigala, Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment 2017, 26, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalal, K.K. and N. Thaker, ESG and corporate financial performance: A panel study of Indian companies. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance 2019, 18, 44–59. [Google Scholar]
- Koundouri, P., N. Pittis, and A. Plataniotis, The impact of ESG performance on the financial performance of European area companies: An empirical examination. Environmental Sciences Proceedings 2022, 15, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R.E., S. D. Dmytriyev, and R.A. Phillips, Stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of management 2021, 47, 1757–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesqueux, Y. and S. Damak-Ayadi, Stakeholder theory in perspective. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 2005, 5, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston, The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atan, R. , et al., Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and its effect on firm’s performance: A comparative study. International Journal of Economics and Management 2016, 10, 355–375. [Google Scholar]
- Bonnafous-Boucher, M. , et al., Stakeholder theory in strategic management. Stakeholder theory: A model for strategic management, 2016: p. 21-39.
- Bae, S.M., M. A.K. Masud, and J.D. Kim, A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, L., D. M. Boehe, and M.O. Orlitzky, Broad or narrow stakeholder management? A signaling theory perspective. Business & Society 2022, 61, 1838–1880. [Google Scholar]
- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., A. -M. Ríos, and M.-D. Guillamón, Transparency in public administrations: a structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 2023, 35, 537–567. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, G., L. Liu, and S. Luo, Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 2022, 31, 3371–3387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsayegh, M.F. , et al., The role of sustainability reporting and governance in achieving sustainable development goals: an international investigation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnea, A. and A. Rubin, Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of business ethics 2010, 97, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher-Vanden, K. and K. S. Thorburn, Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives and shareholder wealth. Journal of Environmental Economics and management 2011, 62, 430–445. [Google Scholar]
- Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt, and S.L. Rynes, Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies 2003, 24, 403–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahut, J.-M. and H. Pasquini-Descomps, ESG impact on market performance of firms: International evidence. Management international 2015, 19, 40–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein Smith, S. and S. Stein Smith, ESG & Other Emerging Technology Applications. Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence and Financial Services: Implications and Applications for Finance and Accounting Professionals, 2020: p. 175-191.
- Crisóstomo, V.L., F. de Souza Freire, and F. C. De Vasconcellos, Corporate social responsibility, firm value and financial performance in Brazil. Social responsibility journal 2011, 7, 295–309. [Google Scholar]
- Achim, M.-V., S. -N. Borlea, and C. Mare, Corporate governance and business performance: Evidence for the Romanian economy. Journal of Business Economics and Management 2016, 17, 458–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duque-Grisales, E. and J. Aguilera-Caracuel, Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics 2021, 168, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argaam. Argaam homepage. n.d. 7/2/2024]; Available from: https://www.argaam.com.
- AlSagr, N., S. Belkhaoui, and A. Aldosari, The effect of corporate governance mechanisms on bank performance evidence from Saudi banking sector. Asian Economic and Financial Review 2018, 8, 1111–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buallay, A. , et al., Sustainability reporting and bank performance after financial crisis: evidence from developed and developing countries. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal 2021, 31, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Bassam, W.M. , et al., Corporate boards and ownership structure as antecedents of corporate governance disclosure in Saudi Arabian publicly listed corporations. Business & Society 2018, 57, 335–377. [Google Scholar]
- Habbash, M. , Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Social Responsibility Journal 2016, 12, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhazmi, A. , Exploring the factors and effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in Saudi Arabia (in the area of accounting and finance). 2017: Nottingham Trent University (United Kingdom).
- Gnecco, G., F. Nutarelli, and D. Selvi, Optimal trade-off between sample size, precision of supervision, and selection probabilities for the unbalanced fixed effects panel data model. Soft Computing 2020, 24, 15937–15949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, J.V. and P.L.V. Pereira, The Effects of Estimation Sample Size in Forecast Performance: The Case of Brazilian Industrial Production Index. 2019, UDES, South Region, Brazil.
- Abdul Rahman, R. and M.F. Alsayegh, Determinants of corporate environment, social and governance (ESG) reporting among Asian firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2021, 14, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javeed, S.A. and L. Lefen, An analysis of corporate social responsibility and firm performance with moderating effects of CEO power and ownership structure: A case study of the manufacturing sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birindelli, G. , et al., Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buallay, A. , et al., Sustainability reporting and performance of MENA banks: is there a trade-off? Measuring Business Excellence 2020, 24, 197–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buallay, A. , et al., Corporate social responsibility disclosure and firms’ performance in Mediterranean countries: a stakeholders’ perspective. EuroMed Journal of Business 2020, 15, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margolis, J.D., H. A. Elfenbein, and J.P. Walsh, Does it pay to be good... and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. And does it matter, 2009.
- Han, C. and B. Chen, Can the improvement of the social credit environment enhance corporate ESG scores? Plos one 2024, 19, e0300247. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, D.Z. , Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation. Accounting & finance 2021, 61, 335–360. [Google Scholar]
- Almeyda, R. and A. Darmansya, The influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm financial performance. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series, 2019(5): p. 278-290.
- Aboud, A. and A. Diab, The financial and market consequences of environmental, social and governance ratings: The implications of recent political volatility in Egypt. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 2019, 10, 498–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drempetic, S., C. Klein, and B. Zwergel, The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of business ethics 2020, 167, 333–360. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, E.P.Y., C. Q. Guo, and B.V. Luu, Environmental, social and governance transparency and firm value. Business Strategy and the Environment 2018, 27, 987–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velte, P. , Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of global responsibility 2017, 8, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, H.L., M. S. Heinle, and I. Luneva, A theoretical framework for ESG reporting to investors. Available at SSRN 3932689, 2021.
- Kaiser, L. and J. Welters, Risk-mitigating effect of ESG on momentum portfolios. The Journal of Risk Finance 2019, 20, 542–555. [Google Scholar]
- Shaikh, I. , Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practice and firm performance: an international evidence. Journal of Business Economics and Management 2022, 23, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, I.W.K. , et al., Corporate social performance and firm performance: Comparative study among developed and emerging market firms. Sustainability 2019, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamahros, H.M. , et al., Corporate governance mechanisms and ESG reporting: Evidence from the Saudi Stock Market. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AMZIL, L. and K. ACHARGUI, Quantitative Analysis of ESG Weightings and their Impact on the Overall Sustainability Score: A longitudinal study of companies listed on the CAC 40 ESG index. Revue de Gestion et d’Économie 2023, 11, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Pusceddu, S. and C. Gatti, Tobin’s Q and ESG Score in the Banking Industry: Are There Differences Among Banks? SINERGIE, 2021: p. 277-283.
- Quatrini, S. and R. Costanza, No time to lie: Sustainable finance needs nextgen assurance, in Sustainable Finance and the Global Health Crisis. 2023, Routledge. p. 77-99.
- Bhagat, S. and B. Bolton, Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of corporate finance 2008, 14, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moussa, A.S. and M. Elmarzouky, Does Capital Expenditure Matter for ESG Disclosure? A UK Perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2023, 16, 429. [Google Scholar]
- Exchange, S. ESG Disclosure Guidelines. 2018 27/6/2024]; Available from: https://www.saudiexchange.sa/wps/portal/saudiexchange/listing/issuer-guides/esg-guidelines?locale=ar.
| Variable Symbols | Full Name | Definition and Description |
|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variables | ||
| ROA | Return on Assets | Return on assets is the calculation of the profitability as a percentage of the net earnings in proportion to all the assets owned by the company. |
| ROE | Return on Equity | Return on equity determines the benefit as a proportion of the net income to the shareholder equity. |
| Q | Tobin-Q | Tobin’s Q compares the overall market value of a business with the book value of its tangible assets. |
| Independent Variables | ||
| ESG Index | The ESG index, which was created through principal component analysis (PCA), is a single measure that combines environmental, social, and governance metrics so that firms can be effectively assessed in terms of their compliance to sustainability- and governance-related issues. It determines the ESG compliance of firm i during a period. | |
| Control Variables | ||
| Size | Firm Size | Firm size = natural log of total assets of firm (i) in period (t), which reflects the firm’s capital and resources during that period. |
| Age | Firm Age | Firm age = the duration from the establishment of firm (i) to period (t), which shows the market experience. |
| LEV | Financial Leverage | Financial leverage = the proportion of the total liabilities to the total assets of firm (i) during period (t), which is a control variable. |
| Tan | Tangibility | The amount of assets that are physical in nature as compared to the overall assets of a company. |
| Liq | Liquidity | The capacity of a company to fulfil its short-term obligations with relative ease. |
| Variables | Mean | SD | Max | Min | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque–Bera |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variable | |||||||
| ESG Disclosure | 32.166 | 12.415 | 75.349 | 11.397 | 0.506 | 2.493 | 0.000 |
| Dependent Variable | |||||||
| ROA (Return on Assets) ROE (Return on Equity) |
5.523 17.816 |
5.561 27.160 |
45.841 526.885 |
46.240 | −0.065 6.221 |
10.982 98.624 |
0.000 0.000 |
| Tobin’s Q | 1.800 | 1.050 | 8.697 | 0.615 | 2.478 | 11.936 | 0.000 |
| Control Variables | |||||||
| Firm Size (Net) | 73,887 | 235,102 | 2,571,273 | 1011 | 6.891 | 56.005 | 0.000 |
| Financial Leverage | 2.994 | 3.370 | 78.422 | 1.045 | 6.635 | 85.760 | 0.000 |
| Firm Age | 0.683 | 0.577 | 3.792 | 0.028 | 2.001 | 8.232 | 0.000 |
| Tangibility | 0.514 | 0.806 | 0 | 11.913 | 3.891 | 46.013 | 0.000 |
| Liquidity | 2.117 | 2.171 | 0.111 | 27.646 | 4.635 | 55.760 | 0.000 |
| Variables | ENV | SOC | GOV | ESG Index | ROA | ROE | Tobin’s Q |
Firm Age | Firm Size | Financial Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENV (Environmental) | 1 | |||||||||
| SOC (Social) | 0.241 | 1 | ||||||||
| GOV (Governence) | −0.142 | 0.328 | 1 | |||||||
| ESG Index | 0.651 | 0.727 | 0.487 | 1 | ||||||
| ROA | 0.048 | 0.051 | 0.035 | 0.036 | 1 | |||||
| ROA | 0.043 | 0.147 | 0.026 | 0.064 | 0.83 | 1 | ||||
| Tobin’s Q | 0.098 | 0.002 | 0.129 | 0.01 | 0.224 | 0.079 | 1 | |||
| Firm Age | 0.032 | −0.076 | 0.008 | 0.037 | 0.058 | 0.019 | 0.101 | 1 | ||
| Firm Size | 0.007 | −0.139 | 0.079 | 0.131 | 0.156 | 0.089 | 0.017 | 0.174 | 1 | |
| Financial Leverage | −0.024 | −0.196 | −0.019 | −0.089 | −0.031 | −0.038 | 0.202 | −0.025 | −0.032 | 1 |
| Fixed Effect | Random Effect | GMM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | ROA | ||
| Intercept | 0.134 * | 0.083 * | 0.022 |
| (0.073) | (0.044) | (0.036) | |
| ESG Disclosure | 0.002 *** | −0.001 ** | 0.002 ** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0) | |
| Firm Size | 0.036 *** | 0.006 * | 0.004 *** |
| (0.008) | (0.004) | (0.002) | |
| Financial Leverage | −0.007 | −0.002 | −0.001 ** |
| (0.007) | (0.003) | (0.001) | |
| Firm Age | −0.177 *** | −0.02 | 0.018 ** |
| (0.045) | (0.023) | (0.016) | |
| Liquidity | 0.034 ** | 0.028 | 0.045 *** |
| 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.015 | |
| Tangibility | 0.056 * | 0.049 * | 0.063 *** |
| 0.018 | 0.017 | 0.020 | |
| Observations | 700 | 700 | 700 |
| R-square | 0.082 | . z | 0.035 |
| Hausman Test | |||
| Fixed Effect | Random Effect | GMM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | |||
| Intercept | 0.177 | 0.186 | 0.045 |
| (0.231) | (0.12) | (0.099) | |
| ESG Disclosure | 0.008 *** | −0.003 | 0.002 *** |
| (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.001) | |
| Firm Size | 0.132 *** | 0.02 ** | 0.005 ** |
| (0.024) | (0.01) | (0.007) | |
| Financial Leverage | −0.012 | −0.004 | −0.003 * |
| (0.024) | (0.009) | (0.002) | |
| Firm Age | 0.488 *** | −0.072 | 0.023 ** |
| (0.142) | (0.063) | (0.05) | |
| Liquidity | 0.014 ** | 0.007 * | 0.011 *** |
| (0.006) | (0.003) | (.0002) | |
| Tangibility | 0.024 *** | 0.017 ** | 0.013 ** |
| (0.008) | (0.005) | (0.004) | |
| Observations | 700 | 700 | 700 |
| R-square | 0.071 | .z | 0.057 |
| Fixed Effect | Random Effect | GMM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | Tobin’s Q | ||
| Intercept | 1.02 *** | 0.816 *** | 0.471 *** |
| (0.119) | (0.097) | (0.069) | |
| ESG Disclosure | 0.002 ** | 0.003 ** | 0.012 *** |
| (0.001) | (0.011) | (0.001) | |
| Firm Size | 0.038 *** | 0.029 *** | 0.014 *** |
| (0.013) | (0.009) | (0.005) | |
| Financial Leverage | −0.026 ** | −0.003 | 0.022 *** |
| (0.012) | (0.008) | (0.002) | |
| Firm Age | −0.078 | 0.002 | 0.101 *** |
| (0.074) | (0.055) | (0.033) | |
| Liquidity | 0.031 ** | 0.013 ** | 0.017 *** |
| (0.008) | (0.006) | (0.003) | |
| Tangibility | 0.015 ** | 0.012 ** | 0.008 *** |
| (0.007) | (0.005) | (0.002) | |
| Observations | 700 | 700 | 700 |
| R-square | 0.046 | .z | 0.074 |
| Dependent Variables | ROE | ROA | Tobin’s Q |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firm Size | 0.003 ** | 0.003 ** | 0.025 *** |
| S.E. | (0.008) | (0.003) | (0.006) |
| Firm Age | 0.027 ** | 0.016 * | 0.08 *** |
| S.E. | (0.051) | (0.016) | (0.027) |
| Manufacturing Dummy | 0.029 | 0.019 *** | 0.02 ** |
| S.E. | (0.019) | (0.006) | (0.016) |
| Financial Leverage | −0.002 * | −0.002 ** | −0.005 ** |
| S.E. | (0.002) | (0.001) | (0.005) |
| ESG Disclosure | 0.002 ** | 0.003 *** | 0.001 *** |
| S.E. | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.001) |
| _cons | 0.042 | 0.034 | 0.519 *** |
| S.E. | (0.115) | (0.037) | (0.072) |
| Observations | 700 | 700 | 700 |
| R-square | 0.022 | 0.039 | 0.292 |
| Manufacturing | Non-Manufacturing | Manufacturing | Non-Manufacturing | Manufacturing | Non-Manufacturing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | ROA | ROA | ROE | ROE | Tobin’s Q | Tobin’s Q |
| Firm Size | 0.009 *** | 0.003 | 0.019 *** | 0.013 | 0.032 *** | 0.007 |
| (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.007) | (0.01) | (0.008) | (0.005) | |
| Financial Leverage | 0.001 | −0.003 ** | −0.002 | −0.002 | 0.018 *** | 0.031 *** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.003) | (0.002) | (0.004) | |
| Firm Age | 0.012 | 0.009 | −0.02 | 0.063 | 0.061 | 0.082 * |
| (0.015) | (0.024) | (0.054) | (0.073) | (0.05) | (0.044) | |
| ESG Disclosure | −0.002 *** | 0.001 ** | −0.005 * | 0.005 *** | −0.008 *** | 0.005 *** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.003) | (0.001) | (0.002) | (0.001) | |
| Intercept | 0.148 *** | −0.005 | 0.406 *** | −0.051 | 0.953 *** | 0.298 *** |
| (0.031) | (0.047) | (0.136) | (0.128) | (0.119) | (0.075) | |
| Observations | 259 | 448 | 259 | 448 | 259 | 448 |
| R-square | 0.069 | 0.024 | 0.054 | 0.038 | 0.175 | 0.088 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
