Marketing and Management of Innovations

ISSN (print) – 2218-4511 

ISSN (online) – 2227-6718

Registered in the Media Registrants-Register

Identifier in the register: R30-01179 Decision dated August 31, 2023, No. 759

The language of publication is English. 

Issued 4 times a year (March, June, September, December) since 2010

Business Model: Golden Open Access | APC Policy

Publisher & Founder:

logo_longENG

Editor-in-Chieff             View Editorial Board

Oleksii Lyulyov

Sumy State University | Ukraine

Management of Innovations in the Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores and Sustainability Performance Through ESG Disclosure: Evidence from Emerging Markets

Essia Ries Ahmed1, Tariq Tawfeeq Yousif Alabdullah2,* , Mustafa Akyurek1

  1. Karabuk University, Turkey
  2. University of Basrah, Iraq

     * Corresponding author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2023.4-05

Pages: 69-83

Received: 22 August 2023

Revised: 23 October 2023

Accepted: 10 November 2023

Abstract

Based on managerial accounting, Ratings for the environment, society, and governance (ESG) are now crucial measures for assessing how corporations behave with respect to sustainability. This study aims to present research in the managerial accounting and innovation field to determine how industrial firms’ sustainability performance and associated ESG scores relate to one another. This study especially evaluates the management of innovations in the manufacturing industry in terms of Turkey’s ESG performance ratings based on Refinitiv Eikon’s listing. To examine the association between the management of innovations in industrial firms’ overall sustainability performance and ESG scores, hypotheses were developed and tested. Cutting-edge Smart-PLS 4.0 software wasused to carry out a rigorous partial least squares (PLS) analysis together with conventional bootstrapping to accomplish these goals. The results show that the management of innovations in Turkey’s manufacturing sector’s sustainability performance is stronglyimpacted by all ESG issues (social, governance, and environmental scores), which makes it a vital issue from the perspective of the managerial accounting field. The present research emphasizes the management of innovations as a crucial part of determining the sustainability of the industrial sector’s environment. The assignment of goals when conducting planning and policy making should appropriately take into account ESG-related factors, according to the key findings of this study. Industrial firms can improve their overall sustainability performance and make good contributions to the well-being of innovations, the environment and society while upholding sound governance standards by incorporating ESG concepts into decision-making processes. For the purpose of developing strategies that balance economic growth with sustainable development objectives, this research offers insightful information to industrial executives and legislators.

Keywords: ESG; sustainability performances; innovations; environmental; social; governance.

How to Cite: Ahmed, E. R., Alabdullah, T. T. Y., & Akyurek, M. (2023). Management of Innovations in the Environmental, Social, and Governance Scores and Sustainability Performance Through ESG Disclosure: Evidence from Emerging Markets. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 14(4), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2023.4-05

Abstract Views

PDF Downloads

ccbyThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

  1. Ahmad, H., Yaqub, M., & Lee, S. H. (2023). Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: A scientometric review of global trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1),1-23. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  2. Akyildirim, E., Coşkun, A., Çelİk, İ., & Höl, A. Ö. (2022). Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ESG) Haberlerinin Firmaların Finansal Performansına Etkisi: Borsa İstanbul’dan Kanıt. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Universitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 24(2), 598-621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ali, S. M., Arafin, A., Moktadir, M. A., Rahman, T., & Zahan, N. (2018). Barriers to reverse logistics in the computer supply chain using interpretive structural model. Global journal of flexible systems management, 19, 53-68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alkaraan, F., Albitar, K., Hussainey, K., & Venkatesh, V. G. (2022). Corporate transformation toward Industry 4.0 and financial performance: The influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alsayegh, M. F., Abdul Rahman, R., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12(9), 3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2018). Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 1027-1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aras, G., Tezcan, N., & Furtuna, Ö. K. (2018). Çok boyutlu kurumsal surdurulebilirlik yaklaşımı ile Turk bankacılık sektörunun değerlemesi: Kamu-Özel banka farklılaşması. Ege Akademik Bakis, 18(1), 47-61. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aras, G., Tezcan, N., & Kutlu Furtuna, Ö. (2016). Geleneksel bankacılık ve katılım bankacılığında kurumsal surdurulebilirlik performansının topsıs yöntemiyle karşılaştırılması, İşletme İktisadı Enstitusu Dergisi, 27(81), 58-81. [Google Scholar]
  9. Balatbat, M., Siew, R., & Carmichael, D. (2012). ESG scores and its influence on firm performance: Australian evidence. In Australian school of business school of accounting, school of accounting seminar series semester (Vol. 2, pp. 1-30). Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales. [Google Scholar]
  10. Balsmeier, B., Fleming, L., & Manso, G. (2017). Independent boards and innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(3), 536-557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brogi, M., & Lagasio, V. (2019). Environmental, social, and governance and company profitability: Are financial intermediaries different? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Busch, T., Bauer, R., & Orlitzky, M. (2016). Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues. Business & Society, 55(3), 303–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Byrne., M. (2001). “Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS”: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum. New Jersey, pp. 219-274. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carnini Pulino, S., Ciaburri, M., Magnanelli, B. S., & Nasta, L. (2022). Does ESG disclosure influence firm performance?. Sustainability, 14(13), 7595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carter, C. R., & Liane Easton, P. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 41(1), 46-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carter, C. R., & Washispack, S. (2018). Mapping the path forward for sustainable supply chain management: A review of reviews. Journal of Business Logistics, 39(4), 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chvatalova, Z., Kocmanova, A., & Docekalova, M. (2011). Corporate sustainability reporting and measuring corporate performance. In Environmental Software Systems. Frameworks of eEnvironment: 9th IFIP WG 5.11 International Symposium, ISESS 2011, Brno, Czech Republic, June 27-29, 2011. Proceedings 9 (pp. 245-254). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clementino, E., & Perkins, R. (2021). How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171, 379-397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  21. Delmas, M., Lim, J., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2016). Corporate environmental performance and lobbying. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(2), 175-197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dinçer, C., Dinçer, B., & Keskin, A.İ. (2021). Surdurulebilirlik ve finansal performans arasındaki ilişkinin BIST100 ve BIST surdurulebilirlik şirketleri aracılığıyla incelenmesi, Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 658, 157-180. [Google Scholar]
  23. Docekalova, M. P., & Kocmanova, A. (2016). Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 61, 612-623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dorfleitner, G., Halbritter, G., & Nguyen, M. (2015). Measuring the level and risk of corporate responsibility–An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches. Journal of Asset Management, 16, 450-466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Drempetic, S., Klein, C., & Zwergel, B. (2020). The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of business ethics, 167, 333-360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S. J., Shibin, K. T., & Wamba, S. F. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management: framework and further research directions. Journal of cleaner production, 142, 1119-1130. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  27. Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2), 315-334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Duzer, M., & Once, S. (2018). surdurulebilirlik performans göstergelerine ilişkin açıklamaların finansal performans uzerine etkisi: BIST’te bir uygulama, Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 11(1), 93- 118. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The need for sector‐specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of applied corporate finance, 24(2), 65-71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ece Çokmutlu, M., & Kılıç, M. (2020). Borsa İstanbul Surdurulebilirlik endeksinde yer alan imalat sanayii işletmelerinin surdurulebilirlik performansları ile finansal performanslarının karşılaştırılması, Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(3), 96-115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Escrig-Olmedo, E., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A. (2010). Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. International journal of sustainable economy, 2(4), 442-461. [Google Scholar]
  33. Escrig‐Olmedo, E., Muñoz‐Torres, M. J., Fernandez‐Izquierdo, M. A., & Rivera‐Lirio, J. M. (2017). Measuring corporate environmental performance: A methodology for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 142-162.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update—Fourth edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  36. Grim, D. M., & Berkowitz, D. B. (2020). ESG, SRI, and impact investing: A primer for decision-making. The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing, 1(1), 47-65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gurunlu, M. (2019). surdurulebilirlik ve finansal performans arasındaki ilişki: bist şirketleri uzerine bir araştırma, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 84, 177-190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.): Pearson. New Jersey. [Google Scholar]
  39. Halbritter, G., & Dorfleitner, G. (2015). The wages of social responsibility—where are they? A critical review of ESG investing. Review of Financial Economics, 26, 25-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics, 132, 641-660. [CrossRef] [CrossRef]
  41. Hassani, B. K., & Bahini, Y. (2022). Relationships between ESG disclosure and economic growth: A critical review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(11), 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heeler, R. M., & Ray, M. L. (1972). Measure validation in marketing. Journal of marketing research, 9(4), 361-370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ho, V. H., & Park, S. K., (2019). ESG disclosure in comparative perspective: optimizing private ordering in public reporting, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repositor. [Link]
  44. Keçeli, S., & Ve Çankaya, S. (2020). ESG ve finansal verilerin pay değerine etkisi: Kuzey ve Latin Avrupa ulkeleri uzerine bir çalışma, İstanbul Ticaret Universitesi Girişimcilik Dergisi, 7, 31-49. [Google Scholar]
  45. Khalil, M. A., & Nimmanunta, K. (2021). Conventional versus green investments: advancing innovation for better financial and environmental prospects. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 1-28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khalil, M. A., Khalil, R., & Khalil, M. K. (2022). Environmental, social and governance (ESG)-augmented investments in innovation and firms’ value: a fixed-effects panel regression of Asian economies. China Finance Review International, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
  47.  [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Martins, L. L. (2005). A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change. Organization Science, 16(6), 701-720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mervelskemper, L., & Streit, D. (2017). Enhancing market valuation of ESG performance: is integrated reporting keeping its promise?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 536-549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Miras‐Rodríguez, M. D. M., Carrasco‐Gallego, A., & Escobar‐Pérez, B. (2015). Has the CSR engagement of electrical companies had an effect on their performance? A closer look at the environment. Business strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 819-835.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moktadir, M. A., Ali, S. M., Rajesh, R., & Paul, S. K. (2018a). Modelling the interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain manage- ment in leather industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 631–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Moktadir, M. A., Rahman, T., Rahman, M. H., Ali, S. M., & Paul, S. K. (2018b). Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 1366–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management studies, 47(1), 1-26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nunnally, S. W. (1980). Construction Methods and Management [by] SW Nunnally. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pallant, Y. (2001), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire. [Google Scholar]
  56. Petersen, M. A., & Rajan, R. G. (1997). Trade credit: theories and evidence. The review of financial studies, 10(3), 661-691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rahdari, A. H., & Rostamy, A. A. A. (2015). Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 757-771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299-314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rajesh, R. (2020). Network design for resilience in supply chains using novel crazy elitist TLBO. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(11), 7421-7437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rajesh, R., & Rajendran, C. (2020). Relating environmental, social, and governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: An empirical analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1247-1267.‏ [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sak, A. F., & Dalgar H. (2020). Kurumsal surdurulebilirliğin firmaların finansal performansına etkisi: bıst kurumsal surdurulebilirlik endeksindeki firmalar uzerinde bir araştırma, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 85, 173-186. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  62. Saygili, E., Arslan, S., & Birkan, A. O. (2022). ESG practices and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 525-533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach . New Jersey: John Willey and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  64. Şeker, Y., & Şengur, E. D. (2022). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ESG) performansı: uluslararası bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 15(2), 349-387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shvarts, E., Pakhalov, A., Knizhnikov, A., & Ametistova, L. (2018). Environmental rating of oil and gas companies in Russia: How assessment affects environmental transparency and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 1023-1038.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Siew, R. Y., Balatbat, M. C., & Carmichael, D. G. (2013). The relationship between sustainability practices and financial performance of construction companies. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2(1), 6-27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Signori, S., San-Jose, L., Retolaza, J. L., & Rusconi, G. (2021). Stakeholder value creation: Comparing ESG and value added in European companies. Sustainability, 13(3), 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Şişman, M. E., & Çankaya, S. (2021). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetişim (ESG) verilerinin firmaların finansal performansına etkisi: hava yolu sektöru uzerine bir çalışma, Çukurova Universitesi İİBF Dergisi, 25(1), 73-91. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  69. Skordoulis, M., Ntanos, S., Kyriakopoulos, G. L., Arabatzis, G., Galatsidas, S., & Chalikias, M. (2020). Environmental innovation, open innovation dynamics and competitive advantage of medium and large-sized firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Taliento, M., Favino, C., & Netti, A. (2019). Impact of environmental, social, and governance information on economic performance: Evidence of a corporate ‘sustainability advantage’ from Europe. Sustainability, 11(6), 1738. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
  71. Tian, H., & Tian, G. (2022). Corporate sustainability and trade credit financing: Evidence from environmental, social, and governance ratings. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1896-1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, Z., & Sarkis, J. (2013). Investigating the relationship of sustainable supply chain management with corporate financial performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(8), 871-888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Welford, R., & Gouldson, A. (1993). Environmental management & business strategy. Pitman Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing bulletin, 24(1), 1-32. [Google Scholar]
  75. Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 286-300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ye, C., Song, X., & Liang, Y. (2022). Corporate sustainability performance, stock returns, and ESG indicators: Fresh insights from EU member states. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(58), 87680-87691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yurdakul, M., & Kazan, H. (2020). Effects of eco-innovation on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Turkey’s manufacturing companies. Sustainability, 12(8), 3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zehir, E., & Aybars, A. (2020). Is there any effect of ESG scores on portfolio performance? Evidence from Europe and Turkey. Journal of Capital Markets Studies, 4(2), 129-143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhang, D., Rong, Z., & Ji, Q. (2019). Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 144, 48-55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

View articles in other formats

License

ccby This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Coyright

Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s).

Published by Sumy State University

Issue

Contacts

Sumy State University
116, Kharkivska st., 40007 Sumy, Ukraine

e-mail: mmi@fem.sumdu.edu.ua

About us

About publisher Sumy State University

Journal’s history

Advertising 

Follow us

LinkedIn

Twitter

 

Company 2023 © Sumy State University