The Impact of Board Characteristics on Sustainability (ESG) Performance: The Case of Turkey

Abstract

This study was conducted by examining 325 firm-year observations from 62 firms listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (BIST) between 2014 and 2023. The research utilized environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores and data on board characteristics to examine the effects of corporate governance structures on sustainability performance. The data was obtained from the LSEG Workspace (formerly Refinitiv Eikon) database, which is used globally as a financial analysis and data provider. The analysis examined the impact of board characteristics such as board size, gender diversity, expertise, and external affiliations on ESG performance using a fixed effects regression model with an unbalanced panel data structure. Empirical findings show that board gender diversity and expertise have a significant and positive impact on ESG performance. In contrast, board size was found to have a significant and negative impact on ESG performance. On the other hand, no statistically significant relationship was found between the variable representing the external affiliations of board members and ESG performance.

Keywords

• Board Characteristics
• ESG Performance
• Corporate Governance
• Gender Diversity

Yönetim Kurulu Özelliklerinin Sürdürülebilirlik (ESG) Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2014-2023 döneminde Borsa İstanbul’da (BIST) işlem gören 62 işletmeye ait 325 şirket-yılı gözlemini inceleyerek gerçekleştirilmiştir Araştırmada, kurumsal yönetim yapılarının sürdürülebilirlik performansı üzerindeki etkilerini incelemek amacıyla çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim (ESG) puanları ile yönetim kurulu özelliklerine ilişkin veriler kullanılmıştır. Söz konusu veriler, finansal analiz ve veri sağlayıcısı olarak küresel ölçekte kullanılan LSEG Workspace (önceki adıyla Refinitiv Eikon) veri tabanından temin edilmiştir. Analiz kapsamında, yönetim kurulu özellikleri olan kurul büyüklüğü, cinsiyet çeşitliliği, uzmanlığı ve dış bağlantıların ESG performansı üzerindeki etkisi, dengesiz panel veri yapısına sahip sabit etkiler regresyon modeli ile incelenmiştir. Ampirik bulgular, yönetim kurulu cinsiyet çeşitliliği ile uzmanlığının ESG performansı üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif etkiler sağladığını göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün ESG performansı üzerinde anlamlı ve negatif bir etkisi tespit edilmiştir. Diğer yandan, yönetim kurulu üyelerinin dış bağlantılarını temsil eden değişken ile ESG performansı arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır.

Keywords

• Yönetim Kurulu Özelliği
• ESG Performansı
• Kurumsal Yönetim
• Cinsiyet Çeşitliliği

References

1. Abdelkader, M. G., Gao, Y., & Elamer, A. A. (2024). Board gender diversity and ESG performance: The mediating role of temporal orientation in South Africa context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140728
2. Aksoy, M., Yilmaz, M. K., Tatoglu, E., & Basar, M. (2020). Antecedents of corporate sustainability performance in Turkey: The effects of ownership structure and board attributes on non-financial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124284
3. Arhinful, R., Mensah, L., & Owusu-Sarfo, J. S. (2024). Board governance and ESG performance in Tokyo stock exchange-listed automobile companies: An empirical analysis. Asia Pacific Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2024.11.001
4. Arvidsson, S., & Dumay, J. (2022). Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice? Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2937
5. Aslan-Çetin, F., Öztürk, S., & Akarsu, O. N. (2024). The effect of ESG data of companies on financial performance: A panel data analysis on the BIST sustainability index. Sosyoekonomi, 32(61), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.03.07
6. Atasel, O. Y., & Güneysu, Y. (2023). ESG performansı ile borç maliyeti arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 16(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1196945
7. Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991.
8. Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The Impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2

9. Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2021). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4
10. Bhandari, A., Mammadov, B., Shelton, A., & Thevenot, M. (2018). It Is Not Only What You Know, It Is Also Who You Know: CEO Network Connections and Financial Reporting Quality. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-51821
11. Bigelli, M., Mengoli, S., & Sandri, S. (2023). ESG score, board structure and the impact of the EU 95/2014 directive on European Firms. Journal of Economics and Business, 127, 1–13.
12. Birindelli, G., Dell’Atti, S., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2018). Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124699
13. Campanella, F., Serino, L., Crisci, A., & D’Ambra, A. (2021). The role of corporate governance in environmental policy disclosure and sustainable development. Generalized estimating equations in longitudinal count data analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2062
14. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
15. Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S., & Orlando, B. (2018). Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1452
16. Disli, M., Yilmaz, M. K., & Mohamed, F. F. M. (2022). Board characteristics and sustainability performance: empirical evidence from emerging markets. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(4), 929–952. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2020-0313
17. Düzer, M. (2023). Muhasebe ihtiyatlılığı ve sürdürülebilirlik: BIST 100’de bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 0(100), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.1319728
18. Dwekat, A., Seguí-Mas, E., Tormo-Carbó, G., & Carmona, P. (2020). Corporate governance configurations and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Qualitative comparative analysis of audit committee and board characteristics. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2879–2892. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2009
19. Eccles, R. G., Lee, L. E., & Stroehle, J. C. (2020). The social origins of ESG: An analysis of innovest and KLD. Organization and Environment, 33(4), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619888994
20. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
21. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.
22. Galbreath, J. (2013). ESG in focus: The Australian evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1607-9
23. Geçici, E. (2022). Üst düzey yönetici özelliklerinin muhasebe kalitesine etkisi: BIST imalat sektöründe bir araştırma (2011-2020) [Doktora tezi]. Sakarya Üniversitesi.
24. Güngör Tanç, Ş. (2019). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik faaliyetlerinin firma değeri üzerine etkisi: Bist 100 örneği. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 11(3), 2076–2083. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2019.725 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7. baskı). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
25. Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0
26. Hoang, H. V. (2025). Too many hats? The impact of board members affiliations on firm performance. Economics of Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-025-00333-3
27. Husted, B. W., & Sousa-Filho, J. M. de. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.017
28. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
29. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
30. Karyağdı, N. G., & Şit, A. (2023). İşletmelerin Esg performanslarının sermaye maliyeti ve finansal performansına etkisi: Bist Sürdürebilirlik-25 endeksi üzerine bir uygulama. Journal of Bucak Business Administration Faculty, 6(2), 277–292.
31. Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.230
32. Lipton, M., & Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The Business Lawyer, 48(1), 59–77. London Stock Exchange Group. (2025). LSEG Workspace.
33. Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2017-0024
34. Martiny, A., Taglialatela, J., Testa, F., & Iraldo, F. (2024). Determinants of environmental social and governance (ESG) performance: A systematic literature review. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 456). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142213
35. Özkan, A., Güngör Tanç, Ş., & Taşdemir, B. (2018). Sürdürülebilirlik açıklamaları kapsamında kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun kârlılık üzerindeki etkisi: BİST Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksinde bir araştırma. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 20(3), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.390388
36. Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Joumal of Management Studies, 29.
37. Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), 349–364.
38. Pozzoli, M., Pagani, A., & Paolone, F. (2022). The impact of audit committee characteristics on ESG performance in the European Union member states: Empirical evidence before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, 133411. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133411
39. Public Oversight Authority (POA). (2025). Announcement regarding the change in the scope of application of Türkiye sustainability reporting standards (TSRS). Access Address: https://www.kgk.gov.tr Schueth, S. (2003). Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 189–194.
40. Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9
41. Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom:. How do women and men differ? European Management Journal, 26(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.10.002
42. Solomon, J. F., & Solomon, A. (2006). Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4), 564–591. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610679137
43. Suttipun, M. (2021). The influence of board composition on environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure of Thai listed companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18(4), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00120-6
44. Treepongkaruna, S., Kyaw, K., & Jiraporn, P. (2024). ESG controversies and corporate governance: Evidence from board size. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(5), 4218–4232. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3697
45. Ünal, İ. H., Temiz, H., & Özdemir, F. S. (2024). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde cinsiyet ve kültürel çeşitliliğin etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 16(31), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1525214
46. Velte, P. (2016). Women on management board and ESG performance. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(1), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2016-0001
47. Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1952
48. Wasiuzzaman, S., & Subramaniam, V. (2023). Board gender diversity and environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: Is it different for developed and developing nations? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(5), 2145–2165. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2475
49. Yadav, P., & Prashar, A. (2023). Board gender diversity: implications for environment, social, and governance (ESG) performance of Indian firms. Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 72(9), 2654–2673. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2021-0689