SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE OF COMPANIES: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS APPROACH

Abstract

Sustainable development can be defined as an approach where firms support economic growth while reducing environmental impacts, fulfilling social responsibilities, and adhering to strong governance principles. This study investigates sustainable development performance of non-financial companies listed on Borsa Istanbul by cluster analysis of economic, environmental, social, and governance dimensions of corporate sustainable development. Hierarchical average linkage clustering and k-means clustering are used and both result in three distinct clusters. While the economic dimension shows no significant difference between clusters, significant variations are observed in the environmental, social, and governance dimensions. To understand the characteristics of these clusters further, a comparative analysis of financial ratios, company size, and company age is undertaken. Notably, company size emerges as the sole statistically significant differentiator between the clusters. The cluster with the highest environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores comprises larger firms compared to the others. Based on the identified sustainable development patterns within each cluster, the study proposes recommendations for enhancing their overall sustainable development performance.

Keywords

• Sustainable development
• Sustainable growth rate
• Cluster analysis
• Borsa Istanbul

FİRMALARIN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR KALKINMA PERFORMANSI: BİR KÜMELEME ANALİZİ YAKLAŞIMI

Abstract

Sürdürülebilir kalkınma, firmaların ekonomik büyümeyi desteklerken çevresel etkilerini azaltmayı, sosyal sorumluluklarını yerine getirmeyi ve güçlü yönetişim ilkelerine bağlı kalmayı içeren bir yaklaşım olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu çalışma, Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören finansal olmayan şirketlerin sürdürülebilir kalkınma performanslarını; kurumsal sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın ekonomik, çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim boyutlarının kriter olarak kullanıldığı bir kümeleme analizi ile incelemektedir. Hiyerarşik ortalama bağlantı ve k-ortalamalar kümeleme yöntemleri kullanılmış ve her iki yöntem sonucunda da üçlü kümeleme elde edilmiştir. Kümeler arasında, ekonomik boyut anlamlı bir fark göstermese de çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim boyutlarında önemli farklılıklar gözlemlenmiştir. Bu kümelerin özelliklerini daha iyi anlamak için kümeler; finansal oranlar, şirket büyüklüğü ve şirket yaşı açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Kümeler arasında sadece şirket büyüklüğü anlamlı farklılık göstermektedir. En yüksek çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim (ÇSY) puanlarına sahip küme, diğerlerine kıyasla daha büyük firmalardan oluşmaktadır. Her kümedeki sürdürülebilir kalkınma profiline dayanarak bu çalışma, kümelerin sürdürülebilir kalkınma performanslarını geliştirmek için önerilerde bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sürdürülebilir kalkınma
• Sürdürülebilir büyüme oranı
• Kümeleme analizi
• Borsa İstanbul

References

1. Ates, S. (2020). Membership of sustainability index in an emerging market: Implications for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119465.
2. Bagh, T., Zhou, B., Alawi, S. M., & Azam, R. I. (2024). ESG Resilience: Exploring the Non-Linear Effects of ESG Performance on Firms Sustainable Growth. Research in International Business and Finance, 102305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102305.
3. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441.
4. Cardamone, P., Carnevale, C., & Giunta, F. (2012). The value relevance of social reporting: evidence from listed Italian companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 13(3), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1108/09675421211281326.
5. Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M., & Venturini, S. (2012). Corporate social reporting in European banks: The effects on a firm's market value. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(3), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.262.
6. Chai, S., Cao, M., Li, Q., Ji, Q., & Liu, Z. (2023). Exploring the nexus between ESG disclosure and corporate sustainable growth: Moderating role of media attention. Finance Research Letters, 58, 104519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104519.
7. Chow, W. S., & Chen, Y. (2012). Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the mainland Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0983-x.
8. Dubes, R., & Jain, A. K. (1980). Clustering methodologies in exploratory data analysis. Advances in Computers, 19, 113-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60034-0.

9. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (2001). Cluster analysis. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
10. Higgins, R. C. (1977). How Much Growth Can a Firm Afford?. Financial Management, 6(3), 7-16.
11. Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability: Environmental, social, governance, or economic performance?. Management Decision, 54(6), 1497-1521. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2015-0505.
12. Kaufman, L., & P. J. Rousseeuw. (1990). Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. New York: Wiley.
13. Khaled, R., Ali, H., & Mohamed, E. K. (2021). The sustainable development goals and corporate sustainability performance: Mapping, extent and determinants. Journal of Cleaner Production, 311, 127599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599.
14. Kılıç, M., Gurler, H. E., Kaya, A., & Lee, C. W. (2022). The impact of sustainability performance on financial performance: Does firm size matter? evidence from Turkey and South Korea. Sustainability, 14(24), 16695. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416695.
15. Li, Z., Jia, J., & Chapple, L. J. (2023). Textual characteristics of corporate sustainability disclosure and corporate sustainability performance: evidence from Australia. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(3), 786-816. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2021-1250.
16. Lourenço, I. C., Branco, M. C., Curto, J. D., & Eugénio, T. (2012). How does the market value corporate sustainability performance?. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 417-428.
17. Makles, A. (2012). Stata tip 110: How to get the optimal k-means cluster solution. The Stata Journal, 12(2), 347-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1201200213.
18. Matuszewska-Pierzynka, A. (2021). Relationship between corporate sustainability performance and corporate financial performance: Evidence from US companies. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 16(4), 885-906. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.033.
19. Milligan, G., & Cooper, M. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294245.
20. Nguyen, L. T. (2024). The relationship between corporate sustainability performance and earnings management: evidence from emerging East Asian economies. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(3), 564-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-09-2021-0302.
21. Özçelik, F., & Avcı Öztürk, B. (2014). Evaluation of Banks' Sustainability Performance in Turkey with Grey Relational Analysis. Journal of Accounting & Finance, (63), 189-209.
22. Radu, C., & Smaili, N. (2021). Corporate performance patterns of Canadian listed firms: Balancing financial and corporate social responsibility outcomes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 3344-3359. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2806.
23. Refinitiv. (2022). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores from Refinitiv. https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf.
24. Romesburg, C. (2004), Cluster Analysis for Researchers, Lulu Press, Morrisville, NC.
25. Saraswati, E., Ghofar, A., Atmini, S., & Dewi, A. A. (2024). Clustering of companies based on sustainability performance using ESG materiality approach: evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(2), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.15393.
26. Sariyer, G., & Taşkın, D. (2022). Clustering of firms based on environmental, social, and governance ratings: Evidence from BIST sustainability index. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.009.
27. Schadewitz, H., & Niskala, M. (2010). Communication via responsibility reporting and its effect on firm value in Finland. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.234.
28. Schneider, A., & Meins, E. (2012). Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.726.
29. STATA, (2024). Introduction to cluster analysis commands. https://www.stata.com/manuals/mvcluster.pdf.
30. T. C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı, (2019). Türkiye Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları 2. Ulusal Gözden Geçirme Raporu “Ortak Hedefler için Sağlam Temeller”. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Surdurulebilir-Kalkinma-Amaclari-Turkiye-2nci-Ulusal-Gozden-Gecirme-Raporu_TR-WEB.pdf.
31. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
32. Yilmaz, M. K., Aksoy, M., & Tatoglu, E. (2020). Does the stock market value inclusion in a sustainability index? Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Sustainability, 12(2), 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020483.