KURUMSAL YÖNETİŞİM VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK: COVID-19 DÖNEMİNDE BAĞIMSIZ YÖNETİM KURULU ÜYELERİNİN CİNSİYET ÇEŞİTLİLİĞİ VE ESG PERFORMANSI

Öz

Bu makale, COVID-19 krizi bağlamında Borsa İstanbul BIST 100 endeksinde yer alan şirketlerde yönetim kurulu bağımsızlığı, bağımsız yönetim kurulu üyelerinin cinsiyet dağılımı ile sürdürülebilirlik performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. 2014-2024 dönemini kapsayan bir veri seti kullanılarak yapılan analizler, Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ÇSY) puanlarının COVID-19 sırasında ve sonrasında önemli ölçüde arttığını göstermektedir; bu artış büyük ölçüde yıl sabit etkileri ve yüksek ÇSY sürekliliği ile açıklanmaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları karışık olmakla birlikte, genel olarak bu bağlamda ÇSY performansının temel belirleyicilerinin kriz sonrası kurumsal ve düzenleyici dinamikler ile yüksek ÇSY sürekliliği olduğu, yönetim kurulu bağımsızlığının ise bu süreçte destekleyici ancak sınırlı bir rol oynadığı görülmektedir. Çalışma, gelişmekte olan piyasalar bağlamında yönetim kurulu bağımsızlığı ve bağımsız yönetim kurulu üyelerinin cinsiyet dağılımı konusundaki tartışmalara ampirik bir katkı sunmakta ve Türk sermaye piyasalarının ÇSY dinamiklerinin kurumsallaşmasını vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Yönetim Kurulu Bağımsızlığı
• ÇSY Performansı
• Cinsiyet Çeşitliliği
• Borsa İstanbul

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY: GENDER DIVERSITY OF INDEPENDENT BOARD MEMBERS AND ESG PERFORMANCE DURING COVID-19 ERA

Öz

This article examines the relationship between board independence, gender composition of independent board members and sustainability performance in companies listed on the Borsa İstanbul BIST 100 index in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Analyses conducted using a dataset covering the period 2014-2024 show that Environmental, Social and Governance (hereafter ESG) scores increased significantly during and after COVID-19 with this increase largely explained by year fixed-effects and high ESG continuity. The findings of study are mixed yet overall, it shows that the key determinants of ESG performance in this context are post-crisis institutional and regulatory dynamics and high ESG continuity, while board independence plays a supportive but limited role in this process. The study provides an empirical contribution to the discussions on board independence and gender composition of independent board members in the context of emerging market, highlighting the institutionalising ESG dynamics of the Turkish capital markets.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability
• Board Independence
• ESG Performance
• Gender Diversity
• Borsa Istanbul

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309.
2. Adams, R. B., Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2010). The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: A conceptual framework and survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(1), 58-107.
3. Ali, W., Ansari, R. H., & Memon, M. A. B. (2020). Corporate governance and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, 6(4), 917-940.
4. Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70-78.
5. 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.
6. Bhagat, S., & Black, B. S. (2002). The non-correlation between board independence and long-term firm performance. Journal of Corporation Law, 27, 231-274.
7. Demers, E., Hendrikse, J., Joos, P., & Lev, B. (2021). ESG did not immunize stocks during the COVID-19 crisis, but investments in intangible assets did. Journal of Business Finance &Accounting, 48(3-4), 433-462.
8. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

9. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.
10. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1994). Boards and company performance- Research challenges the conventional wisdom. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2(3), 151-160.
11. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.
12. Ehsan, M., Song, J., & Khan, J. (2025). The impact of independent directors and ESG performance on eco-innovation: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics. Advance online publication.
13. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford.
14. Engelhardt, N., Ekkenga, J., & Posch, P. (2021). ESG ratings and stock performance during the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability, 13(13), 7133.
15. Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., & Matos, P. (2012). Corporate governance in the 2007-2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions worldwide. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(2), 389-411.
16. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
17. Francis, B. B., Hasan, I., & Wu, Q. (2012). Do corporate boards matter during the current financial crisis? Review of Financial Economics, 21(2), 39-52.
18. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman
19. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
20. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). The cultural system and integrated reporting. International Business Review, 22(5), 828-838.
21. García‐Sánchez, I. M., Hussain, N., Martínez‐Ferrero, J., & Ruiz‐Barbadillo, E. (2019). Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 832 -848.
22. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 986-1014. Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited Editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464-1479.
23. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383-396.
24. 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.
25. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
26. KPMG. (2020). The time has come: The KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020. KPMG International. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/my/pdf/time-has-comes.pdf. Erişim Tarihi:06/11/2025.
27. Li, Z., Feng, L., Pan, Z., & Sohail, H. M. (2022). ESG performance and stock prices: Evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-10.
28. Dao, T. T. B., & Nguyen Tra, T. (2020). A meta-analysis of corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Governance & Regulation, 9(1), 18–34.
29. OECD. (2015). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en.
30. OECD. (2021). OECD corporate governance factbook 2021. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/783b87df-en.
31. Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., & Garayar, A. (2015). The environmental, social, governance, and financial performance effects on companies that adopt the United Nations Global Compact. Sustainability, 7(2), 1932-1956.
32. Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., & Zubeltzu, E. (2017). Firms’ board independence and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 9(6), 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061006.
33. Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189-223.
34. Selimefendigil, S. (2024). Does ESG investment influence firm risk during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from European markets. Istanbul Business Research, 53(3), 409 -432.
35. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737-783.
36. Tricker, B. (2019). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
37. Velte, P. (2022). Meta-analyses on corporate social responsibility (CSR): A literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 72(3), 627-675.
38. 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.