Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişimde Sürdürülebilirlik Finansal Performansı Artırır mı? G20 Ülkelerinde Sınai İşletmeler Üzerine Doğrusal Olmayan Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

Sürdürülebilirliğin çevresel, sosyal ve yönetim boyutları, firmaların çevre üzerindeki etkileri, kaynaklarının verimli kullanımı, paydaşlarla ve genel olarak toplumla olan ilişkileri ve yönetim şeffaflığı gibi konular ile ilgilenmektedir. Firmaların sürdürülebilir faaliyetleri politika geliştiriciler, yöneticiler, yatırımcılar ve diğer paydaşlar açısından farklı anlamlar içermektedir. Firma yöneticileri, sürdürülebilirlik yatırımlarının finansal performans üzerindeki etkilerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı firmaların kurumsal yönetim performansı, sosyal performans ve çevre performansları ile finansal performansları arasındaki ilişkileri G20 ülkeleri için incelemektir. Firmaların sürdürülebilirlik skorları ile finansal performansları arasındaki doğrusal ilişkiyi inceleyen geçmiş çalışmalardan farklı olarak bu çalışmada doğrusal olmayan ilişkiler araştırma konusu yapılmıştır. Bu yönü ile bu araştırma, firmaların sürdürülebilirlik yatırımlarına ilişkin bir optimal noktanın var olabileceğine dikkat çekmektedir. Bu kapsamda sürdürülebilirlik skorları ile finansal performans arasında U veya ters U şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu savunan sırasıyla “iyi bir şeyin azlığı” (too little of a good thing) ve “iyi bir şeyin fazlalığı” (too much of a good thing) görüşleri, G20 ülkeleri sınai sektöründe faaliyet gösteren 251 firma için panel veri analiz yöntemleriyle test edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre firmaların sürdürülebilirlik performansı, sosyal performansı, çevre performansı ve kurumsal yönetim performansı ile aktif karlılıkları ve özsermaye karlılıkları arasında ters U şeklinde bir ilişkinin var olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuç, “iyi bir şeyin fazlalığı” etkisinin geçerliliğini desteklemektedir. Ancak, firmaların çevre performansı ile özsermaye karlılıkları arasında anlamlı bir ilişkinin varlığına yönelik herhangi bir bulguya ulaşılamamıştır. Buna göre, firmaların finansal performansları farklı seviyelerdeki çevre, sosyal ve yönetim performanslarına bağlı olarak değişmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• TLGT ve TMGT etkisi
• Sistem GMM Yöntemi
• ESG Skoru
• Finansal Performans

Does Environmental, Social, and Governance Sustainability Improve Financial Performance? A Nonlinear Panel Data Analysis on Industrial Firms in G20 Countries

Öz

The environmental, social, and governance dimensions of sustainability deal with issues such as firms’ environmental impact, efficient use of resources, their relations with stakeholders and society in general, and management transparency. Sustainable activities of firms have different meanings for policymakers, managers, investors, and other stakeholders. Business managers focus on the impact of sustainability investments on financial performance. This study examines the linkage between corporate governance performance, social performance, environmental performance, and financial performance of firms in G20 countries. Unlike previous studies examining the linear relationship between firms’ sustainability scores and financial performance, this study investigates non-linear relationships. In this respect, this study draws attention to the fact that there may be an optimal point for firms’ sustainability investments. In this context, the "too little of a good thing" and "too much of a good thing" views, which argue that there is a U-shaped or inverted U-shaped linkage between sustainability scores and financial performance, respectively, are tested with panel data analysis methods for 251 firms operating in the industrial sector of G20 countries. According to the results, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between firms’ sustainability, social, environmental, and corporate governance performance and their return on assets and equity. This result supports the validity of the "too much of a good thing" effect. However, there is no significant relationship between firms’ environmental performance and their return on equity. Accordingly, firms’ financial performance varies depending on environmental, social, and governance performance levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability
• TLGT and TMGT effect
• System GMM Method
• ESG Score
• Financial Performance

Kaynakça

1. Adegbite, E., Guney, Y. & Kwabi, F. (2019). Financial and corporate social performance in the UK listed firms: the relevance of non-linearity and lag effects. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(1), 105–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-018-0705-x
2. Ahlklo, Y. R. R. & Lind, C. (2019). E, s or g ? A study of ESG score and financial performance. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Umeå University.
3. Ahmad, N., Mobarek, A. & Roni, N. N. (2021). Revisiting the impact of ESG on financial performance of FTSE350 UK firms: static and dynamic panel data analysis. Cogent Business and Management, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1900500
4. Arellano, M. & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968
5. Bäckström, S. & Karlsson, J. (2015). Corporate sustainability and financial performance - The influence of board diversity in a Swedish context. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Uppsala University.
6. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T., Topaloglu, E. E. & Evcimen, C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Research, 127, 226-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.017
7. 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
8. Bansal, P. & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

9. Barnea, A. & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
10. Barnett, M. L. & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: the curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.557
11. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
12. Ben, Y., Managi, S. & Taleb, L. (2022). Re-thinking about U: the relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 140(November 2021), 498–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019
13. Benabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.x
14. Bloomberg (2021). ESG assets may hit $53 trillion by 2025, a third of global AUM, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/insights/trading/esg-assets-may-hit-53-trillion-by-2025-a-third-of-global-aum/, Erişim Tarihi: 28/07/2021.
15. Bowman, E. H. & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164638
16. Brammer, S. & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(September), 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
17. Breusch, A. T. S. & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287–1294.
18. Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance ? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-12-2017-0149
19. Buallay, A. & Barone, E. (2022). Sustainability engagement’s impact on tourism sector performance: linear and nonlinear models. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(2), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-10-2020-0308
20. Busch, T. & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). How hot is your bottom line? linking carbon and financial performance. Business and Society, 50(2), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650311398780
21. Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D. & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect: a competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115579699
22. Casciello, R., Santonastaso, R., Prisco, M. & Martino, I. (2024). Green innovation and financial performance. The role of R&D investments and ESG disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2862
23. Chen, C. J., Guo, R. S., Hsiao, Y. C. & Chen, K. L. (2018). How business strategy in non-financial firms moderates the curvilinear effects of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on corporate financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 92(February 2017), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.030
24. Clift, R. & Wright, L. (2000). Relationships between environmental impacts and added value along the supply chain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00055-4
25. Cohen, M., Fenn, S. & Konar, S. (1997). Environmental and financial performance: are they related?. Investor Responsibility Research Center, August. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251170815_Environmental_and_Financial_Performance_Are_They_Related
26. Cook, D. & Weisberg, S. (1983). Diagnostics for heteroscedasticity in regression. Biometrika, 70(1), 1–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2335938
27. Çek, K. & Eyüpoğlu, S. (2020). Does environmental, social and governance performance influence economic performance? Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(4), 1165–1184. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12725
28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04177-w
29. El Khoury, R., Nasrallah, N. & Alareeni, B. (2023). ESG and financial performance of banks in the MENAT region: concavity–convexity patterns. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 13(1), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1929807
30. Elmghaamez, I. K., Nwachukwu, J. & Ntim, C. G. (2024). ESG disclosure and financial performance of multinational enterprises: the moderating effect of board standing committees. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 29(3), 3593-3638. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2846
31. Elsayed, K. & Paton, D. (2005). The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: Static and dynamic panel data evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2004.04.004
32. Esteban-Sanchez, P., Cuesta-Gonzalez, M. de la & Paredes-Gazquez, J. D. (2017). Corporate social performance and its relation with corporate financial performance: international evidence in the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1102–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.127
33. Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á. & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2016). The effect of environmental, social and governance consistency on economic results. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101005
34. Fujii, H., Iwata, K., Kaneko, S. & Managi, S. (2013). Corporate environmental and economic performance of Japanese manufacturing firms: empirical study for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1747
35. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600102
36. Han, J. J., Kim, H. J., & Yu, J. (2016). Empirical study on relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Korea. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 1(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-016-0002-3
37. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258963
38. Hayam, W. (2008). Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(2), 89–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.153
39. Hoepner, A., Oikonomou, I., Scholtens, B. & Schröder, M. (2016). The effects of corporate and country sustainability characteristics on the cost of debt: an international investigation. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 43(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12183
40. Hu, Y., Chen, S., Shao, Y. & Gao, S. (2018). CSR and firm value: evidence from China. Sustainability, 10(12), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124597
41. IEA (2023). CO2 emissions in 2022. https://doi.org/10.1787/12ad1e1a-en
42. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
43. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf
44. IPCC (2019). Global warming of 1.5°C. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf
45. Jha, M. K. & Rangarajan, K. (2020). Analysis of corporate sustainability performance and corporate financial performance causal linkage in the Indian context. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-020-00038-z
46. Jucá, M. N., Muren, P. D., Valentinčič, A. & Ichev, R. (2024). The impact of ESG controversies on the financial performance of firms: an analysis of industry and country clusters. Borsa Istanbul Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.08.001
47. Kim, W. S., Park, K. & Lee, S. H. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and firm value: evidence from Korea. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072497
48. Kim, Y. & Statman, M. (2015). Do corporations invest enough in environmental responsibility?. Journal of Business Ethics, July 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0954-2
49. Lahouel, B. B., Bruna, M. & Zaied, Y. Ben. (2020). The curvilinear relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: an investigation of listed french firms using panel smooth transition model. Finance Research Letters, 35(February), 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101455
50. Lu, L. W. & Taylor, M. E. (2018). A study of the relationships among environmental performance, environmental disclosure, and financial performance. Asian Review of Accounting, 26(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-01-2016-0010
51. Mahoney, L. & Roberts, R. W. (2007). Corporate social performance, financial performance and institutional ownership in Canadian firms. Accounting Forum, 31(3), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2007.05.001
52. Makni, R., Francoeur, C. & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0007-7
53. Makridou, G., Doumpos, M. & Lemonakis, C. (2024). Relationship between ESG and corporate financial performance in the energy sector: empirical evidence from European companies. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(4), 873-895. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-01-2023-0012
54. Martínez-Ferrero, J. & Lozano, M.-B. (2021). The nonlinear relation between institutional ownership and environmental, social and governance performance in emerging countries. Sustainability, 13(3), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031586
55. Mcwilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (1997). The role of money managers in assessing corporate social reponsibility. The Journal of Investing, 6(4), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.1997.408440
56. Misani, N. & Pogutz, S. (2015). Unraveling the effects of environmental outcomes and processes on fi nancial performance: a non-linear approach. Ecological Economics, 109, 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.010
57. Nollet, J., Filis, G. & Mitrokostas, E. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: a non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.09.019
58. Nuber, C., Velte, P. & Hörisch, J. (2020). The curvilinear and time-lagging impact of sustainability performance on financial performance: Evidence from Germany. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1795
59. Palmer, K., Oates, W. & Portney, P. (1995). Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 119–132. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138393
60. Pekovic, S., Grolleau, G. & Mzoughi, N. (2018). Environmental investments: too much of a good thing?. International Journal of Production Economics, 197(January), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.01.012
61. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1240. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
62. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae
63. Pierce, J. R. & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060
64. Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R. & Mohammad, S. (2018). The impact of corporate docial responsibility disclosure on financial performance: evidence from the gcc islamic banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3229-0
65. Porter, M. & Van Der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134. http://hbr.org/product/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate/an/95507-PDF-ENG
66. Preston, L. E. & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: a typology and analysis. Business and Society, 36(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600406
67. Pulino, S. C., Ciaburri, M., Magnanelli, B. S. & Nasta, L. (2022). Does ESG disclosure influence firm performance?. Sustainability, 14(13), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137595
68. Ramanathan, R. (2018). Understanding complexity: the curvilinear relationship between environmental performance and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3088-8
69. Ramić, H. (2019). Relationship between ESG performance and financial performance of companies: an overview of the issue [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. University of Lausanne.
70. Rao, A., Dagar, V., Sohag, K., Dagher, L. & Tanin, T. I. (2023). Good for the planet, good for the wallet: the ESG impact on financial performance in India. Finance Research Letters, 56, 104093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104093
71. Saha, A. K. & Khan, I. (2024). Sustainable prosperity: unravelling the Nordic nexus of ESG, financial performance, and corporate governance. European Business Review, 0955-534X. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2023-0276
72. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. M. & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007
73. Saygılı, E., Arslan, S. & Birkan, A. O. (2022). ESG practices and corporate financial performance: evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 525-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.07.001
74. Schaltegger, S. & Synnestvedt, T. (2002). The link between “green” and economic success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)90555-4
75. Shakil, M., Mahmood, N. & Tasnia, M. (2019). Do environmental, social and governance performance affect the financial performance of banks? A cross-country study of emerging market banks. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(6), 1331–1344. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2018-0155
76. Shen, F., Ma, Y., Wang, R., Pan, N. & Meng, Z. (2019). Does environmental performance affect financial performance? Evidence from Chinese listed companies in heavily polluting industries. Quality and Quantity, 53(4), 1941–1958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00849-x
77. Sokil, O., Zvezdov, D., Zhuk, V., Kucherkova, S. & Sakhno, L. (2020). Social and environmental costs: the impact of accounting and analytical support on enterprises’ sustainable development in Germany and Ukraine. Economic Annals-XXI, 181(1–2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V181-11
78. Sun, W., Yao, S. & Govind, R. (2019). Reexamining corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: the inverted ‑ u ‑ shaped relationship and the moderation capability. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 1001–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3854-x
79. Surroca, J. & Tribó, J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35(5–6), 748–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2008.02090.x
80. Swamy, P. (1971). Statistical inference in random coefficient regression models. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-80653-7
81. Teng, X., Ge, Y., Wu, K. S., Chang, B. G., Kuo, L. & Zhang, X. (2022). Too little or too much? Exploring the inverted U-shaped nexus between voluntary environmental, social and governance and corporate financial performance. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10(August), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721
82. Thomson Reuters. (2018). Thomson reuters esg scores methodology. Thomson Reuters Eikon (Issue May).
83. Topaloğlu, E. E. & Korkmaz, T. (2021). Politik riskin doğrudan yabanci yatirimlar ve pay piyasasi endeks getirilerine etkisi: G7 ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1, 97-115.
84. Trumpp, C. & Guenther, T. (2017). Too little or too much? Exploring u-shaped relationships between corporate environmental performance and corporate financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900
85. Tzouvanas, P., Kizys, R., Chatziantoniou, I. & Sagitova, R. (2020). Environmental and financial performance in the European manufacturing sector: An analysis of extreme tail dependency. British Accounting Review, 52(6), 100863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100863
86. Xu, Y. & Zhu, N. (2024). The Effect of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on corporate financial performance in China: based on the perspective of innovation and financial constraints. Sustainability, 16(8), 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083329
87. Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance ? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 80(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-11-2016-0029
88. Wagner, M. (2003). The influence of iso 14001 and emas certification on environmental and economic performance of firms: an empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 146, 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0197-7_16
89. Wagner, M. (2005). How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.021
90. Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Wehrmeyer, W., Wagner, M. & Schaltegger, S. (2001). The relationship between the environmental and economic: What does theory propose and what does empirical evidence tell us ?. Greener Management International, 34, 95–108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/greemanainte.34.95
91. Wales, W., Parida, V. & Pankaj, P. (2013). Too much of a good thing? Absorptive capacity, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 622–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
92. Wang, Q., Chen, H., Xue, Y. & Liang, H. (2022). How corporate social responsibility affects firm performance: The inverted-u shape contingent on founder ceo. Sustainability, 14(18), 11340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811340
93. Wu, L., Shao, Z., Yang, C., Ding, T. & Zhang, W. (2020). The impact of CSR and financial distress on financial performance-evidence from chinese listed companies of the manufacturing industry. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176799
94. Zebian, T. (2021). ESG impact on financial performance: evidence from S&P 500. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, College of Islamic Studies.