Türkiye'deki Firmaların Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirliği ve Finansman Kararları: Dinamik Çok Denklemli Sistem Yaklaşımı

Öz

Amaç: Firmaların finansman kararlarını nasıl aldığı, çağdaş işletme finansmanının temel konularından biridir. Bu çalışma, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının firmaların finansman kararlarını nasıl etkilediğini ampirik olarak incelemektedir. Yöntem: Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansı, çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ÇSY) puanlarıyla ölçülmüştür. Örneklem, 2008-2022 yılları arasında Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören finans dışı şirketlerden oluşmaktadır. Ampirik modeller, dinamik çoklu denklem sistemi çerçevesinde görünürde ilgisiz regresyon yöntemiyle tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular: Sonuçlar, ESG performansı yüksek firmaların uzun vadeli yatırımlarda özsermaye finansmanını, kısa vadeli yatırımlarda ise nakit rezervlerini tercih ettiğini göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, ESG performansı güçlü şirketlerin vadelerin uyuşması ilkesine bağlı kalarak uzun vadeli yatırımlarda özsermayeye, kısa vadeli ihtiyaçlarda ise nakit rezervlerine yöneldiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç: ESG stratejilerini benimseyen firmaların, finansal belirsizlikler karşısında finansman kararlarını optimize ederek operasyonel verimliliklerini sürdürebildiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finansman Kararları
• Sermaye Yapısı
• Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik
• ÇSY
• Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon

Corporate Sustainability and Financing Decisions of Firms in Turkiye: A Dynamic Multi-Equation System Approach

Öz

Aim: How companies make financing decisions is a fundamental issue in contemporary corporate finance. This paper empirically investigates how corporate sustainability performance influences firms' financing decisions. Method: We measure corporate sustainability performance using environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores. The sample includes publicly listed non-financial firms on Borsa Istanbul from 2008 to 2022. Empirical models were estimated using the seemingly unrelated regression method within a dynamic multiple equation system framework. Results: Results show that firms with higher ESG performance prefer equity financing for long-term investments and rely on cash reserves for short-term investments. These findings highlight that firms with stronger ESG performance seek to align with the maturity-matching principle by relying more on equity financing for long-term investments and use of cash reserves for short-term needs. Conclusion: These findings suggest that firms leveraging ESG strategies are better equipped to optimize their financing decisions and sustain operational efficiency amid financial uncertainties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Financing Decisions
• Capital Structure
• Corporate Sustainability
• ESG
• Seemingly unrelated regression

Kaynakça

1. APERGIS, N., POUFINAS, T., & ANTONOPOULOS, A. (2022). ESG scores and cost of debt. Energy Economics, 112, 106186. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106186.
2. ATIF, M., & ALI, S. (2021). Environmental, social and governance disclosure and default risk. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3937-3959. doi: 10.1002/bse.2850.
3. BAKER, M., & WURGLER, J. (2002). Market timing and capital structure. The journal of finance, 57(1), 1-32. doi: 10.1111/1540-6261.00414.
4. BENAVIDES, J., & BERGGRUN, L. (2012). Business financing in Colombia: The debt and equity mix. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 49, 17-29.
5. BENLEMLIH, M. (2017a). Corporate social responsibility and firm debt maturity. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 491-517. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2856-1.
6. BENLEMLIH, M. (2017b). Corporate social responsibility and firm financing decisions: A literature review. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 42, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.mulfin.2017.10.004.
7. BENLEMLIH, M., & CAI, L. (2020). Corporate environmental performance and financing decisions. Business Ethics: A European Review, 29(2), 248-265. doi: 10.1111/beer.12257.
8. CHEN, Y., LI, T., ZENG, Q., & ZHU, B. (2023). Effect of ESG performance on the cost of equity capital: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 83, 348-364. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2022.09.001.

9. CHENG, B., IOANNOU, I., & SERAFEIM, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic management journal, 35(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1002/smj.2131.
10. CHO , S., EL GHOUL, S., GUEDHAMI, O., & SUH, J. (2014). Creditor rights and capital structure: Evidence from international data. Journal of Corporate Finance, 25, 40-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.10.007.
11. CHOI, H., & SUH, J. (2017). Investment financing: evidence from Korea. Accounting & Finance, 57, 147-184. doi: 10.1111/acfi.12143.
12. CUI, J., JO, H., & NA, H. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility affect information asymmetry?. Journal of business ethics, 148, 549-572. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-3003-8.
13. EL GHOUL, S., GUEDHAMI, O., KWOK, C. C., & MISHRA, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?. Journal of banking & finance, 35(9), 2388-2406. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007.
14. ELSAS, R., FLANNERY, M., & GARFINKEL, J. (2014). Financing major investments: Information about capital structure decisions. Review of Finance, 18(4), 1341-1386. doi: 10.1093/rof/rft036.
15. FRANK, M. Z., & GOYAL, V. K. (2009). Capital structure decisions: which factors are reliably important?. Financial management, 38(1), 1-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-053X.2009.01026.x.
16. GATCHEV, V. A., SPINDT, P. A., & TARHAN, V. (2009). How do firms finance their investments?: The relative importance of equity issuance and debt contracting costs. Journal of Corporate Finance, 15(2), 179-195. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2008.11.001.
17. GATCHEV, V., PULVINO, T., & TARHAN, V. (2010). The interdependent and intertemporal nature of financial decisions: An application to cash flow sensitivities. The Journal of Finance, 65(2), 725-763. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01549.x.
18. GONÇALVES, T. C., DIAS, J., & BARROS, V. (2022). Sustainability performance and the cost of capital. International Journal of Financial Studies, 10(3), 63. doi: 10.3390/ijfs10030063.
19. GRAHAM, J. R., & HARVEY, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of financial economics, 60(2-3), 187-243. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00044-7.
20. HE, W. P., LEPONE, A., & LEUNG, H. (2013). Information asymmetry and the cost of equity capital. International Review of Economics & Finance, 27, 611-620. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.03.001.
21. JENSEN, M. C. & MECKLING, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.
22. JENSEN, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329.
23. KASHEFI‐POUR, E., AMINI, S., UDDIN, M., & DUXBURY, D. (2020). Does cultural difference affect investment–cash flow sensitivity? Evidence from OECD countries. British Journal of Management, 31(3), 636-658. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12394.
24. KRAUS, A., & LITZENBERGER, R. (1973). A state-preference of optimal capital structure and corporate debt capacity. Journal of Finance, 33, 45-63.
25. LEMMA, T. T., MUTTAKIN, M., & MIHRET, D. (2022). Environmental, social, and governance performance, national cultural values and corporate financing strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 373, 133821. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133821.
26. MODIGLIANI, F., & MILLER, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American economic review, 48(3), 261-297.
27. MOHAMMAD, W. M. W., & WASIUZZAMAN, S. (2021). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100015. doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100015.
28. MORELLI, J. (2011). Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of environmental sustainability, 1(1), 2.
29. MYERS, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of financial economics, 5(2), 147-175.
30. MYERS, S. C., & MAJLUF, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of financial economics, 13(2), 187-221.
31. MYERS. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39, 574–592.
32. ORMAN, C., & KÖKSAL, B. (2017). Debt maturity across firm types: Evidence from a major developing economy. Emerging Markets Review, 30, 169-199. doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2016.12.001.
33. ÖZER, G., & ÇAM, İ. (2021). Financing decisions of firms: the roles of legal systems, shareholder rights and creditor rights. Accounting & Finance, 61(2), 2717-2757. doi: 10.1111/acfi.12681.
34. PARK, K., & JANG, S. (2018). Pecking order puzzle: Restaurant firms’ unique financing behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 70, 99-109. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.014.
35. PRIEM, R., & GABELLONE, A. (2024). The impact of a firm’s ESG score on its cost of capital: can a high ESG score serve as a substitute for a weaker legal environment. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(3), 676-703. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2023-0254.
36. SAHA, S., HASAN, A. R., ISLAM, K. R., & PRIOM, M. A. I. (2024). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) practices and firms' financial performance: Moderating role of country governance. Green Finance, 6(1), 162-198. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024007.
37. WEN, H., LIU, Y., & LEE, C. C. (2024). How ESG performance affects maturity mismatches between investment and financing: Evidence from Chinese A-share listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 102412. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102412.
38. WILLIAMS, Z., & APOLLONIO, H. (2024). The causation dilemma in ESG research. Green Finance, 6(2), 265.
39. WU, M., & XIE, D. (2024). The impact of ESG performance on the credit risk of listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. Green Finance, 6(2), 199-218. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024011.
40. YILMAZ, I. (2022). ESG-based sustainability performance and its impact on cost of capital: International evidence from the energy sector. International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 12(2), 21-30. doi: 10.33094/ijaefa.v12i2.529.
41. ZELLNER, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American statistical Association, 57(298), 348-368.
42. ZHANG, F., LAI, X., & GUO, C. (2024). ESG disclosure and investment-financing maturity mismatch: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 70, 102312. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102312.