TÜRKİYE BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜNDE ESG SKORLARI VE MUHASEBE TEMELLİ FİNANSAL PERFORMANS: PANEL NEDENSELLİKTEN KANITLAR

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye bankacılık sektöründe Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ESG) performansı ile muhasebe temelli finansal performans arasındaki nedensellik ilişkilerini ampirik olarak incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda, Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören ve kesintisiz veri akışı sağlayan 6 mevduat bankasının 2009–2023 dönemine ait verileri, yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve birimler arası heterojenliği dikkate alan Emirmahmutoğlu-Köse panel Granger nedensellik testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Muhasebe temelli finansal performans göstergeleri olarak aktif kârlılığı ve özsermaye kârlılığı kullanılmış, banka büyüklüğü ise ESG göstergeleri ve finansal performans değişkenleriyle olan nedensellik ilişkilerinin ayrıca incelenmesi amacıyla analize dâhil edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, ESG performansının finansal sonuçlar üzerindeki etkisinin homojen olmadığını ve alt bileşenlere göre belirgin biçimde farklılaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Toplam ESG skorunun bir dönem gecikmeli değerinden aktif kârlılığına doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilirken, çevresel performans ile aktif kârlılığı, yönetişim skoru ile aktif kârlılığı ve sosyal performans ile özsermaye kârlılığı arasında ise çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkileri belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, Yönetişim bileşeninin finansal performansın en güçlü belirleyicisi olduğunu gösterirken, sürdürülebilirlik uygulamalarının bankalar için pasif bir halkla ilişkiler unsuru olmanın ötesinde, uzun vadeli değer yaratımını destekleyen stratejik bir yatırım aracı olarak değerlendirilebileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG Performansı
• Finansal Performans
• Nedensellik Analizi
• Bankacılık Sektörü
• Sürdürülebilirlik Ekonomisi

ESG SCORES AND ACCOUNTING-BASED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE IN TURKISH BANKING: EVIDENCE FROM PANEL CAUSALITY

Öz

This study aims to empirically investigate the causal relationships between Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance and accounting-based financial performance in the Turkish banking sector. To this end, data from 6 commercial banks listed on Borsa Istanbul with uninterrupted data availability for the 2009–2023 period are analyzed using the Emirmahmutoğlu-Köse panel Granger causality test, which accounts for cross-sectional dependence and country/unit heterogeneity. Return on assets and return on equity were used as accounting-based financial performance indicators, while bank size was included in the analysis to examine its causality relationships with ESG indicators and financial performance variables separately. The empirical findings reveal that the impact of ESG performance on financial outcomes is non-homogeneous and varies significantly across its sub-components. A unidirectional causality relationship was identified from the one-period lagged value of the overall ESG score to return on assets (ROA), whereas bidirectional causality relationships were found between environmental performance and ROA, governance score and ROA, and social performance and return on equity (ROE). The findings indicate that the Governance dimension is the strongest determinant of financial performance, while also suggesting that sustainability practices may be regarded as a strategic investment tool that supports long-term value creation for banks, rather than merely serving as a passive public relations instrument.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG Performance
• Financial Performance
• Causality Analysis
• Banking Sector
• Sustainability Economics

Kaynakça

1. Alghafes, R., Karim, S., Aliani, K., Qureishi, N., & Alkayed, L. (2024). Influence of key ESG factors on Islamic banks’ financial performance: Evidence from GCC countries. International Review of Economics & Finance, 96, 103629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.103629
2. Arslan, Z., & Yağcılar, G. G. (2023). Sürdürülebilir finans kapsamında çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ESG) ile banka kârlılığı arasındaki ilişki üzerine uluslararası bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(40), 1236-1263. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1218886
3. Bătae, O. M., Dragomir, V. D., & Feleagă, L. (2020). Environmental, social, governance (ESG), and financial performance of European banks. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(3), 480-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2020.03003
4. 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, 10(12), 4699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124699
5. Bruna, M. G., Loprevite, S., Raucci, D., Ricca, B., & Rupo, D. (2022). Investigating the marginal impact of ESG results on corporate financial performance. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102828
6. 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
7. Candio, P. (2024). The influence of ESG score on financial performance: Evidence from the European health care industry. Strategic Change, 33(5), 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2594
8. Chang, T., Gupta, R., Inglesi-Lotz, R., Masabala, L. S., Simo-Kengne, B. D., & Weideman, J. P. (2016). The causal relationship between natural gas consumption and economic growth: evidence from the G7 countries. Applied Economics Letters, 23(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2015.1047085

9. Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review: HB Christensen et al. Review of accounting studies, 26(3), 1176-1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
10. Citterio, A., & King, T. (2023). The role of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) in predicting bank financial distress. Finance Research Letters, 51, 103411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103411
11. Çelik, H., & Ertürkmen, G. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme ve İhracatın Co2 Salınımı Üzerindeki Etkisi: Seçili Mena Ülkeleri Örneği (1980-2016). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(3), 1928-1947. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.929324
12. Çetenak, E. H., Ersoy, E., & Işık, Ö. (2022). ESG (çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim) skorunun firma performansına etkisi: türk bankacılık sektörü örneği. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (63), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1212587
13. Çetenak, E. H., Aytaç, A., & Yağlı, İ. (2023). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetişim (ESG) değerlerinin banka performansı üzerine etkisi: ABD bankaları örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(2), 424-434. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1136191
14. Demez, S., & Polat, İ. H. (2021). MINT ülkelerinde savunma harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Panel nedensellik analizi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 9(3), 1032-1044. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v9i3.1871
15. Dragomir, V. D., Bătae, O. M., Ionescu, B. Ș., & Ionescu-Feleagă, L. (2022). THE influence of ESG factors on financial performance ın the banking sector during the covıd-19 pandemic. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 56(4). DOI: 10.24818/18423264/56.4.22.05
16. Emirmahmutoglu, F., & Kose, N. (2011). Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
17. 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 & Investment, 13(1), 406-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1929807
18. Goldschmidt, N., & Homann, K. (2011). Die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung der Unternehmen. München: Roman-Herzog Institut., https://ordosocialis.de/wp-content/uploads/RHI_Position_10.pdf (02.11.2025).
19. Göçer, İ. (2013). Teknolojik ilerlemenin belirleyicileri: NIC ülkeleri için panel eşbütünleşme ve panel nedensellik analizleri. Journal of Finance Letters/Maliye Finans Yazıları Dergisi, 27(100).
20. Gutiérrez-Ponce, H., & Wibowo, S. A. (2023). Do sustainability activities affect the financial performance of banks? The case of Indonesian banks. Sustainability, 15(8), 6892. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086892
21. Gurdal, T., Aydin, M., & Inal, V. (2021). The relationship between tax revenue, government expenditure, and economic growth in G7 countries: new evidence from time and frequency domain approaches. Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, 54(2), 305-337. DOI: 10.1007/s10644-020-09280-x
22. Gündüz, M. & Gündüz, M. (2025). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik ve firma performansı: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(3), 1245-1262. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1640643
23. Hoffman, B. N. (2020). Focus online, ESG-kriterien definition und erklärung des nachhaltigkeits-ratings, https://praxistipps.focus.de/esg-kriterien-definition-und-erklaerung-des-nachhaltigkeits-ratings_125412. (13.11.2025).
24. Homann, K., Lütge, C., Pies, I., Kummert, I., Fuest, C., Sinn, H. W., ... & Wolf, A. (2008). Die Ethik in der Wirtschaft. Lexikon der ökonomischen Bildung, 7, 199-201.
25. İbrahimov, E., & Akçalı, B. Y. (2025). ESG kriterlerinin banka finansal performansı üzerindeki etkisi: türkiye bankacılık sektörü üzerine ampirik bir inceleme. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17(2), 1794-1815. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2025.2065
26. Kettner-Marx, C., Kletzan-Slamanig, D. & Köppl, A.(2018). Umweltregulierung – Eine Chance für den Standort?, https://www.ak-umwelt.at/schwerpunkt/?article=772&issue=2018-01 (16.10.2025).
27. Kim, E. H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization science, 26(3), 705-723. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0949
28. Kiracı, K., & Bakır, M. (2019). Causal relationship between air transport and economic growth: Evidence from panel data for high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income countries. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 22(3). DOI: 10.5782/2223-2621.2019.22.3.24
29. Koçoğlu, M., & Doyar, B. V. (2020). Bootstrap panel causality testing of tourism and GDP nexus for upper-middle income countries. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 11(Ek), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.722021
30. Liu, J., & Xie, J. (2024). The effect of ESG performance on bank liquidity risk. Sustainability, 16(12), 4927. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124927
31. Loan, B. T. T., Anh, T. T. L., & Hoang, T. (2024). ESG disclosure and financial performance: empirical study of Vietnamese commercial banks. Banks and Bank Systems, 19(1), 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.19(1).2024.18
32. Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2023). ESG dimensions and bank performance: an empirical investigation in Italy. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(3), 563-586. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2022-0094
33. Onocak, D. (2024). Türkiye’deki mevduat bankalarının entropi ağırlıklandırmalı Camels ve ESG performans analizi. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 24(72), 19-42. https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1290277
34. Öztürk, Ö. F. (2021). The Interaction Shadow Economy And Economic Growth In Brics Countries And Turkey: A Panel Causality Analysis. Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics and Empiricial Economics Journal, Vol. 19, p.1-14. https://doi.org/10.17740/eas.stat.2021-V19-01
35. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
36. Perdana, M., Salim, U., Ratna, K., & Rofiq, A. (2023, July). The effect of environmental social governance (esg) performance and financial performance on firm value: Evidence from the banking sector in ASEAN. In 1st Brawijaya International Conference on Business and Law (BICoBL 2022) (pp. 183-193). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/978-94-6463-214-9_20
37. Pies, I. (2008). Marktkonforme Unternehmensverantwortung – kritische Anregungen zur CSR-Debatte. ifo Schnelldienst 24 / 2018, 71. Jahrgang, https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/sd-2018-24-12-20.pdf
38. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
39. Promberger, K., & Spiess, H. (2006). Der Einfluss von corporate social (and ecological) responsibility auf den Unternehmenserfolg, https://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2010/2291/pdf/csr_working_paper.pdf.
40. Salem, M. R., Shahimi, S., & Alma’amun, S. (2024). Does mediation matter in explaining the relationship between ESG and bank financial performance? A scoping review. Journal of risk and financial management, 17(8), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17080350
41. Shakil, M. H., Mahmood, N., Tasnia, M., & Munim, Z. H. (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
42. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The accounting review, 84(3), 937-967. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
43. Stine, R. A. (1987). Estimating properties of autoregressive forecasts. Journal of the American statistical association, 82(400), 1072-1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478542
44. Şimşek, O. & Çankaya, S. (2021). ESG puanları ile bankalardaki finansal performans arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: G8 ülkelerinden kanıtlar. Press Acad. Procedia, 169-170. DOI: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2021.1524
45. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
46. Tóth, B., Lippai-Makra, E., Szládek, D., & Kiss, G. D. (2021). The contribution of ESG information to the financial stability of European banks. Pénzügyı Szemle/Publıc Fınance Quarterly (1963-), 66(3), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.35551/PFQ_2021_3_7
47. Türkdönmez, C. S., & Babuşçu, Ş. (2019). Bankaların kârlılık performansını etkileyen faktörler. Başkent Üniversitesi Ticari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 37-54.
48. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.
49. Yağış, O. (2023). Finansal Gelişme ve Doğrudan Yabancı Sermaye Yatırımlarının Ekolojik Ayakizi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri, 9(19), 200-215.
50. Zaman, S., & Ellili, N. O. D. (2022). The effect of ESG disclosure on the financial performance of UAE banks. Available at SSRN 4043024. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4043024
51. www.lseg.com Erişim Tarihi: 01.10.2025