Gelişmekte Olan Piyasalarda ESG Skorları Borçlanma Maliyetine Nasıl Yansıyor? Toplam ve Alt Bileşen Düzeylerinde Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim Performansından Kanıtlar

Öz

Bu çalışma, BIST 100 endeksinde yer alan şirketleri incelemiştir. Ancak ilgili dönemde düzenli ESG verisi yalnızca 59 şirket için mevcut olduğundan analiz bu şirketler üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, söz konusu şirketlerin toplam ESG skorlarının ve çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim performanslarının 2019–2023 dönemindeki borçlanma maliyetleri üzerindeki etkisi değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı, gelişmekte olan piyasalardaki şirketlerin sürdürülebilirlik performansının kredi koşullarını nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma yönteminde, otokorelasyon, değişen varyans ve yatay kesit bağımlılığını kontrol eden dengeli bir panel veri analizi (PDA) rassal etkiler modeli kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, toplam ESG performansının ve çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim alt boyutlarının borçlanma maliyetlerini azaltmak yerine artırdığını göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, ESG maliyetlerinin kredi verenler tarafından bir risk unsuru olarak fiyatlandığını ve sürdürülebilirlik uygulamalarının kısa vadede finansman yükünü artırabileceğini düşündürmektedir. Çalışma, gelişmekte olan bir ekonomi bağlamında sürdürülebilir finans alanına yeni kanıtlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG
• sürdürülebilirlik performansı
• borçlanma maliyeti
• sürdürülebilir finans
• gelişmekte olan piyasalar
• kredi riski
• geçiş riski
• sermaye yapısı

How Do ESG Scores Affect the Cost of Debt in Emerging Markets? Evidence from Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance at the Aggregate and Component Levels

Öz

This study examined companies included in the BIST 100 index. However, because regular ESG data was available for only 59 companies during the relevant period, the analysis was conducted on these companies. In this context, the impact of these companies' total ESG scores and environmental, social, and governance performance on borrowing costs for the 2019-2023 period was evaluated.The study aims to reveal how the sustainability performance of companies in emerging markets affects credit conditions. A balanced panel data analysis (BDA) random effects model was used as the research method, controlling for autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and cross-sectional dependence. The findings indicate that total ESG and sub-dimension-level environmental, social, and governance performance increase, rather than decrease, borrowing costs. The results suggest that ESG costs are priced as a risk factor by creditors and that sustainability practices can increase the financing burden in the short term. The study provides new evidence for sustainable finance from an emerging economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG
• sustainability performance
• cost of debt
• sustainable finance
• emerging markets
• credit risk
• transitition risk
• capital structure

Kaynakça

1. Ademi, Klungseth, N. J. (2022). “Does it pay to deliver superior ESG performance? Evidence from US S&P 500 companies”. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(2), 127 152. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR 01 2022 0006
2. Adeneye, Y. B. Kamm oun, I. Ab Wahab, S. N. A. (2022). “Capital structure and speed of adjustment: The impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(5), 945 977. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ 01 2022 0060
3. Ahmad, H. Yaqub, M. Lee, S. (2023). “Environmental, social, and governance related factors for business investment and sustainability: A scientometric review”. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(2), 2965 2987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668 02302921 x
4. Akben Selçuk, E. (2019). “Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The mode rating role of ownership concentration in Turkey”. Sustainability, 11(13), 3643. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133643
5. Almeyda, R. Darmansya, A. (2019). “The influence of ESG disclosure on firm financial performance”. Journal of Proceedings Series, 5, 1 10. https://doi.org/10.12962/j23546026.y2019i5.6340
6. Atasel, O. Y. Güneysu, Y. (2023). “ESG performansı ile borç maliyeti ara sındaki ilişki”. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 16(2), 185 202. http://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1196945
7. Attig, N. El Ghoul, S. Guedhami, O. Suh, J. (2013). “Corporate soci al responsibility and credit ratings”. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 679 694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551 013 1714 2
8. Bergh, D. D. Ketchen, D. J. Orlandi, I. Heugens, P. Bo yd, B. (2018). “Information asymmetry in management research”. Journal of Management, 45(1), 122 158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318798026

9. Bhattacharya, S. Sharma, D. (2019). “Do ESG performance indicators impact credit ratings?”. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(3), 466 484. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES 09 2018 0130
10. Breusch, T. S. Pagan, A. R. (1979 ). “A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation”. Econometrica, 47 5 ), 1287 1294
11. Brogi, M. Lagasio, V. Porretta, P. (2022). “ESG awareness as a credit risk mitigation factor”. Journal of International Financial Management & A ccounting, 33(3), 522 547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12156
12. Bhutta, N. Ringo, D. (2017). “The effect of interest rates on home buying”. Finance and Economics Discussion Series, 2017(086), 1 5 3. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.086
13. Borsa İstanbul. (2014). “BIST Sustainability Index ground rules”. https://www.borsaistanbul.com (Accessed on February 1 7 ,
14. Boyson, N. M. Gantchev, N. Shivdasani, A. (2017). “Activism mergers ”. Journal of Financial Economics, 126(1), 54 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.06.008
15. Bridoux, F. Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). “Stakeholder governance”. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 214 236. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0441
16. Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (CMB). (2020). “Sustainability Principles Compliance Communiqué (II 17.1a)”. Official Gazette No. 31262. (Accessed on February 17,
17. CDP. (2022). “CDP disclosure framework and scoring methodology 2022”. https://www.cdp.nethttps://www.cdp.net (Accessed on February 1(Accessed on February 177, 2025), 2025)
18. Chen, Y. (2024). “The impact of the COVID--19 epi19 epidemic on the U.S. senior housing market”. demic on the U.S. senior housing market”. Highlights in Business Economics and Management, 28, 198Highlights in Business Economics and Management, 28, 198––203. 203. https://doi.org/10.54097/4gj5zm64https://doi.org/10.54097/4gj5zm64
19. Chow, G. C. (1960). “Tests of equality between sets of coefficients”. Econometrica, 28(3), 591fficients”. Econometrica, 28(3), 591––605. 605. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910133https://doi.org/10.2307/1910133
20. Colwell, S. R. –– Joshi, A. W. (2011). “Corporate ecological responsiveness”. Business Strategy Joshi, A. W. (2011). “Corporate ecological responsiveness”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(2), 7and the Environment, 22(2), 733––91. 91. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.732https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.732
21. Cooper, I. A. –– Davydenko, S. (2001). “The cost of debt”. Rotman School of Management. Davydenko, S. (2001). “The cost of debt”. Rotman School of Management. SSRN: SSRN: https://shttps://ssrn.com/abstract=254974srn.com/abstract=254974 or or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.254974http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.254974
22. Scholtens, B. (2016). “ESG integration in investment processes”. Journal of Business Ethics, 138,Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 525525––533. 533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551--015015--26102610--88
23. Drempetic, S. –– Klein, C. Klein, C. –– Zwergel, B. (2020). “The influence of firm size on ESG scores”. Zwergel, B. (2020). “The influence of firm size on ESG scores”. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 333Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 333––360. 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551--019019--0416404164--11
24. Driscoll, J. C. –– Kraay, A. C. (1998). “Covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent Kraay, A. C. (1998). “Covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(panel data”. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(44), ), 549549––560560..
25. Drover, W. –– Wood, M. Wood, M. –– Corbett, A. C. (2017). “A cognitive view of signalling theory”. Journal Corbett, A. C. (2017). “A cognitive view of signalling theory”. Journal of Management Studies, 55(2), 209of Management Studies, 55(2), 209––231. 231. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12282https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12282
26. Eccles, R. G. . –– Klimenko, S. (Klimenko, S. (20192019). “The investor revolution”. Harvard Business Review, ). “The investor revolution”. Harvard Business Review, 9797((33), ), 106106––116116..
27. El Ghoul, S. –– Guedhami, O. Guedhami, O. –– Kwok, C. C. Kwok, C. C. –– Mishra, D. R. (2011). “Does CSR affect the cost of Mishra, D. R. (2011). “Does CSR affect the cost of capital?”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388capital?”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388––2406. Available2406. Available at SSRN: at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1546755https://ssrn.com/abstract=1546755
28. Eliwa, Y. –– Aboud, A. Aboud, A. –– Saleh, A. (2021). “ESG practices and the cost of debt”. Critical Saleh, A. (2021). “ESG practices and the cost of debt”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 79, 102097. Perspectives on Accounting, 79, 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102097https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102097
29. Ermilova, M. –– Rebeka, E. Rebeka, E. –– Rodiontsev, R. (2024). “ESG risk assessment in construction Rodiontsev, R. (2024). “ESG risk assessment in construction companies”. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(8), 34companies”. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(8), 34––45. 45. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i8.4709https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i8.4709
30. European Commission. (2022a). “Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)”. https://eurhttps://eur--lex.europa.eu/elex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/ojli/dir/2022/2464/oj (Accessed on February 17, 2025)(Accessed on February 17, 2025)