GELİŞMEKTE OLAN BİR HİSSE SENEDİ PİYASASINDA ESG, RİSK VE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK YAKINSAMASI: BIST’TEN KANITLAR

Öz

Bu çalışma, Borsa İstanbul hisse senedi piyasasında Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ESG) faktörlerinin rolünü incelemekte; ESG’nin hisse getirilerini etkileyip etkilemediğini, firma büyüklüğü ile ilişkisini ve zaman içinde yakınsama gösterip göstermediğini analiz etmektedir. 2018–2024 döneminde büyük ölçekli Türk şirketlerine ait zaman değişkenli S&P Global ESG skorları, hisse getirileri ve firma özellikleri kullanılarak panel, kesitsel ve portföy yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, ESG skorları ile hisse getirileri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığını; ilişkinin genellikle negatif ancak zayıf ve tutarsız olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, ESG performansı ile firma büyüklüğü arasında güçlü ve pozitif bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir; bu durum, daha büyük firmaların daha fazla kaynak ve kurumsal kapasiteye sahip olmaları nedeniyle ESG uygulamalarını benimseme ve raporlama olasılıklarının daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, başlangıçta düşük ESG skorlarına sahip firmaların zaman içinde daha fazla iyileşme gösterdiği ve bu durumun yakalama etkisini desteklediği bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, ESG’nin firma yapısı ve yakınsama dinamikleriyle ilişkili olduğu, ancak henüz hisse getirilerine yansımadığı anlaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG
• Gelişmekte Olan Piyasalar
• Borsa İstanbul
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Varlık Fiyatlama

Destekleyen Kurum

Istanbul Ticaret University

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul onayı gerekmemektedir; çünkü araştırma insan katılımcılardan veya hayvanlardan veri toplamayı içermemekte, herhangi bir deneysel müdahale barındırmamakta ve kamuya açık ikincil kaynaklar kullanılarak yürütülmüştür (örneğin: yalnızca doküman analizi / kamuya açık kurumsal raporların kullanımı / anket veya gözlem bulunmaması).

ESG, RISK AND SUSTAINABILITY CONVERGENCE IN EMERGING EQUITY MARKET: EVIDENCE FROM BIST

Öz

This research explores the impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) on the stock market of Borsa Istanbul, including the influence of ESG on stock returns, association with firm size, and convergence. The study employs time-varying ESG scores from S&P Global for large-listed Turkish firms from 2018 to 2024, stock returns, and firm-specific information, using panel, cross-sectional and portfolio approaches. Results show that ESG scores do not relate to stock returns, with the estimated effect being negative, insignificant and unstable. However, ESG performance is positively associated with firm size, suggesting that larger firms, which have more resources and institutional stability, are more likely to pursue and disclose ESG practices. Also, firms with lower starting ESG scores show larger increases in ESG scores, confirming a convergence effect in ESG practices. In conclusion, the findings indicate that although ESG is associated with firm structure and convergence in Borsa Istanbul, it is not incorporated into stock prices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ESG
• Gelişmekte Olan Piyasalar
• Borsa İstanbul
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Varlık Fiyatlama

Destekleyen Kurum

Istanbul Ticaret University

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study, as the research did not involve data collection from human participants or animals, did not include any experimental intervention, and was conducted using publicly available secondary sources (for example: document analysis only / use of publicly available institutional reports / absence of surveys or observations).

Kaynakça

1. Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103.
2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
3. Arellano, M. (2003). Panel data econometrics. Oxford University Press.
4. Auer, B. R., & Schuhmacher, F. (2016). Do socially (ir)responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 59, 51–62.
5. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
6. Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 223–251.
7. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
8. Białkowski, J., & Starks, L. T. (2016). SRI funds: Investor demand, exogenous shocks and ESG profiles (Working Papers in Economics No. 16/11). University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.

9. Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549.
10. Broadstock, D. C., Chan, K., Cheng, L. T. W., & Wang, X. (2021). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38, Article 101716.
11. Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). The econometrics of financial markets. Princeton University Press.
12. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Petit, A. (2019). Every little helps? ESG news and stock market reaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 543–565.
13. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1–23.
14. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.
15. Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76.
16. Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.
17. Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019). Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(3), 693–714.
18. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
19. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.
20. Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64.
21. Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499–516.
22. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
23. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2,000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.
24. Giese, G., Lee, L.-E., Melas, D., Nagy, Z., & Nishikawa, L. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83.
25. Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
26. Heinkel, R., Kraus, A., & Zechner, J. (2001). The effect of green investment on corporate behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(4), 431–449.
27. Hong, H., & Kacperczyk, M. (2009). The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), 15–36.
28. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081.
29. Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441–456.
30. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724.
31. Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3), 761–796.
32. Kumar, N., Smith, C., Badis, L., Wang, N., Ambrosy, P., & Tavares, R. (2016). ESG factors and risk-adjusted performance: A new quantitative model. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 6(4), 292–300.
33. Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and sustainable finance: A review of the literature (ECGI Finance Working Paper No. 701/2020). European Corporate Governance Institute.
34. Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
35. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good … and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Harvard Business School.
36. Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2021). Sustainable investing in equilibrium. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 550–571.
37. Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.
38. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
39. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.
40. Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008). Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6), 569–592.
41. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137–163.
42. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
43. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.
44. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
45. Yu, E. P., Guo, C. Q., & Luu, B. V. (2018). Environmental, social and governance transparency and firm value. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 987–1004.