Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/155519
|
| Title: | ESG評鑑差異與公司財務績效
Differences among ESG Ratings and Corporate Financial Performance |
| Authors: | 林子辰
Lin, Zih-Chen |
| Contributors: | 蘇威傑
Su, Wei-Chieh
林子辰
Lin, Zih-Chen |
| Keywords: | 永續
評鑑差異
企業財務績效
ESG
ESG Disagreement
Corporate Financial Performance |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-02-04 16:14:22 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本篇論文首先探討企業於ESG評等機構取得之分數與財務績效間的關係，並將企業的財務績效以資產報酬率與Tobin’s Q做為衡量。根據過往文獻指出，不同的ESG評等機構在對於企業永續投入進行評等時，皆設定各自的資訊來源、關注的議題指標以及運算的權重與方法，因此永續評等存在不一致之情形。有鑑於此，本篇研究進一步探討企業在不同評分機構間取得分數不一致與財務績效間之關係。最後，此篇研究也討論企業於不同評等機構所取得ESG分數之平均與財務績效間的關係。
本研究樣本組成為臺灣企業，期間為2017年至2022年，年有效樣本數共有649筆。在自變數方面，本研究採用台灣經濟新報、Refinitiv以及S&P所公布之ESG評等，並利用企業於此三間評等機構取得分數的標準差與平均值分別作為ESG總分與各構面分數之不一致與ESG平均。
研究結果顯示：當應變數為Tobin’s Q時，納入控制變數後，三間評等機構ESG總分、治理面分數與財務績效呈現正相關。環境面與社會面分數則依據評等機構不同，在結果的顯著性與正負關係上具有差異。當應變數之財務績效換為以資產報酬率衡量時，ESG總分再納入控制變數後呈現顯著正相關係。然而，在環境面、社會面與治理面分數，三間評等機構與資產報酬率之顯著關係皆不盡相同。
在ESG評鑑差異的部分，當應變數為Tobin’s Q時，ESG總分不一致，在納入控制變數前與財務績效呈現正相關，環境面分數、社會面分數與治理面分數的不一致，則是在納入控制變數後，與應變數呈現顯著正向關係。當應變數之財務績效換為以資產報酬率衡量時，ESG總分、社會面分數、治理面分數於三間評等機構之不一致在納入控制變數前後皆呈現顯著與穩定的正向關係。
最後，在ESG評等平均方面，當企業財務績效以Tobin’s Q進行衡量時與ESG平均分數呈現正向關係。
The present essay shall first investigate the relationship between ESG scores from different rating agencies and corporate financial performances measured by return on assets (ROA) and Tobin’s Q. Additionally, ESG scores computed across different ESG scoring agencies tend to have divergent rating methodologies, which could cause the ESG disagreements. This research further analyzed the relationship between ESG disagreement and corporate financial performance. Lastly, the average of ESG scores derived from different ESG rating agencies were used to know the effect of the ESG average score on corporate financial performance.
The sample was composed of Taiwanese companies from 2017 to 2022 with 649 firm-year in total. Moreover, ESG scores from Taiwan Economic Journal, Refinitiv, and S&P were collected to be the explanatory variables. Furthermore, the standard deviation and average computed among the ESG scores derived from three rating agencies mentioned above, were conducted to be the ESG disagreement and ESG average, respectively.
Based on the results of regressions, ESG combined scores and Governance scores from three rating agencies all indicated a positive relationship with corporate financial performance measured by Tobin’s Q after including control variables. On the other hand, when corporate financial performances were measured by ROA, the relationships between ESG scores provided by three rating agencies tended to be divergent.
On top of the results of ESG scores derived from rating agencies, ESG disagreement showed a positive relationship with Tobin’s Q, which was robust to the consideration of control variables. Additionally, the disagreements on Environmental, Social and Governance pillar showed a positive relationship with Tobin’s Q after including control variables. In contrast, when the dependent variable was set to be ROA, the results illustrated positive relationships with disagreements on ESG combined score, Social and Governance pillar. Moreover, the results were robust to the inclusion of control variables.
Finally, the average ESG score between three mentioned rating agencies indicated a positive relationship with Tobin’s Q. |
| Reference: | Berg, F., Kolbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG rating. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
Brogi, M., & Lagasio, V. (2019). Environmental, social, and governance and company profitability: Are financial intermediaries different? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 576–587.
Brown, W.O., Helland, E. and Smith, J.K. (2006). Corporate Philanthropic Practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5), pp.855–877. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2006.02.001.
Buallay, A., Al-Ajmi, J., & Barone, E. (2021). Sustainability engagement’s impact on tourism sector performance: Linear and nonlinear models. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(2).
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2021). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56.
Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621–640.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(04), 409–421.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Jyoti, G., & Khanna, A. (2021). Does sustainability perforcmance impact financial performance? Evidence from indian service sector firms. Sustainable Development, 29(6).
Zahid, R. M. A., Taran, A., Khan, M. K., & Chersan, I.-C. (2022). ESG, dividend payout policy and the moderating role of audit quality: Empirical evidence from western europe. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(2). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
110351013 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110351013 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
