IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pes/ieroec/v14y2023i2p511-549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the double-edged sword effect of environmental, social and governance practices on corporate risk-taking in the high-tech industry

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaodong Teng

    (Shandong University of Finance and Economics, China)

  • Kun-Shan Wu

    (Tamkang University, Taiwan)

  • Lopin Kuo

    (Tamkang University, Taiwan)

  • Bao-Guang Chang

    (Tamkang University, Taiwan)

Abstract

Research background: Corporate risk-taking (CRT) is crucial to a business’s survival and performance and is a driving force for sustainable development. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices are critical to firm profits when considering sustainable economic growth; however, they can also be the cause of financial burdens. It is, therefore, crucial to assess the relationship between a company's ESG performance and its risk-taking. Purpose of the article: Considering the controversial results of empirical studies on the relationship between ESG and CRT, this study aims to theoretically and empirically investigate the curvilinear nexus between ESG practices and CRT within Taiwan’s high-tech industry. Methods: Ordinary least square regression and quantile regression analysis was applied to investigate the curvilinear ESG-CRT relationship. The empirical studies were conducted in 38 high-tech companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange that disclosed ESG information between 2005 and 2020, with a total of 437 firm-year observations. Findings & value added: Quantile regression estimation results reveal the ESG-CRT nexus is U-shaped (convex). Both the environmental and social pillar’s relationship with CRT is nonlinear and U-shaped, whereas the governance pillar has no significant relationship with CRT. Overall, a comprehensive view is provided that shows ESG practices can have a double-edged sword effect on CRT. It is suggested that high-tech companies in Taiwan should avoid ESG practices becoming a tool for managements’ self-interest. More information of ESG practices should be disclosed to stakeholders to ensure they are given full credit for the positive impact they have on capital allocation. Regulators guide firms to surpass the threshold of the U-shaped effect and take into consideration the whole benefits of stakeholders when they allocate existing resources toward environmental and social endeavors.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaodong Teng & Kun-Shan Wu & Lopin Kuo & Bao-Guang Chang, 2023. "Investigating the double-edged sword effect of environmental, social and governance practices on corporate risk-taking in the high-tech industry," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(2), pages 511-549, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pes:ieroec:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:511-549
    DOI: 10.24136/oc.2023.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.014
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24136/oc.2023.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabrizio Rossi & Maretno Agus Harjoto, 2020. "Corporate non-financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1149-1181, October.
    2. Alin Marius Andries & Daniela Balutel & Iulian Ihnatov & Silviu Gabriel Ursu, 2020. "The nexus between corporate governance, risk taking, and growth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Francesco Testa & Olivier Boiral & Fabio Iraldo, 2018. "Internalization of Environmental Practices and Institutional Complexity: Can Stakeholders Pressures Encourage Greenwashing?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(2), pages 287-307, January.
    4. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    5. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    6. Banerjee, Rajabrata & Gupta, Kartick, 2017. "The effects of environmental sustainability and R&D on corporate risk-taking: International evidence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-15.
    7. Kose John & Lubomir Litov & Bernard Yeung, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Risk‐Taking," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1679-1728, August.
    8. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    9. Fang, Mingyue & Nie, Huihua & Shen, Xinyi, 2023. "Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    10. Beat Reber & Agnes Gold & Stefan Gold, 2022. "ESG Disclosure and Idiosyncratic Risk in Initial Public Offerings," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 867-886, September.
    11. Pascal Nguyen & Anna Nguyen, 2015. "The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(2), pages 324-339, June.
    12. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Kwok, Chuck C.Y. & Mishra, Dev R., 2011. "Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 2388-2406, September.
    13. Guo Li & Na Li & Suresh P. Sethi, 2021. "Does CSR Reduce Idiosyncratic Risk? Roles of Operational Efficiency and AI Innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2027-2045, July.
    14. Doga Izcan & Eralp Bektas, 2022. "The Relationship between ESG Scores and Firm-Specific Risk of Eurozone Banks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    15. Bruna, Maria Giuseppina & Nicolò, Domenico, 2020. "Corporate reputation and social sustainability in the early stages of start-ups: A theoretical model to match stakeholders' expectations through corporate social commitment," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    16. Xiao Li & Gang Liu & Qinghua Fu & Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman & Abdelrhman Meero & Muhammad Safdar Sial, 2022. "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Impact on Corporate Risk-Taking? Evidence from Emerging Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, January.
    17. Maretno Harjoto & Indrarini Laksmana, 2018. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Risk Taking and Firm Value," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(2), pages 353-373, August.
    18. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon & Lang, Larry H. P., 2000. "The separation of ownership and control in East Asian Corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 81-112.
    19. Amir Barnea & Amir Rubin, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 71-86, November.
    20. Al-Najjar, Basil & Salama, Aly, 2022. "Mind the gap: Are female directors and executives more sensitive to the environment in high-tech us firms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    21. Graça Azevedo & Jonas Oliveira & Luiza Sousa & Maria Fátima Ribeiro Borges, 2022. "The determinants of risk reporting during the period of adoption of Basel II Accord: evidence from the Portuguese commercial banks," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(2), pages 177-206, February.
    22. Chen, Yangyang & Podolski, Edward J. & Veeraraghavan, Madhu, 2015. "Does managerial ability facilitate corporate innovative success?," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 313-326.
    23. Sun, Wenbin & Cui, Kexiu, 2014. "Linking corporate social responsibility to firm default risk," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 275-287.
    24. Faccio, Mara & Marchica, Maria-Teresa & Mura, Roberto, 2016. "CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 193-209.
    25. Ben Lahouel, Béchir & Ben Zaied, Younes & Managi, Shunsuke & Taleb, Lotfi, 2022. "Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 498-519.
    26. Pascal Nguyen & Anna Nguyen, 2015. "The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(2), pages 324-339, June.
    27. Zhu, Danyu & Gao, Xin & Luo, Zijun & Xu, Weidong, 2022. "Environmental performance and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    28. Aray, Yulia & Dikova, Desislava & Garanina, Tatiana & Veselova, Anna, 2021. "The hunt for international legitimacy: Examining the relationship between internationalization, state ownership, location and CSR reporting of Russian firms," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).
    29. Chen, Lifeng & Khurram, Muhammad Usman & Gao, Yuying & Abedin, Mohammad Zoynul & Lucey, Brian, 2023. "ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    30. Bao-Guang Chang & Kun-Shan Wu, 2021. "The nonlinear relationship between financial flexibility and enterprise risk-taking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 12(2), pages 307-333, June.
    31. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    32. Saeidi, Sayedeh Parastoo & Sofian, Saudah & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Saeidi, Sayyedeh Parisa & Saaeidi, Seyyed Alireza, 2015. "How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 341-350.
    33. Boubakri, Narjess & Cosset, Jean-Claude & Saffar, Walid, 2013. "The role of state and foreign owners in corporate risk-taking: Evidence from privatization," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(3), pages 641-658.
    34. Chiang, Thomas C. & Li, Jiandong & Tan, Lin, 2010. "Empirical investigation of herding behavior in Chinese stock markets: Evidence from quantile regression analysis," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 111-124.
    35. Avramov, Doron & Cheng, Si & Lioui, Abraham & Tarelli, Andrea, 2022. "Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 642-664.
    36. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    37. Francesco Gangi & Antonio Meles & Eugenio D'Angelo & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Sustainable development and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 529-547, May.
    38. Fabio Korinth & Rainer Lueg, 2022. "Corporate Sustainability and Risk Management—The U-Shaped Relationships of Disaggregated ESG Rating Scores and Risk in the German Capital Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    39. David Abad & M. Fuensanta Cutillas-Gomariz & Juan Pedro Sánchez-Ballesta & José Yagüe, 2018. "Real Earnings Management and Information Asymmetry in the Equity Market," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 209-235, March.
    40. Kun‐Shan Wu & Bao‐Guang Chang, 2022. "The concave–convex effects of environmental, social and governance on high‐tech firm value: Quantile regression approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1527-1545, September.
    41. Gallego-Álvarez, Prof. Isabel & Ortas, Prof. Eduardo, 2017. "Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 337-353.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kun‐Shan Wu & Bao‐Guang Chang, 2022. "The concave–convex effects of environmental, social and governance on high‐tech firm value: Quantile regression approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1527-1545, September.
    2. Tarsisius Renald Suganda & Jungmu Kim, 2023. "An Empirical Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Default Risk: Evidence in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Minghui Yang & Yan Wang & Lu Bai & Petra Maresova, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility, family involvement, and stock price crash risk," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1204-1225, May.
    4. Tahira Naseem & Faisal Shahzad & Ghazanfar Ali Asim & Ijaz Ur Rehman & Faisal Nawaz, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility engagement and firm performance in Asia Pacific: The role of enterprise risk management," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 501-513, March.
    5. Zhu, Danyu & Gao, Xin & Luo, Zijun & Xu, Weidong, 2022. "Environmental performance and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Ayton, Julie & Krasnikova, Natalia & Malki, Issam, 2022. "Corporate social performance and financial risk: Further empirical evidence using higher frequency data," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    7. Jongmoo Jay Choi & Hoje Jo & Jimi Kim & Moo Sung Kim, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 931-954, December.
    8. Meles, Antonio & Salerno, Dario & Sampagnaro, Gabriele & Verdoliva, Vincenzo & Zhang, Jianing, 2023. "The influence of green innovation on default risk: Evidence from Europe," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 692-710.
    9. Sheikh, Shahbaz, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility, product market competition, and firm value," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-55.
    10. Bai Xue & Zhuang Zhang & Pingli Li, 2020. "Corporate environmental performance, environmental management and firm risk," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1074-1096, March.
    11. James J. Cordeiro & Giorgia Profumo & Ilaria Tutore, 2020. "Board gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of family and dual‐class majority ownership structures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1127-1144, March.
    12. Rouine, Ibtissem & Ammari, Aymen & Bruna, Maria Giuseppina, 2022. "Nonlinear impacts of CSR performance on firm risk: New evidence using a panel smooth threshold regression," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(PB).
    13. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Wang, He & Kwok, Chuck C.Y., 2016. "Family control and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 131-146.
    14. Sun, Zixiong & Anderson, Hamish & Chi, Jing, 2023. "Managerial foreign experience and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Fiordelisi, Franco & Ricci, Ornella & Santilli, Gianluca, 2023. "Environmental engagement and stock price crash risk: Evidence from the European banking industry," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Shen, Zhe & Sowahfio Sowah, Joseph & Li, Shan, 2022. "Societal trust and corporate risk-taking: International evidence," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    17. Cao Thi Mien Thuy & Nguyen Vinh Khuong & Nguyen Thanh Liem, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Its Effect on Firm Risk: An Empirical Research on Vietnamese Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    18. Chang, Jeffery (Jinfan) & Meng, Qingbin & Ni, Xiaoran, 2022. "A tale of riskiness: The real effects of share pledging on the Chinese stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    19. Maretno A. Harjoto & Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Marcus A. Nilsson, 2022. "Bondholders’ returns and stakeholders’ interests," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1271-1301, November.
    20. Yen, Tze-Yu & André, Paul, 2019. "Market reaction to the effect of corporate social responsibility on mergers and acquisitions: Evidence on emerging markets," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 114-131.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ESG; corporate risk-taking; quantile regression; sustainable development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pes:ieroec:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:511-549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Adam P. Balcerzak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibgtopl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.