IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijfss/v13y2025i2p113-d1682043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ESG Risks and Market Valuations: Evidence from the Energy Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Rahul Verma

    (Finance, Marilyn Davies College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, TX 77002, USA)

  • Arpita A. Shroff

    (Finance, Marilyn Davies College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, TX 77002, USA)

Abstract

The link between ESG and financial performance is still under debate. In this study, we explore which aspects of ESG specifically drive market valuations through both systematic and idiosyncratic risk channels. We analyze the impact of the three core ESG pillars, 10 subcategories, and associated controversies on market valuations in the energy sector. This analysis reveals that the environmental factor has a stronger impact (regression coefficient = 0.05) than the governance factor (regression coefficient = 0.003), emphasizing the need to prioritize environmental performance in ESG strategies. The positive coefficients for environmental resource use (0.005) and innovation (0.008) indicate that investments in efficiency and clean technologies are beneficial, while the negative coefficient for emissions (−0.004) underscores the risks associated with poor emissions management. These findings suggest that environmental risks currently outweigh governance risks for the energy sector, reinforcing the importance of aligning governance practices with environmental goals. To maximize ESG effectiveness, energy firms should focus on measurable improvements in resource efficiency, innovation, and emissions reduction and transparently communicate this progress to stakeholders. The evidence suggests that energy firms approach the ESG landscape differently, with sustainability leaders benefiting from higher valuations, particularly when ESG efforts are aligned with core competencies. However, many energy companies under-invest in value-creating environmental initiatives, focusing instead on emission management, which erodes value. While they excel in emission control, they lag in innovation, missing opportunities to enhance valuations. This underscores the potential for ESG risk analysis to improve portfolio performance, as sustainability can both create value and mitigate risks by factoring into valuation equations as both risks and opportunities. This study uniquely contributes to the ESG–financial performance literature by disentangling the specific ESG dimensions that drive market valuations in the energy sector, revealing that value is created not through emission control but through strategic alignment with eco-innovation, governance, and social responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahul Verma & Arpita A. Shroff, 2025. "ESG Risks and Market Valuations: Evidence from the Energy Sector," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:13:y:2025:i:2:p:113-:d:1682043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/13/2/113/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/13/2/113/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eduardo Duque-Grisales & Javier Aguilera-Caracuel, 2021. "Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 315-334, January.
    2. Manuel Branco & Lúcia Rodrigues, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 111-132, December.
    3. Klein, April, 1998. "Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 275-303, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Ewing, Bradley T. & Thompson, Mark A., 2016. "The role of reserves and production in the market capitalization of oil and gas companies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 576-581.
    6. Alan Gregory & Rajesh Tharyan & Julie Whittaker, 2014. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Value: Disaggregating the Effects on Cash Flow, Risk and Growth," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 633-657, November.
    7. Jaepil Choi & Heli Wang, 2009. "Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 895-907, August.
    8. Apergis, Nicholas & Poufinas, Thomas & Antonopoulos, Alexandros, 2022. "ESG scores and cost of debt," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Xiang Deng & Xiang Cheng, 2019. "Can ESG Indices Improve the Enterprises’ Stock Market Performance?—An Empirical Study from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-13, September.
    10. Hoje Jo & Haejung Na, 2012. "Does CSR Reduce Firm Risk? Evidence from Controversial Industry Sectors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(4), pages 441-456, November.
    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. Shakil, Mohammad Hassan, 2021. "Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Subhransu S. Mohanty & Odette Mohanty & Mike Ivanof, 2021. "Alpha enhancement in global equity markets with ESG overlay on factor-based investment strategies," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(3), pages 213-242, September.
    5. Zhang, Lin & Cui, Xiaomeng & Jing, Wei, 2024. "Who are responsible venture capitalists? The effect of business experience," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 96(PA).
    6. Li, Jiu-Jin & Xu, Chang & Fung, Hung-Gay & Chan, Kam C., 2021. "Do venture capital firms promote corporate social responsibility?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 718-732.
    7. Li Cai & Jinhua Cui & Hoje Jo, 2016. "Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Firm Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 563-594, December.
    8. Jannik Gerwanski, 2020. "Does it pay off? Integrated reporting and cost of debt: European evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2299-2319, September.
    9. Zhang, Zhongqingyang & Zhu, Huiming & Zhou, Zhongbao & Zou, Kai, 2022. "How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 251-265.
    10. 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).
    11. Ho, Ly & Bai, Min & Lu, Yue & Qin, Yafeng, 2021. "The effect of corporate sustainability performance on leverage adjustments," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    12. Wellalage, Nirosha & Reddy, Krishna & Wallace, Damien, 2023. "Environmental performance and the role of government support: Evidence from the recent COVID-19 pandemic," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PA).
    13. Megumi Suto & Hitoshi Takehara, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility intensity, management earnings forecast accuracy, and investor trust: Evidence from Japan," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 3047-3059, November.
    14. Hasan, Mostafa Monzur & Wong, Jin Boon & Al Mamun, Mohammed Abdullah, 2022. "Oil shocks and corporate social responsibility," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Hsu, Feng-Jui & Chen, Sheng-Hung, 2021. "US quantitative easing and firm’s default risk: The role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 650-664.
    17. Van Ha Nguyen & Frank W. Agbola & Bobae Choi, 2022. "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Enhance Financial Performance? Evidence from Australia," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 5-18, March.
    18. Asif Saeed & Qasim Zureigat, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Trade Credit and Financial Crisis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-23, July.
    19. Xingqiang Du & Wei Jian & Quan Zeng & Yingying Chang, 2018. "Do Auditors Applaud Corporate Environmental Performance? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1049-1080, September.
    20. Soh Young In & Young Joon Lee & Robert G. Eccles, 2024. "Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2225-2259, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jijfss:v:13:y:2025:i:2:p:113-:d:1682043. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.