The dynamic relationships between returns and financial performance of companies listed in Thailand Sustainability Investment (THSI) rated by Environment, Social and Governance

ผู้แต่ง

  • เรวดี พานิช ผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์

คำสำคัญ:

Sustainable Business, Dynamic Relationship, Financial Performance

บทคัดย่อ

This study examined the dynamic relationships between returns and financial performances of companies listed in Thailand Sustainability Investment (THSI) rated by Environment, Social and Governance. It investigated the relationships based on the Panel Data with the Fixed Effect Model. Then, the dynamic testing was implemented by the Panel Cointegration test, Panel VECM test, Panel Causality test, and Panel Impulse Response Function. The samples were 213 listed companies rated ESG. The financial performances studied were earning per share, net profit margin, debt-equity ratio, return on equity, return on asset, EBIT, dividend yield, book value per share, market value, assets, liabilities, and net profit from 1999 to 2021. The result showed that the average annual rate of return on securities prices depended on asset, liabilities, debt-equity ratio, return on assets, and book value per share. The average annual rate of return since 2014 increased by 0.7 percent from the previous year after the SET forced listed companies released its ESG ratings publicly. This policy implementation leads to a positive effect on the stock price. In addition, there were a long-term dynamic relationships among the studied variables.

References

Ahmad, N., Mobarek, A., & Roni, N. N. (2021). Revisiting the impact of ESG on financial performance of FTSE350 UK firms: Static and dynamic Panel data analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/23311975.2021.1900500

Chelawat, H., & Trivedi, I. V. (2016). The business value of ESG performance: The Indian context. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 5(1), 195-210. doi:10.1007/s13520-016-0064- 4

Cubas-Díaz, M., & Martínez Sedano, M. Á. (2018). Measures for sustainable investment decisions and business strategy – A triple bottom line approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 16-38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1980

Dalal, K. K., & Thaker, N. (2019). ESG and corporate financial performance: A Panel study of indian companies. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 18(1), 44-59. Retrieved 2022, February 20 from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db

=bsu&AN=137221144&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid

Eagle, R. F. and Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation and Testing. Econometrical 55, 251-276.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964011

Elsayed, K., & Paton, D. (2005). The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: Static and dynamic Panel data evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.strueco.2004.04.004

G&A Institute. (2021). G&A Institute’s publishes “2021 Sustainability Reporting in Focus” Trends Report. Retrieved 2022, February 20, from G&A Institute’s publishes “2021 Sustainability Reporting in Focus” Trends Report – Sustainability-Reports.com

Kuznets, S. (1955), Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic

Review, 45(1), 1-28.

Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the UK supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1012537016969

Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size comfound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 167–180.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017516826427

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910

Ota, T. (2017). Economic growth, income inequality and environment: Assessing the applicability of the Kuznets hypotheses to Asia. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 17069. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.69

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. CFA Digest, 41(1), 12-13.

Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A., & Tharyan, R. (2016). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 48(1), 102-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.10.007.

Sandberg, J. (2018). Toward a Theory of Sustainable Finance. S Kibsey, & R.

Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169-178. doi:10.1108/JGR-11-2016-0029.

Whelan, T., Atz, U., Van Holt, T., & Clark, C. (2020). ESG and Financial Performance: Uncovering the Relationship by Aggregating Evidence from 1,000 Plus Studies Published between 2015 - 2020. Retrieved 2022, February 20, from https://www. stern.nyu.edu/ sustainability.

Zhao, C., Guo, Y., Yuan, J., Wu, M., Li, D., Zhou, Y., & Kang, J. (2018). ESG and Corporate Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from China’s Listed Power Generation Companies. Sustainability, 10(8), 1-18. doi:10.3390/su10082607.

JHU CSSE Covid-19 Data. (ม.ป.ป.). โรคติดเชื้อไวรัสโคโรนา (Covid-19) ประเทศไทย: สถิติ. สืบค้นเมื่อ 20 เมษายน 2565, จาก Retrieved 2022, February 20, from https://bit.ly/39DQz6J.

เรวดี พานิช. (2564). การศึกษาเปรียบเทียบผลการดำเนินงานของบริษัทไทยที่มีนโยบายการจัดการธุรกิจยั่งยืน ตามเป้าหมายการพัฒนาที่ยั่งยืนขององค์การสหประชาชาติ พ.ศ. 2558-2573. Apheit Journal, 27(2), 115-129.

----------. (2563). เจตคติผู้บริหารบริษัทไทยที่มีต่อการดำเนินธุรกิจแบบยั่งยืน ตามเป้าหมายการพัฒนาขององค์การสหประชาชาติ ค.ศ. 2015-2030. Apheit Journal, 26(2), 1-12.

สหประชาชาติประเทศไทย. (ม.ป.ป.). เป้าหมายการพัฒนาที่ยั่งยืนในประเทศไทย. สืบค้นเมื่อ 10 เมษายน 2563, จาก https://thailand.un.org/th/

Downloads

เผยแพร่แล้ว

2022-12-28