ESG Risk and Firm Value: The Role of Materiality in Sustainability Reporting
Abstract
Purpose: This research aims to investigate the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risk on firm value and analyse the disclosure of materiality as a moderation variable.
Methodology/Approach: We select research data through purposive sampling. We obtain ESG risk scores from Sustainalytics. Content analysis measures the materiality of sustainability disclosures. We processed 204 company data sets in Indonesia using moderated regression analysis techniques between 2020 and 2022.
Findings: Empirical results show that greater environmental, social, and governance risks will lower firm value. Furthermore, the disclosure of materiality in the sustainability report can moderate the negative impact of ESG risk on the firm's value.
Research Limitation/Implication: This research's implications are essential for standard-makers and governments to increase corporate attention to environmental, social, and governance risk aspects. The company's operations pose ESG risk, which negatively impacts market value as investors rely on this information for their decision-making. Furthermore, this research also implies that management understands the importance of materiality in sustainability reports.
Originality/Value of paper: This research enriches existing literature on corporate risk, focusing on environmental, social, and governance risks. This paper also adds references to materiality disclosure in sustainability reports.
Full text article
References
Ajinkya, B., Bhojraj, S. and Sengupta, P., 2005. The association between outside directors, institutional investors and the properties of management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), pp. 343–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-679x.2005.00174.x.
Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y. and Zhang, C., 2019. Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), pp. 4451–4469. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3043.
Anderson, D. R., 2006. The critical importance of sustainability risk management. Risk Management, 53(4), pp. 66–72.
Aziz, N. A. A., Manab, N. A. and Othman, S. N., 2016a. Critical Success Factors of Sustainability Risk Management (SRM) Practices in Malaysian Environmentally Sensitive Industries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, pp. 4–11. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.04.025.
Aziz, N. A. A., Manab, N. A. and Othman, S. N., 2016b. Sustainability Risk Management (SRM): An Extension of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Concept. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 5(1), pp. 1–10. doi: 10.18488/journal.11/2016.5.1/11.1.1.10.
Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R. and Dalò, A., 2018. Fishing the Corporate Social Responsibility risk factors. Journal of Financial Stability, 37(August), pp. 25–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2018.04.006.
Busch, T., Bauer, R. and Orlitzky, M., 2016. Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues. Business & Society, 55(3), pp. 303–329. doi: 10.1177/0007650315570701.
Cahan, S. F., De Villiers, C., Jeter, D.C., Naiker, V., Van Staden, C.J., 2016. Are CSR Disclosures Value Relevant? Cross-Country Evidence. European Accounting Review, 25(3). doi: 10.1080/09638180.2015.1064009.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R. and Rosati, F., 2015. A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis. Accounting Forum, 39(4), pp. 312–327. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2015.06.002.
Chaney, P. K., Faccio, M. and Parsley, D., 2011. The quality of accounting information in politically connected firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1–2), pp. 58–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.07.003.
Cohen, G., 2023a. ESG risks and corporate survival. Environment Systems and Decisions, 43(1), pp. 16–21. doi: 10.1007/s10669-022-09886-8.
Cohen, G., 2023b. The impact of ESG risks on corporate value. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 60(4), pp. 1451–1468. doi: 10.1007/s11156-023-01135-6.
Deloitte, 2014. Global survey on reputation risk. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Governance-Risk-Compliance/gx_grc_Reputation@Risk survey report_FINAL.pdf.
Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M.P., Rogers, J., Serafeim, G., 2012. The need for sector‐specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of applied corporate finance, 24(2), pp. 65–71.
Elsbach, K. D. and Kramer, R. M., 1996. Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 442–476.
Eriandani, R. and Winarno, W. A., 2021. Corporate Social Activities and Adjusted Firm Performance: An SOE’s Context. Indian Journal of Economics and Business, 20(2), pp. 329–343. doi: https://zenodo.org/record/5409509.
Eriandani, R. and Winarno, W. A., 2023. ESG and firm performance: The role of digitalization. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 24(3), pp. 993–1010. doi: 10.18196/jai.v24i3.20044.
Esenyel, V., 2020. Corporate reputation as a strategic management tool: Through the lens of employees. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 9(1), pp. 24–42.
Fama, E. F. and French, K. R., 2015. A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of financial economics, 116(1), pp. 1–22.
Farooq, M. B., Zaman, R., Sarraj, D., Khalid, F., 2021. Examining the extent of and drivers for materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(5), pp. 965–1002. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2020-0113.
Fatemi, A., Glaum, M. and Kaiser, S., 2018. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global finance journal, 38, pp. 45–64.
Ferriani, F. and Natoli, F., 2021. ESG risks in times of Covid-19. Applied Economics Letters, 28(18), pp. 1537–1541. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2020.1830932.
Font, X., Guix, M. and Bonilla-Priego, M. J., 2016. Corporate social responsibility in cruising: Using materiality analysis to create shared value. Tourism Management, 53, pp. 175–186.
Giese, G. and Lee, L.-E., 2019. Weighing the Evidence: ESH and Equity Returns. MSCI report. Available at: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/9aec76d8-376f-91ef-a575-%0Ab2b0ea65061a.
Global Sustainability Standards Board, 2021. GRI standards.
Global Sustainability Standards Board, 2016. Global Reporting Initiative Standards 2016.
Gloßner, S., 2017. ESG Risks and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns. Ssrn. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2980917.
Hales, J., 2018. The future of accounting is now. CPA Journal, 88(7), pp. 6–9.
Harindahyani, S. and Agustia, D., 2023. The assurance providers’ role in improving the independent assurance statement quality on sustainability reporting. Accounting Research Journal, 36(1), pp. 37–54. doi: 10.1108/ARJ-01-2021-0024.
Hawn, O. and Ioannou, I., 2016. Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic management journal, 37(13), pp. 2569–2588.
He, F. et al., 2022. CSR and idiosyncratic risk: Evidence from ESG information disclosure. Finance Research Letters, 49(102936).
Hermanda, W. K. and Wijaya, R. E., 2024. CSR Performance And ESG Risk Terhadap Nilai Dan Kesehatan Keuangan Perusahaan Non-Financial Terdaftar Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2019-2022. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 10(15).
Indrawati, A., Ruliana, T., Yudhyani, E., Nurfitriani., 2023. Environmental, Social, Governance Report, and Materiality Analysis Effect on Financial and Market Performance. Journal of Accounting and Strategic Finance, 6(1), pp. 71–89. doi: https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v6i1.392.
Jin, I., 2018. Is ESG a systematic risk factor for US equity mutual funds?. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 8(1), pp. 72–93. doi: 10.1080/20430795.2017.1395251.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G. and Yoon, A., 2016. Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The accounting review, 91(6), pp. 1697–1724. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383.
Lioui, A., Poncet, P. and Sisto, M., 2018. Corporate social responsibility and the cross section of stock returns. Available at SSRN 2730722. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2730722.
López Prol, J. and Kim, K., 2022. Risk-return performance of optimized ESG equity portfolios in the NYSE. Finance Research Letters, 50(103312). doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103312.
Luo, H. A. and Balvers, R. J., 2017. Social Screens and Systematic Investor Boycott Risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(1), pp. 365–399. doi: 10.1017/S0022109016000910.
Mahmut, A., Guzhan, G. and Korkmaz, E., 2022. Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(S2), pp. S119–S127. doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2022.11.006.
Maiti, M., 2020. A Critical Review on Evolution of Risk Factors and Factor Models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(1), pp. 175–184. doi: 10.1111/joes.12344.
McDonnell, M. H. and King, B., 2013. Keeping up appearances: Reputational threat and impression management after social movement boycotts. Administrative science quarterly, 58(3), pp. 387–419.
Messier, W. F., Martinov‐Bennie, N. and Eilifsen, A., 2005. A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(2), pp. 153–187. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2005.24.2.153.
Mio, C., Fasan, M. and Costantini, A., 2020. Materiality in integrated and sustainability reporting: A paradigm shift?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), pp. 306–320. doi: 10.1002/bse.2390.
Murninghan, M. and Grant, T., 2013. Setting the Standard for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development Redefining Materiality II: Why it Matters, Who’s Involved, and What It Means for Corporate Leaders and Boards, AccountAbility. Retrieved February. Available at: https://lifegateedu.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/AA_Materiality_Report_Aug2013-FINAL_compressed.pdf.
Novethic Research, 2014. Overview of ESG rating agencies. Paris: France. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.novethic.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_ausynovethicetudes/pdf_complets/2014_Overview-of-ESG-rating-agencies.pdf.
Orlitzky, M., 2015. The politics of corporate social responsibility or: why Milton Friedman has been right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ASR-06-2015-0004/full/html.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V. and Stamp, M., 2013. Innovating for shared value. Companies that deliver both social benefits and business value rely on five mutually reinforcing elements. Harvard Business Review, 91, pp. 100–107.
Reynolds, F., 2014. ‘Mainstream slow to accept benefits of responsible investment. Financial Times, Europe.
Riedl, A. and Smeets, P., 2017. Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds?. The Journal of Finance, 72(6), pp. 2505–2550.
Sahut, J. M., Peris-Ortiz, M. and Teulon, F., 2019. Corporate social responsibility and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 23, pp. 901-912. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10997-019-09472-2.
Sharma, S., Durand, R. M. and Gur-Arie, O., 1981. Identification and Analysis of Moderator Variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), p. 291. doi: 10.2307/3150970.
Sustainalytics, M., 2021. ESG Risk Ratings - Methodology Abstract About Sustainalytics, Sustainalytics. Available at: https://connect.sustainalytics.com/esg-risk-ratings-methodology#:~:text=The ESG Risk Ratings measure,score and a risk category.
Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Furlotti, K., 2020. The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), pp. 470–484. doi: 10.1002/csr.1813.
Whitehead, J., 2017. Prioritizing sustainability indicators: Using materiality analysis to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), pp. 399–412. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 1928.
Wong, J. B. and Zhang, Q., 2021. Stock market reactions to adverse ESG disclosure via media channels. British Accounting Review, 54(1), p. 101045. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2021.101045.
World Economic Forum, 2017. The Global Risks Report 2017 12th Edition Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Younas, Z. I. and Zafar, A., 2019. Corporate risk taking and sustainability: a case of listed firms from USA and Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(1), pp. 2–15. doi: 10.1108/JGR-07-2018-0027.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2024 Rizky Eriandani, Wahyu Agus Winarno
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Authors who publish with the Quality Innovation Prosperity agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.