Vol. 14 No. 2 (2023)

Articles

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

Published 30-06-2023

Xiaodong Teng
Shandong University of Finance and Economics

Kun-Shan Wu
Tamkang University, Taiwan

Lopin Kuo
Tamkang University

Bao-Guang Chang
Tamkang University

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.

Keywords

ESG, corporate risk-taking, quantile regression, sustainable development

PDF

References

  1. Abad, D., Cutillas-Gomariz, M. F., Sanchez-Ballesta, J. P., & Yague, J. (2018). Real earnings management and information asymmetry in the equity market. European Accounting Review, 27(2), 209–235. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2016.1261720.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.1261720
  2. Al-Najjar, B., & Salama, A. (2022). Mind the gap: Are female directors and execu-tives more sensitive to the environment in high-tech us firms? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 184, 122024. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122024.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122024
  3. Andries, A. M., Balutel, D., Ihnatov, I., & Ursu, S. G. (2020). The nexus between corporate governance, risk taking, and growth. PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0228371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228371.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228371
  4. Anton, S. G. (2018). The impact of enterprise risk management on firm value: Em-pirical evidence from Romanian non-financial firms. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 29(2), 151–157. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.29.2.16426
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.29.2.16426
  5. Anton S. G., & Nucu, A. E. A. (2020). Enterprise risk management: A literature review and agenda for future research. Journal of Risk and Financial Manage-ment, 13, 281. doi: 10.3390/jrfm13110281.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110281
  6. Aray, Y., Dikova, D., Garanina, T., & Veselova, A. (2021). The hunt for international legitimacy: Examining the relationship between internationalization, state ownership, location and CSR reporting of Russian firms. International Business Review, 30, 101858. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101858.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101858
  7. Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022). Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 642–664. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009
  8. Ayadi, M., Kusy, M. I., Pyo, M., & Trabelsi, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibil-ity, corporate governance, and managerial risk-Taking. In 2015 Canadian Aca-demic Accounting Association (CAAA) annual conference. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2547 576.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2547576
  9. Azevedo, G., Oliveira, J., Sousa, L., & Borges, M.F.R. (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, 30(2), 177–206. doi: 10.1108/ARA-03-2021-0051.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-03-2021-0051
  10. Banerjee, R., & Gupta, K. (2017). The effects of environmental sustainability and R&D on corporate risk taking: International evidence. Energy Economics, 65, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.016.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.016
  11. Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
  12. Behl, A., Kumari, P. S. R., Makhija, H., & Sharma, D. (2022). Exploring the relation-ship of ESG score and firm value using cross-lagged panel analyses: Case of the Indian energy sector. Annals of Operations Research, 313(1), 231–256. doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04189-8.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04189-8
  13. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. C., & Saffar, W. (2013). The role of state and foreign own-ers in corporate risk-taking: Evidence from privatization. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(3), 641–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.007.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.007
  14. Bruna, M. G., & Nicolò, D. (2020). Corporate reputation and social sustainability in the early stages of start-ups–A theoretical model to match stakeholders’ ex-pectations through corporate social commitment. Finance Research Letter, 35, 101508. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101508.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101508
  15. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2021). The nonlinear relationship between financial flexibility and enterprise risk-taking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Tai-wan’s semiconductor industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(2), 307–333. doi: 10.24136/ oc.2021.011.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.011
  16. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2022a). Convex-concave effect of financial flexibility on hospitality performance: Quantile regression approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(2), 687–712. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0867.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0867
  17. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2022b). Concave effect of financial flexibility on semi-conductor industry performance: Quantile regression approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(4), 948–978. doi: 10.3846/tede.2022.16622.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2022.16622
  18. Chen, L., Khurram, M. U., Gao, Y., Abedin, M. Z., & Lucey, B. (2023). ESG disclo-sure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 65, 101974. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.202 3.101974.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.101974
  19. Chen, Y., Podolski, E. J., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2015). Does managerial ability facilitate corporate innovative success? Journal of Empirical Finance, 34, 313–326. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2015.08.002.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2015.08.002
  20. Chen, S. H., Thi Kim, D. X., & Hsu, F. J. (2021). ESG and firm’s risk-taking: Interna-tional study. In Proceedings of 5th international conference on research in manage-ment and economics (pp. 92–105). Berlin: Diamond Scientific Publishing.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Chiang, T. C., Li, J., & Tan, L. (2010). Empirical investigation of herding behavior in Chinese stock markets: Evidence from quantile regression analysis. Global Finance Journal, 21(1), 111–124. doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2010.03.005.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2010.03.005
  22. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81–112. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2
  23. Collevecchio, F., Cappa, F., Peruffo, E., & Oriani, P. (2023). When do M&As with fintech firms benefit traditional banks? British Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12701.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12701
  24. Di Tommaso, C., & Thornton, J. (2020). Do ESG scores effect bank risk taking and value? Evidence from European banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2286–2298. doi: 10.1002/csr.1964.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1964
  25. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007
  26. Faccio, M., Marchica, M. T., & Mura, R. (2016). CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39, 193–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008
  27. Fang, M., Nie, H., & Shen, X. (2023). Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance? Economic Modelling, 118, 106101. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101
  28. Fieller, E. C. (1954). Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B16, 175–185.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00159.x
  29. Folqué, M., Escrig-Olmedo, E., & Santamaría, T. C. (2021). Sustainable develop-ment and financial system: Integrating ESG risks through sustainable invest-ment strategies in a climate change context. Sustainable Development, 29(5), 876–890. doi: 10.1002/sd.2181.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2181
  30. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Stakeholder management. A strategic approach. Marchfield: Pitman.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Gallego-Álvareza, I., & Ortas, E. (2017). Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review, 26, 337–353. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003
  32. Gangi, F., D’Angelo, E., Daniele, L. M., & Varrone, N. (2021). The impact of corpo-rate governance on social and environmental engagement: What effect on firm performance in the food industry? British Food Journal, 123(2), 610–626. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0140.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0140
  33. Gangi, F., Daniele, L. M., & Varrone, N. (2020). How do corporate environmental policy and corporate reputation affect risk-adjusted financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 1975–1991. doi: 10.1002/bse.2482.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2482
  34. Gangi, F., Meles, A., D’Angelo, E., & Daniele, L. M. (2019). Sustainable develop-ment and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26, 529–547. doi: 10.1002/csr.1699.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1699
  35. Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195. doi: 10.1002/smj.2399.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399
  36. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Harjoto, M., & Laksmana, I. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 353–373. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3202-y.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3202-y
  38. Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271. doi: 10.2307/1913827.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
  39. He, F., Ding, C., Yue, W., & Liu, G. (2023). ESG performance and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 87, 102550. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102550.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102550
  40. Iazzolino, G., Bruni, M. E., Veltri, S., Morea, D., & Baldissarro, G. (2023). The im-pact of ESG factors on financial efficiency: An empirical analysis for the selec-tion of sustainable firm portfolios. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-mental Management. Advance online publican. doi: 10.1002/csr.2463.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2463
  41. Izcan, D., & Bektas, E. (2022). The relationship between ESG scores and firm-specific risk of Eurozone banks. Sustainability, 14, 8619. doi: 10.3390/su14148619.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148619
  42. 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. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  43. John, K., Litov, L.P., & Yeung, B.Y. (2008). Corporate governance and risk taking. Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1679–1728. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01372.x.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01372.x
  44. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50. doi: 10.2307/1913643.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
  45. Korinth, F., & Lueg, R. (2022). Corporate sustainability and risk management-The U-shaped relationships of disaggregated ESG rating scores and risk in the German capital market. Sustainability, 14, 5735. doi: 10.3390/su14095735.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095735
  46. Lahouel, B. B., Zaied, Y. B., Managi, S., & Taleb, L. (2022). Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between envi-ronmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 140, 498–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019
  47. Li, G., Li, N., & Sethi, S. P. (2021). Does CSR reduce idiosyncratic risk? Roles of operational efficiency and AI innovation. Production and Operations Management, 30(7), 2027–2045. doi: 10.1111/poms.13483.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13483
  48. Li, G., Elahi, E., & Zhao, L. (2022a). Fintech, bank risk-taking, and risk-warning for commercial banks in the era of digital technology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 934053. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934053.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934053
  49. Li, M. Y. L., Yang, T. H., & Yu, S. E. (2015). CEO stock-based incentive compensa-tion and firm performance: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Interna-tional Financial Management & Accounting, 26(1), 39–71. doi: 10.1111/jifm.12022.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12022
  50. Li, X., Liu, G., Fu, Q., Abdul Rahman, A. A., Meero, A., & Sial, M. S. (2022b). Does corporate social responsibility impact on corporate risk-taking? Evidence from emerging economy. Sustainability, 14, 531. doi: 10.3390/su14010531.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010531
  51. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
  52. Maiti, M. (2021). Quantile regression, asset pricing and investment decision. IIMB Management Review, 33, 28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005
  53. Mulia, R. A., & Joni, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and risk taking: Evidence from Indonesia. ACRN Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 8, 152– 162. doi: 10.35944/jofrp.2019.8.1.010.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.35944/jofrp.2019.8.1.010
  54. Nguyen, P. (2011). Corporate governance and risk-taking: Evidence from Japanese firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 19(3), 278–297. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.201 0.12.002.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2010.12.002
  55. Nguyen, P., & Nguyen, A. (2015). The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 324–339. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093
  56. Okafor, A., Adeleye, B. N., & Adusei, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from U.S tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126078. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078
  57. Ovide, S. (2020). Big tech versus climate change. Oxford University Press.
    View in Google Scholar
  58. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.
    View in Google Scholar
  59. Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial perfor-mance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36, 419–429. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600406.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600406
  60. Qoyum, A., Sakti, M. R. P., Thaker, H. M. T., & AlHashfi, R. U. (2022). Does the Islamic label indicate good environmental, social, and governance (ESG) per-formance? Evidence from sharia-compliant firms in Indonesia and Malaysia. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(2), 306–320. doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.001.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.001
  61. Rao, S., Roy, P. P., & Koirala, S. (2022). Does mandatory CSR expenditure regula-tion induce corporate risk-taking? Journal of Corporate Finance, 72, 102158. doi: 10.213 9/ssrn.4056263.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2022.102158
  62. Reber, B., Gold, A., & Gold, S. (2022). ESG disclosure and idiosyncratic risk in initial public offerings. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 867–886. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04847-8.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04847-8
  63. Rossi, F., & Harjoto, M. A. (2020). Corporate non‑financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 1149–1181. doi: 10.1007/s11846-019-00358-z.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00358-z
  64. Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfac-tion. Journal of Business Research, 68, 341–350. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024
  65. Salehi, M., Dashtbayaz, M. L., & Abdulhadi, K. H. (2022). The relationship between managerial entrenchment and firm risk-taking on social responsibility disclo-sure. Journal of Public Affairs, 22, e2511. doi: 10.1002/pa.2511.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2511
  66. Sasabuchi, S. (1980). A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypoth-eses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika, 67(2), 429–439. doi: 10.2307/ 2335486.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/67.2.429
  67. Sun, W. B., & Cui, K. X. (2014). Linking corporate social responsibility to firm default risk. European Management Journal, 32, 275–287. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.04.0 03.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.04.003
  68. Teng, X., Ge, Y., Wu, K. S., Chang, B. G., Kuo, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Too little or too much? Exploring the inverted U-shaped nexus between voluntary envi-ronmental, social and governance and corporate financial performance. Fron-tiers in Environmental Science, 10, 969721. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721
  69. Testa, F., Boiral, O., & Iraldo, F. (2018). Internalization of environmental practices and institutional complexity: Can stakeholders pressures encourage green-washing? Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 287–307. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2960-2.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2960-2
  70. Trumpp, C., & Guenther, T. (2017). Too little or too much? Exploring U-shaped relationships between corporate environmental performance and corporate fi-nancial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 49–68. doi: 10.1002/bse.1900.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900
  71. Varro, L., & Kamiya, G. (2021). 5 Ways big tech could have big impacts on clean energy transitions. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/commentaries/5-ways-big-tech-could-have-big-impacts-on-clean-energy-transitions (04.04.2023).
    View in Google Scholar
  72. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. doi: 10.2307/19 12934.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
  73. Wu, K. S., & Chang, B. G. (2022). The concave-convex effects of environmental, social and governance on high-tech firm value: Quantile regression approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1527–1545. doi: 10.1002/csr.2289.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2289
  74. Yarram, S. R., & Adapa, S. (2022). Women on boards, CSR and risk-taking: An investigation of the interaction effects of gender diversity and CSR on business risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134493. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134493.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134493
  75. Younas, Z. I., & Zafar, A. (2019). Corporate risk taking and sustainability: A case of listed firms from USA and Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(1), 2–15. doi: 10.1108/JGR-07-2018-0027.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-07-2018-0027
  76. Zaiane, S., Dabbou, H., & Gallali, M. I. (2022). The non-uniform relationship be-tween CEO stock options and strategic risk-taking: The moderating role of firm performance. EuroMed Journal of Business. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1108/EMJB-02-2022-0023.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-02-2022-0023
  77. Zhu, D., Gao, X., Luo, Z., & Xu, W. (2022). Environmental performance and corpo-rate risk-taking: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 74, 101811. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101811.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101811

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 336

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.