Sustainability and Corporate Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance Investments in the Transportation Sector
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Sustainability Performance and Corporate Performance
2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility
2.3. Corporate Social Responsibility as Moderator
3. Research Method
3.1. Research Framework
3.2. Measurements of Sustainability Performance and Corporate Performance
3.3. Measurements of Corporate Social Responsibility
3.4. Technical Specification: The DNSBM Model
3.5. Research Object
4. Empirical Results
4.1. Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility by Region
4.2. Analysis of Sustainability and Corporate Efficiencies
4.3. Prediction Analysis of Moderating Effects
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Liu, H.; Yang, R.; Wu, D.; Zhou, Z. Green productivity growth and competition analysis of road transportation at the provincial level employing Global Malmquist-Luenberger Index approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Bai, S.; Ogden, J.M. Identifying contributions of on-road motor vehicles to urban air pollution using travel demand model data. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2009, 14, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, J.; Zhu, Q.; Chu, J.; Liu, H.; Liang, L. Measuring energy and environmental efficiency of transportation systems in China based on a parallel DEA approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 48, 460–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, W.-M.; Kweh, Q.L.; Nourani, M.; Lin, C.-Y. Political governance, corruption perceptions index, and national dynamic energy efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoycheva, S.; Marchese, D.; Paul, C.; Padoan, S.; Juhmani, A.-S.; Linkov, I. Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chithambo, L.; Tingbani, I.; Agyapong, G.A.; Gyapong, E.; Damoah, I.S. Corporate voluntary greenhouse gas reporting: Stakeholder pressure and the mediating role of the chief executive officer. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 1666–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S. Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: Empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, B.A.; Sapuan, M.S.; Zainudin, E.S.; Othman, M. Implementation of the expert decision system for environmental assessment in composite materials selection for automotive components. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergenwall, A.L.; Chen, C.; White, R.E. TPS’s process design in American automotive plants and its effects on the triple bottom line and sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between economic and environmental aspects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 140, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buallay, A. Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasiński, D.; Meredith, J.; Kirwan, K. A comprehensive framework for automotive sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1034–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Izadikhah, M.; Saen, R.F. Evaluating sustainability of supply chains by two-stage range directional measure in the presence of negative data. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 49, 110–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K.; Kweh, Q.L.; Lu, W.-M.; Ting, I.W.K. Modeling investments in the dynamic network performance of insurance companies. Omega 2019, 88, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X. Corporate social responsibility activities and firm performance: The moderating role of strategic emphasis and industry competition. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A. Addressing Sustainability in Transportation Systems: Definitions, Indicators, and Metrics. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2005, 11, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, N.; Tang, S.; Che, A.; Wu, P. Measuring regional transport sustainability using super-efficiency SBM-DEA with weighting preference. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firer, S.; Williams, S.M. Intellectual capital and traditional measures of corporate performance. J. Intellect. Cap. 2003, 4, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, M.B.E. A Stakeholder Framework for Analysing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 92–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gold, N.O.; Taib, F.M. Impact of corporate sustainability reporting practice on corporate performance: A review of literature. Int. J. Ind. Manag. 2020, 8, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoon, B.; Lee, J.H.; Byun, R. Does ESG Performance Enhance Firm Value? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Homburg, C.; Stierl, M.; Bornemann, T. Corporate Social Responsibility in Business-to-Business Markets: How Organizational Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement. J. Mark. 2013, 77, 54–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barnett, M.L. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 794–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, O.; Rupp, D.E.; Farooq, M. The Multiple Pathways through which Internal and External Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Organizational Identification and Multifoci Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Cultural and Social Orientations. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 954–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Hsieh, T.-S.; Sarkis, J. CSR Performance and the Readability of CSR Reports: Too Good to be True? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mura, L.; Zsigmond, T.; Machová, R. The effects of emotional intelligence and ethics of SME employees on knowledge sharing in Central-European countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 907–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zsigmond, T.; Machová, R.; Korcsmáros, E. The Ethics and Factors Influencing Employees Working in the Slovak SME Sector. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2021, 18, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, M. Value-Enhancing Capabilities of CSR: A Brief Review of Contemporary Literature. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 419–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miralles-Quirós, M.M.; Miralles-Quirós, J.L.; Gonçalves, L.M.V. The Value Relevance of Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance: The Brazilian Case. Sustainability 2018, 10, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Von Wallis, M.; Klein, C. Ethical requirement and financial interest: A literature review on socially responsible investing. Bus. Res. 2014, 8, 61–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sultana, S.; Zulkifli, N.; Zainal, D. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Investment Decision in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gillan, S.L.; Koch, A.; Starks, L.T. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. J. Corp. Finance 2021, 66, 101889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, Q.; Hassan, S.H.; Akhtar, S.; Khan, S. Employee’s green behavior for environmental sustainability: A case of banking sector in Pakistan. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 15, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Litman, T. Toward more comprehensive evaluation of traffic risks and safety strategies. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2018, 29, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakotomavo, M.T.J. Preferences of retail investors and institutions for corporate social performance. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2011, 1, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Giorgi, E. Loss aversion with multiple investment goals. Math. Financ. Econ. 2011, 5, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeneman, W. Developments in public transport governance in the Netherlands; the maturing of tendering. Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 69, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, D.; Nuissl, H. Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870–2003. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 130, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, L.; He, W.; Xu, L.; Ash, I.; Anwar, M.; Yuan, X. Investigating the impact of cybersecurity policy awareness on employees’ cybersecurity behavior. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 45, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, D.; Gong, Y.; Zhou, J.; Huang, J.-C. Human Resource Systems, Employee Creativity, and Firm Innovation: The Moderating Role of Firm Ownership. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1164–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sefeedpari, P.; Shokoohi, Z.; Behzadifar, Y. Energy use and carbon dioxide emission analysis in sugarcane farms: A survey on Haft-Tappeh Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Company in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sircar, S.; Turnbow, J.L.; Bordoloi, B. A Framework for Assessing the Relationship between Information Technology Investments and Firm Performance. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2000, 16, 69–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K.; Tsutsui, M. Dynamic DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega 2010, 38, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, W.-K.; Lu, W.-M.; Kweh, Q.L.; Lai, H.-W. Does corporate social responsibility influence the corporate performance of the U.S. telecommunications industry? Telecommun. Policy 2014, 38, 580–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sitompul, S.; Khadijah, S. Analysis Net Profit, Dividend, Debt, Cash Flow, and Capital Net Working That Influence Investment Decisions on Manufacturing Companies. Int. J. Res. Rev. 2020, 7, 56–63. [Google Scholar]
- Halkos, G.E.; Paizanos, E.A. The effects of fiscal policy on CO2 emissions: Evidence from the U.S.A. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajesh, R. Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.-J.; Kim, H.J.; Yu, J. Empirical study on relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Korea. Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tone, K.; Tsutsui, M. Dynamic DEA with network structure: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega 2014, 42, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bassen, A.; Kovács, A.M. Environmental, Social and Governance Key Performance Indicators from a Capital Market Perspective. In Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 809–820. [Google Scholar]
- Kortelainen, M. Dynamic environmental performance analysis: A Malmquist index approach. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 701–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klopp, G.A. The analysis of the efficiency of productive systems with multiple inputs and outputs. University of Illinois at Chicago. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Intertemporal Production Frontiers: With Dynamic DEA. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1997, 48, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artiach, T.; Lee, D.; Nelson, D.R.; Walker, J. The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Account. Financ. 2010, 50, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, R.W. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Account. Organ. Soc. 1992, 17, 595–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, X.; Ke, Y.; Zuo, J.; Xiong, W.; Wu, P. Evaluation of sustainable transport research in 2000–2019. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waddock, S.A.; Graves, S.B. The Corporate Social Performance–Financial Performance Link. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á.; Ferrero-Ferrero, I.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M.; Muñoz-Torres, M.J. Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles. Sustainability 2019, 11, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Input/Output | Factors | Unit | Definition | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inputs | Employees | people | Represents the number of both full and part-time employees of the company. | [40,41] |
Operating expenses | in thousand USD | Represents the sum of all expenses related to operations. | [40,41] | |
Energy use | gigajoules | Total direct and indirect energies are consumed by companies. | [42] | |
Link | Sales | in thousand USD | Total operating revenue of the enterprise. | [43] |
Carry-over | Total assets | in thousand USD | Variation for period t concerning baseline. | [44] |
Desirable outputs | Market value | in thousand USD | Evaluated by multiplying the closing price of shares of affiliated listed enterprises in the relevant security market by the total number of shares issued by the listed enterprises. | [45] |
Net income | in thousand USD | The profit that remains after all expenses and costs have been subtracted from revenue. | [46] | |
Undesirable output | CO2 emission | tonnes | Total carbon dioxide emissions are released annually from the enterprise. | [47] |
Pillar | Category | Indicators in Scoring | Weights (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Environmental | Resource use | 20 | 11 |
Emissions | 22 | 12 | |
Innovation | 19 | 11 | |
Social | Workforce | 29 | 16 |
Human Rights | 8 | 4.5 | |
Community | 14 | 8 | |
Product Responsibility | 12 | 7 | |
Governance | Management | 34 | 19 |
Shareholders | 12 | 7 | |
CSR Strategy | 8 | 4.5 |
Score | Definition |
---|---|
Resource Use Score | Reflects a company’s performance and capacity to reduce the use of materials, energy, or water, and find more eco-efficient solutions by improving supply chain management. |
Emission Reduction Score | Measures a company’s commitment and effectiveness towards reducing environmental emissions in the production and operational processes. |
Innovation Score | Reflects a company’s capacity to reduce the environmental costs and burdens for its customers, thereby creating new market opportunities through new environmental technologies and processes or eco-designed products. |
Workforce Score | Measures a company’s effectiveness towards job satisfaction, a healthy and safe workplace, maintaining diversity and equal opportunities, and development opportunities for its workforce |
Human Rights Score | Measure a company’s effectiveness towards respecting the fundamental human rights conventions. |
Community Score | Refers to a company’s commitment towards being a good citizen, protecting public health, and respecting business ethics. |
Product Responsibility Score | Reflects a company’s capacity to produce quality goods and services integrating the customers’ health and safety, integrity, and data privacy. |
Management Score | Measures a company’s commitment and effectiveness towards following best practice corporate governance principles. |
Shareholders Score | Measures a company’s effectiveness towards equal treatment of shareholders and the use of anti-takeover devices. |
CSR Strategy Score | Reflects a company’s practices to communicate that it integrates the economic (financial), social, and environmental dimensions into its day-to-day decision-making processes. |
Environment Pillar Score | Social Pillar Score | Governance Pillar Score | |
---|---|---|---|
Environment pillar score | 1 | 0.2488 *** | 0.1840 * |
Social pillar score | 0.2488 *** | 1 | 0.5646 *** |
Governance pillar score | 0.1840 * | 0.5646 *** | 1 |
MNE | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Overall Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EPS | SPS | GPS | EPS | SPS | GPS | EPS | SPS | GPS | EPS | SPS | GPS | EPS | SPS | GPS | EPS | SPS | GPS | |
Europe | ||||||||||||||||||
VOLKSWAGEN AG | 85.96 | 82.19 | 68.13 | 88.05 | 84.50 | 54.93 | 88.78 | 92.02 | 48.87 | 90.41 | 91.39 | 56.10 | 92.55 | 95.03 | 64.21 | 89.15 | 89.03 | 58.45 |
DAIMLER AG | 92.48 | 96.15 | 87.98 | 87.59 | 96.09 | 91.47 | 92.84 | 95.47 | 84.91 | 93.41 | 95.49 | 86.53 | 96.17 | 88.82 | 95.31 | 92.50 | 94.40 | 89.24 |
FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOS. | 98.31 | 96.04 | 67.91 | 98.05 | 95.99 | 59.45 | 98.03 | 94.43 | 81.68 | 98.74 | 93.96 | 74.74 | 98.67 | 95.44 | 81.65 | 98.36 | 95.17 | 73.09 |
BMW | 95.02 | 82.73 | 77.60 | 95.48 | 81.96 | 81.69 | 96.37 | 83.97 | 75.50 | 97.34 | 81.36 | 75.22 | 98.25 | 83.57 | 79.78 | 96.49 | 82.72 | 77.96 |
PEUGEOT SA | 92.12 | 86.60 | 59.04 | 94.01 | 86.29 | 58.04 | 94.45 | 86.04 | 55.16 | 96.28 | 84.16 | 55.95 | 96.45 | 91.37 | 52.68 | 94.66 | 86.89 | 56.17 |
RENAULT REGIE | 91.34 | 83.05 | 87.32 | 93.81 | 83.98 | 78.59 | 95.68 | 85.05 | 75.58 | 96.49 | 83.26 | 63.17 | 95.25 | 83.01 | 63.35 | 94.51 | 83.67 | 73.60 |
CONTINENTAL AG | 73.32 | 81.10 | 89.66 | 78.87 | 86.59 | 89.63 | 74.27 | 88.60 | 92.53 | 75.79 | 80.63 | 79.16 | 75.75 | 81.84 | 88.82 | 75.60 | 83.75 | 87.96 |
VOLVO AB | 86.05 | 77.19 | 82.65 | 85.10 | 75.26 | 55.77 | 88.65 | 92.54 | 55.57 | 88.28 | 92.29 | 67.69 | 89.19 | 88.74 | 80.21 | 87.45 | 85.20 | 68.38 |
VALEO SA | 69.59 | 75.46 | 77.81 | 70.58 | 78.82 | 83.48 | 59.46 | 81.07 | 66.77 | 60.94 | 80.72 | 65.89 | 61.91 | 76.14 | 70.09 | 64.50 | 78.44 | 72.81 |
MICHELIN | 71.82 | 23.32 | 57.00 | 79.98 | 57.55 | 65.73 | 82.59 | 54.43 | 64.02 | 86.76 | 60.34 | 69.56 | 89.14 | 57.06 | 69.67 | 82.06 | 50.54 | 65.20 |
AUTOLIV, INC. | 14.10 | 76.28 | 64.35 | 14.47 | 80.29 | 51.49 | 27.45 | 79.65 | 64.17 | 27.46 | 71.50 | 60.12 | 33.55 | 74.04 | 63.65 | 23.41 | 76.35 | 60.76 |
ATLANTIA SPA | 81.11 | 74.95 | 73.10 | 80.98 | 76.59 | 82.07 | 81.02 | 76.02 | 76.37 | 82.75 | 75.05 | 80.39 | 82.58 | 80.46 | 85.18 | 81.69 | 76.61 | 79.42 |
Average | 79.27 | 77.92 | 74.38 | 80.58 | 81.99 | 71.03 | 81.63 | 84.11 | 70.09 | 82.89 | 82.51 | 69.54 | 84.12 | 82.96 | 74.55 | 81.70 | 81.90 | 71.92 |
Asia | ||||||||||||||||||
HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD | 91.36 | 67.31 | 76.51 | 91.43 | 65.28 | 58.84 | 86.17 | 66.08 | 60.51 | 89.57 | 64.22 | 81.04 | 90.31 | 89.48 | 82.13 | 89.77 | 70.47 | 71.81 |
NISSAN MOTOR CO. | 89.24 | 59.55 | 93.26 | 80.67 | 56.23 | 92.70 | 81.64 | 56.15 | 92.15 | 83.78 | 53.88 | 84.20 | 82.15 | 54.01 | 91.96 | 83.50 | 55.96 | 90.85 |
HYUNDAI MOTOR CO | 69.13 | 75.19 | 71.28 | 68.20 | 76.23 | 63.66 | 72.02 | 77.70 | 65.56 | 72.83 | 75.03 | 56.95 | 72.25 | 72.33 | 74.14 | 70.89 | 75.30 | 66.32 |
CHINA COMMN CONSN | 25.88 | 55.27 | 66.29 | 28.08 | 60.58 | 59.98 | 29.66 | 62.03 | 72.29 | 32.78 | 68.38 | 68.15 | 51.64 | 65.83 | 74.31 | 33.61 | 62.42 | 68.20 |
BRIDGESTONE CORP | 69.90 | 38.07 | 74.75 | 73.37 | 54.86 | 82.53 | 78.07 | 60.87 | 84.43 | 81.67 | 79.30 | 90.33 | 80.46 | 74.52 | 87.83 | 76.69 | 61.52 | 83.97 |
SUBARU CORP | 74.08 | 30.89 | 31.42 | 79.10 | 28.08 | 50.33 | 79.69 | 37.08 | 46.47 | 73.55 | 31.55 | 43.12 | 82.23 | 34.25 | 28.91 | 77.73 | 32.37 | 40.05 |
MITSUBISHI MOTORS | 75.01 | 73.85 | 73.92 | 76.19 | 78.97 | 83.40 | 77.75 | 74.77 | 78.13 | 79.14 | 70.79 | 84.86 | 78.00 | 78.27 | 84.64 | 77.22 | 75.33 | 80.99 |
TOYOTA INDUSTRIES | 72.23 | 38.88 | 46.57 | 73.69 | 40.54 | 41.23 | 80.16 | 42.89 | 41.52 | 81.36 | 42.35 | 41.52 | 81.03 | 38.86 | 44.72 | 77.69 | 40.70 | 43.11 |
ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED | 80.70 | 34.58 | 29.93 | 85.34 | 35.49 | 41.29 | 88.37 | 46.20 | 32.64 | 92.74 | 42.26 | 33.36 | 93.28 | 53.25 | 40.64 | 88.09 | 42.36 | 35.57 |
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA | 83.64 | 77.08 | 65.02 | 86.43 | 72.09 | 68.47 | 91.16 | 70.12 | 88.90 | 93.26 | 68.33 | 75.10 | 95.12 | 90.83 | 82.79 | 89.92 | 75.69 | 76.06 |
KAWASAKI HEAVY INDS | 70.58 | 32.09 | 38.35 | 65.71 | 45.65 | 32.75 | 72.32 | 54.22 | 27.46 | 82.55 | 50.70 | 25.18 | 83.93 | 69.80 | 23.61 | 75.02 | 50.49 | 29.47 |
TOYOTA BOSHOKU CORP | 69.72 | 34.83 | 33.20 | 71.84 | 25.89 | 24.57 | 72.79 | 24.39 | 21.79 | 75.40 | 25.08 | 35.76 | 76.55 | 30.89 | 47.07 | 73.26 | 28.22 | 32.48 |
Average | 72.62 | 51.47 | 58.38 | 73.34 | 53.32 | 58.31 | 75.82 | 56.04 | 59.32 | 78.22 | 55.99 | 59.96 | 80.58 | 62.69 | 63.56 | 76.54 | 57.90 | 60.83 |
America | ||||||||||||||||||
FORD MOTOR COMPANY | 82.50 | 89.49 | 53.67 | 86.39 | 89.61 | 47.04 | 85.87 | 90.76 | 45.17 | 89.28 | 91.19 | 70.70 | 90.20 | 86.43 | 71.25 | 86.85 | 89.50 | 57.57 |
CUMMINS INC. | 65.33 | 80.91 | 82.58 | 65.68 | 90.49 | 85.53 | 68.05 | 92.06 | 81.56 | 69.70 | 89.91 | 83.75 | 76.24 | 90.37 | 83.85 | 69.00 | 88.75 | 83.45 |
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP | 68.51 | 60.48 | 23.63 | 71.37 | 61.88 | 47.32 | 70.05 | 60.90 | 46.58 | 69.83 | 54.13 | 44.88 | 68.33 | 63.09 | 57.30 | 69.62 | 60.10 | 43.94 |
BORGWARNER INC | 47.65 | 54.92 | 42.74 | 53.56 | 52.16 | 44.82 | 54.44 | 51.92 | 55.74 | 58.76 | 46.56 | 24.44 | 62.38 | 51.03 | 51.97 | 55.36 | 51.32 | 43.94 |
OSHKOSH CORP | 62.66 | 72.51 | 48.60 | 64.52 | 76.37 | 36.27 | 63.67 | 74.03 | 46.60 | 70.06 | 74.77 | 27.26 | 74.96 | 75.05 | 36.48 | 67.17 | 74.55 | 39.04 |
Average | 65.33 | 71.66 | 50.24 | 68.30 | 74.10 | 52.20 | 68.42 | 73.93 | 55.13 | 71.53 | 71.31 | 50.21 | 74.42 | 73.19 | 60.17 | 69.60 | 72.84 | 53.59 |
Overall Mean | 74.12 | 65.90 | 63.60 | 75.47 | 68.77 | 62.52 | 76.95 | 70.74 | 63.06 | 79.00 | 69.61 | 62.25 | 80.98 | 72.89 | 67.52 | 77.30 | 69.58 | 63.79 |
KW-Test (p-value) | p = 0.029 | p = 0.003 | p = 0.049 | p = 0.035 | p = 0.001 | p = 0.130 | p = 0.083 | p = 0.003 | p = 0.403 | p = 0.055 | p = 0.007 | p = 0.423 | p = 0.097 | p = 0.029 | p = 0.418 | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 |
Variables | Mean | Median | Minimum | Maximum | Std. Dev. | K-S Test | Valid N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First-stage inputs | |||||||
Employees | 124,264 | 105,654 | 13,300 | 671,205 | 123,687 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Operating expenses | 54,891,053 | 24,687,860 | 4,091,966 | 268,400,005 | 58,333,111 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Energy use | 41,129,792 | 19,954,803 | 426,625 | 600,886,512 | 91,111,047 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Carry-over | |||||||
Total assets | 87,829,473 | 36,222,283 | 4,505,400 | 532,473,762 | 107,799,189 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
First-stage output | |||||||
CO2 | 2,009,209 | 941,371 | 136,099 | 9,510,000 | 2,078,690 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Link | |||||||
Sales | 58,846,377 | 28,531,495 | 6,098,100 | 283,220,683 | 61,809,667 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Second-stage outputs | |||||||
Market value | 27,072,171 | 21,847,905 | 2,319,108 | 10,0048,613 | 21,055,855 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Net income | 2,656,830 | 1,625,369 | −1,782,746 | 14,961,934 | 3,000,383 | p < 0.001 | 145 |
Variables | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7] | [8] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Employees | 1 | |||||||
Operating expenses | 0.891 *** | 1 | ||||||
Energy use | 0.069 | 0.053 | 1 | |||||
CO2 emissions | 0.848 *** | 0.810 *** | 0.076 | 1 | ||||
Sales | 0.892 *** | 1.000 *** | 0.051 | 0.809 *** | 1 | |||
Total assets | 0.864 *** | 0.960 *** | 0.038 | 0.764 *** | 0.961 *** | 1 | ||
Market value | 0.784 *** | 0.858 *** | −0.047 | 0.719 *** | 0.864 *** | 0.863 *** | 1 | |
Net income | 0.657 *** | 0.777 *** | −0.013 | 0.571 *** | 0.784 *** | 0.776 *** | 0.851 *** | 1 |
Region | MNE | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Overall Mean | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SP | CP | SP | CP | SP | CP | SP | CP | SP | CP | SP | CP | ||
Europe | VOLKSWAGEN AG | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
DAIMLER AG | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.872 | 0.840 | 0.983 | 0.380 | 0.971 | 0.844 | |
FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOS. | 0.906 | 0.081 | 0.801 | 0.256 | 0.653 | 0.434 | 0.888 | 0.481 | 0.948 | 0.694 | 0.839 | 0.389 | |
BMW | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.902 | 1.000 | 0.980 | |
PEUGEOT SA | 0.430 | 0.244 | 0.459 | 0.343 | 0.456 | 0.347 | 0.533 | 0.473 | 0.529 | 0.561 | 0.481 | 0.394 | |
RENAULT REGIE | 0.469 | 0.691 | 0.491 | 0.681 | 0.464 | 0.753 | 0.450 | 0.581 | 0.460 | 0.517 | 0.467 | 0.645 | |
CONTINENTAL AG | 0.785 | 1.000 | 0.831 | 0.983 | 0.861 | 1.000 | 0.832 | 0.812 | 0.770 | 0.826 | 0.816 | 0.924 | |
VOLVO AB | 0.270 | 0.660 | 0.358 | 0.680 | 0.362 | 0.978 | 0.375 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.473 | 0.864 | |
VALEO SA | 0.530 | 0.627 | 0.625 | 0.707 | 0.596 | 0.569 | 0.575 | 1.000 | 0.688 | 1.000 | 0.603 | 0.780 | |
MICHELIN | 0.492 | 0.425 | 0.736 | 0.239 | 0.644 | 0.434 | 0.827 | 0.500 | 0.676 | 0.380 | 0.675 | 0.395 | |
AUTOLIV, INC. | 0.632 | 0.463 | 0.722 | 0.443 | 0.659 | 0.333 | 1.000 | 0.257 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.802 | 0.499 | |
ATLANTIA SPA | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.180 | 1.000 | 0.836 | |
Average | 0.709 | 0.683 | 0.752 | 0.694 | 0.725 | 0.737 | 0.779 | 0.745 | 0.838 | 0.703 | 0.761 | 0.713 | |
Asia | HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD | 1.000 | 0.673 | 1.000 | 0.491 | 1.000 | 0.624 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.714 | 1.000 | 0.700 |
NISSAN MOTOR CO. | 0.830 | 0.622 | 0.907 | 0.643 | 1.000 | 0.616 | 1.000 | 0.805 | 1.000 | 0.521 | 0.947 | 0.641 | |
HYUNDAI MOTOR CO | 1.000 | 0.722 | 1.000 | 0.677 | 1.000 | 0.555 | 1.000 | 0.314 | 1.000 | 0.498 | 1.000 | 0.553 | |
CHINA COMMN CONSN | 1.000 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.576 | 1.000 | 0.552 | 1.000 | 0.587 | 1.000 | 0.506 | 1.000 | 0.559 | |
BRIDGESTONE CORP | 1.000 | 0.813 | 1.000 | 0.783 | 1.000 | 0.855 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.901 | 1.000 | 0.870 | |
SUBARU CORP | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.799 | 0.948 | 0.848 | 0.992 | 0.632 | 0.651 | 0.856 | 0.918 | |
MITSUBISHI MOTORS | 0.632 | 0.536 | 0.803 | 0.529 | 1.000 | 0.476 | 1.000 | 0.314 | 1.000 | 0.217 | 0.887 | 0.414 | |
TOYOTA INDUSTRIES | 0.601 | 0.584 | 0.681 | 0.576 | 0.661 | 0.545 | 0.597 | 0.873 | 0.599 | 0.618 | 0.628 | 0.639 | |
ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED | 1.000 | 0.491 | 0.453 | 0.423 | 0.408 | 0.408 | 0.390 | 0.664 | 0.382 | 0.462 | 0.527 | 0.490 | |
MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA | 1.000 | 0.427 | 0.719 | 0.361 | 1.000 | 0.345 | 1.000 | 0.727 | 1.000 | 0.439 | 0.944 | 0.460 | |
KAWASAKI HEAVY INDS | 0.303 | 0.325 | 0.405 | 0.196 | 0.396 | 0.142 | 0.403 | 0.218 | 0.360 | 0.156 | 0.374 | 0.207 | |
TOYOTA BOSHOKU CORP | 0.154 | 0.048 | 0.383 | 0.027 | 0.320 | 0.209 | 0.426 | 0.290 | 0.355 | 0.132 | 0.328 | 0.141 | |
Average | 0.793 | 0.568 | 0.779 | 0.524 | 0.799 | 0.523 | 0.805 | 0.649 | 0.777 | 0.484 | 0.791 | 0.550 | |
America | FORD MOTOR COMPANY | 0.854 | 0.870 | 0.848 | 0.707 | 0.836 | 0.775 | 0.859 | 0.482 | 0.971 | 0.011 | 0.874 | 0.569 |
CUMMINS INC. | 1.000 | 0.581 | 1.000 | 0.667 | 1.000 | 0.735 | 1.000 | 0.798 | 0.846 | 0.781 | 0.969 | 0.712 | |
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP | 1.000 | 0.618 | 1.000 | 0.603 | 1.000 | 0.708 | 1.000 | 0.883 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.762 | |
BORGWARNER INC | 0.827 | 0.496 | 0.998 | 0.134 | 0.963 | 0.335 | 1.000 | 0.550 | 1.000 | 0.786 | 0.957 | 0.460 | |
OSHKOSH CORP | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
Average | 0.936 | 0.713 | 0.969 | 0.622 | 0.960 | 0.710 | 0.972 | 0.743 | 0.963 | 0.716 | 0.960 | 0.701 | |
KW-Test (p-value) | p = 0.152 | p = 0.499 | p = 0.204 | p = 0.305 | p = 0.224 | p = 0.135 | p = 0.226 | p = 0.634 | p = 0.499 | p = 0.099 | p = 0.001 | p = 0.002 |
Variables | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
Control variable | ||
Size | natural logarithm of total assets | [58] |
Leverage | the proportion of total liabilities and total assets | |
Independent variable | ||
Sustainability performance | measures the degree to which an enterprise adopts economic, environmental, social, and governance factors into its operations, and eventually the influence they utilize on the enterprise and community. | [55] |
Dependent variable | ||
Corporate performance | role of the productive and competent exercise of the relevant tangible and intangible assets of the enterprise | [18] |
Moderator | ||
Environmental pillar score | The score has a minimum value of 0 and maximum value of 100. | [59] |
Social pillar score | ||
Governance pillar score |
Corporate Performance (CP) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
Control variables | ||||
Variable | ||||
Size | 0.472 *** | 0.343 *** | 0.266 *** | 0.292 *** |
Leverage | −0.359 *** | −0.312 *** | −0.424 *** | −0.394 *** |
Independent variables | ||||
Sustainability performance (SP) | 0.322 *** | 0.294 *** | 1.003 ** | |
Moderator | ||||
Environmental pillar score (EPS) | 0.077 | 0.167 | ||
Social pillar score (SPS) | 0.278 *** | 0.314 | ||
Governance pillar score (GPS) | −0.007 | 0.585 * | ||
Interaction terms | ||||
SP X EPS | −0.115 | |||
SP X SPS | −0.207 | |||
SP X GPS | −0.884 * | |||
Model F | 14.406 | 16.536 | 10.875 | 8.361 |
R2 | 0.169 *** | 0.260 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.358 *** |
ΔR2 | 0.092 *** | 0.061 *** | 0.037 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kuo, K.-C.; Yu, H.-Y.; Lu, W.-M.; Le, T.-T. Sustainability and Corporate Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance Investments in the Transportation Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074095
Kuo K-C, Yu H-Y, Lu W-M, Le T-T. Sustainability and Corporate Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance Investments in the Transportation Sector. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074095
Chicago/Turabian StyleKuo, Kuo-Cheng, Hsiao-Yun Yu, Wen-Min Lu, and Thu-Thao Le. 2022. "Sustainability and Corporate Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance Investments in the Transportation Sector" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 4095. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074095