ESG Strategy and Financial Aspects Using the Example of an Oil and Gas Midstream Company: The UNIMOT Group

Abstract

The content of this article relates to the widely considered issue of ESG investing, which has both theoretical and practical dimensions. The objective of this article is to verify whether there is a correlation between the implementation of ESG strategies and financial data and indicators. The first part of the discussion highlights the essence of a socially responsible investment—a concept that postulates the consideration of social responsibility in the functioning of companies. At a further stage, an attempt is made to systematize the concepts of ESG investing, where three key aspects are highlighted, i.e., environmental, social, and corporate governance. The article also refers to the reporting non-financial data, which are indicated by SASB standards. An empirical study is conducted on the UNIMOT Group. In this respect, the adjustment of ESG strategy directions with disclosure topics defined within the oil and gas midstream sector is analyzed. Then, using the GRETL econometric package, the relationship between the selected financial data is verified for the periods analyzed, with particular emphasis on the year of implementation of the ESG strategy, i.e., 2021. The conclusions and directions for further research are presented in the final section of the article.

1. Introduction

Undoubtedly, the evolution of national economies, including the drive to increase their competitiveness, is recognized as a direct result of the intertwining processes of globalization. It should be pointed out that the transformations that are successively taking place in this regard have contributed to the intensification of the concept of socially responsible investments (SRIs). Since then, particular attention has been paid to the clarification of this term, which, in practice, takes into account four key aspects, namely, financial, social, environmental, and corporate governance.

The increased popularity of the SRI concept, specifically in terms of practical grounds, has impacted the development of a number of theoretical approaches to the definition of the concept and the identification of different investment strategies. The decisive influence in this respect must be attributed to Eurosif (European Sustainable Investment Forum) [1] (p. 2), which is an international body that is considered to be dominant in terms of conducting analyses of the SRI market. Eurosif’s purpose is to promote a way of investing that is both responsible and sustainable. The perception of investment in this respect is crucial when taking into account an enterprise’s policy, which determines its development in the long term [2] (p. 200).

The successive development of the SRI market has intensified the need for investors to standardize the concept and systematize guidelines describing the issue [3] (p. 118). Accordingly, in order to ensure transparent development conditions, Eurosif developed a common definition of SRI in 2016, based on the experience of European countries [4] (p. 9). It indicates that “sustainable and responsible investment (SRI)” should be considered as a long-term investment approach that takes into account ESG (environment, social, governance) factors at the research, analysis, and asset selection stages of the investment portfolio [5] (pp. 139–140). Their comparison as part of the abovementioned processes makes it possible to define long-term returns for investors more accurately, while the impact on an enterprise’s behavior creates its positive image in the opinion of the public [6] (p. 12) [7] (p. 195).

It should be noted that, although the definition above was only developed by Eurosif in 2016, its absence in previous years has not had a negative impact on the development of socially responsible investments. On the contrary, there has been a systematic growth of this market. In addition, changes in the policy area, taking place both in individual member states and throughout Europe, have played an important role in this respect. The idea behind Eurosif is to build on what has been accomplished to date, so that socially responsible investment is recognized as a priority and even the main criterion for sustainable funding [4].

Pressure for enterprises to increase their social responsibility and consider the interests of their various stakeholders as part of their operations [8] (p. 5054) has emerged with the spread of sustainable development [9] (pp. 82–95). In this respect, it was recognized that the drive to maximize shareholder returns should be closely linked to guaranteeing an enabling a positive market environment, as they form the basis for socially sustainable development. In practice, meeting the abovementioned requirements involves the development and implementation of an ESG strategy by the enterprise. It is assumed that the results obtained from this generate the basis for investors to assess the company in terms of the result achieved and the potential to implement sustainability principles [10] (p. 1).

In the subject literature, we can find numerous indications of the links that exist between ESG and various aspects of corporate performance. As evidenced by Lu et al., a verification of the results brought about by the implementation of ESG strategies represents, at present, a topic mainly analyzed by company stakeholders. The assessment applies to all ESG areas and is most often conducted by rating agencies; therefore, it is considered an important source of knowledge for investors. However, according to the authors, due to differences in the information and divergent interpretations, it may not be sufficient. Above all, it should be assumed that the preferences of multiple stakeholders are taken into account; therefore, it seems reasonable to apply their proposed group ESG decision-making practices in this case [11] (pp. 2–3).

In turn, based on the research conducted by Chen et al., it can be concluded that the key influence on the performance of a company in the ESG area is responsible leadership. As the authors prove, it leads to an increase in the resilience of the organization, i.e., a state in which the entity is able to sustain itself in the market, regardless of the prevailing conditions. Consequently, it is characterized by a greater potential for growth and better environmental, social, and governance outcomes [12] (pp. 12–13).

Puriwat and Tripopsakul, in the context of their deliberations, paid special attention to the issue of ESG performance, which affects investment decisions and, consequently, the sustainability of the company. According to the authors, it is important to identify a way to improve the image and attract customers, which takes place through the implementation of ESG strategy assumptions. In their research, they attempted to assess the impact of ESG strategies on brand liking [13] (pp. 1, 13).

On the other hand, as far as ESG studies conducted specifically in the oil and gas industry are concerned, it is worth citing a study by Cardoni et al. within which the authors assessed the comparability of non-financial reports. As they pointed out in their conclusions, it is very difficult to conduct any comparative analysis based on the mentioned statements, which is mainly due to the lack of standardized reporting methods. In practice, this leads to a considerable amount of chaos and is often characterized by a lack of objectivity [14] (pp. 2–3). It is worth noting that, in the face of environmental protection challenges at present, oil and gas companies need to make significant changes to their business models, even if only by implementing ESG principles [15] (p. 1).

As noted above, there are many approaches to assessing the relationship between ESG and various areas of corporate performance. It should be mentioned that the particular issues considered in this case are the impact of ESG strategies on financial performance [16,17], for example, the impact of ESG strategies on the cost of debt [18], the relationship between ESG strategies and mutual fund performance [19] (p. 53), the impact of green financing or green policy on ESG development [20,21], the link between the ESG rating and the promotion of green innovations [22], or the existence of a relationship between ESG results and the investment development of the company [23].

A particular focus In this case is on the issue of financial consequences resulting from the implementation of ESG strategies [24] (p. 10), [25] (p. 82828). The key question is whether the consideration of non-financial criteria within an enterprise’s operations affects the costs it incurs, the financial result generated, and its investment activities [10] (p. 2), [26] (p. 1783), [27] (p. 827).

Based on the examples presented, it can be noted that ESG issues are the subject of numerous considerations at present. The pressure of companies to invest in this particular area demonstrates a growing belief in the validity of sustainable management. As a result, such a focus of the company’s development meets the needs of stakeholders and leads to the building and strengthening of mutual relations. In practice, however, both managers and researchers are asking themselves the question of results. Can the implementation of ESG assumptions project the company’s financial situation? Hence the unflagging interest in this topic in the literature. It seems particularly important from the point of view of pre-enterprises in specific sectors of the economy, within which the implementation of ESG assumptions relates, if only to the current regulations. Given that the oil and gas industry represents such an area and that the literature has not paid attention to the interrelationships that exist between ESG strategies and financial performance in this specific area, it is considered as a research gap and the considerations focus on this.

Accordingly, it is adopted as the objective of this article to verify whether there is a link between the ESG strategy implemented by the selected company and its financial performance. In the following discussion, a literature review is conducted to systematize the key concepts in the area of socially responsible investment and ESG strategies, thus forming the basis for the research hypotheses.

2. Literature Review

2.1. ESG: Basic Assumptions

The rapid change in the meaning of the terms “sustainable management”, “sustainability”, and “social responsibility” has contributed to a number of transformations, mainly in terms of building the awareness of public authorities, businesses, consumers, and other economic actors.

Sustainable management is, in other words, the value of a company achieved in the long term in three main areas, namely, economic, social, and environmental. Managing a company according to these aspects involves creating a sustainable business environment that results in sustainable growth in the long term, rather than focusing on profit maximization in the short term [28] (p. 3).

Many changes have also taken place in the area of investment, which has evolved into its various forms, including those that take environmental and social aspects into account. The abovementioned evolution has led to the terms SRI and ESG becoming synonymous, even though they should not be used interchangeably. Instead, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between the two.

The origins of the development of the concepts mentioned, and SRI in particular, can be traced to the widely considered concept of sustainable investments (SIs) [1] (p. 1), [29] (p. 2), observed as an investment strategy where behavioral aspects play a dominant role over financial aspects [30] (p. 708), [31] (p. 24). The criterion for selecting companies for the investment portfolio is the assessment of their functioning in terms of responsibility. Generally, the main goal of enterprises is to maximize profits; however, within this problem, it is also particularly important to take into account the needs of stakeholders and society. The literature on the subject allows us to note that the concept of sustainable investment is often associated with terms, such as ecological investments, ethical investments, socially responsible investing, and ESG, i.e., investing according to environmental, social, and corporate governance assumptions [5] (p. 140), [7] (p. 195), [32] (p. 113).

Generally, the goal of socially responsible investments (SRIs) is considered to be the impact of the company on specific types of projects. In practice, this investment style often presupposes an assessment of the enterprise, where achieving a negative result is associated with the recognition of a given activity as inappropriate and is the basis for its exclusion from the market. For example, entities that focus their activities on issues related to cigarettes, alcohol, weapons, etc., may be rejected from the strategy of socially responsible investment [33] (pp. 4–5). However, a socially responsible investment should not be equated solely to eliminating entities that do not follow social and environmental goals. It should be noted that these are also activities aimed at popularizing enterprises that emphasize social justice and environmental initiatives in the context of their investment activities [34] (pp. 14–17). In addition, entities whose purpose it is to provide services to the local community may be included in the SRI portfolio [35] (p. 2). The fundamental difference between SRI and ESG relates to the nature of the criteria assigned to them, on the basis of which the selection of companies for the portfolio is performed. Factors taken into account as part of SRIs serve to exclude enterprises that do not meet the imposed standards (which are negative), while the ESG criteria allow the selection of enterprises that fit into the established pattern (which are positive) [36] (p. 14).

In the literature on the subject, socially responsible investment is perceived as a process of the selection of assets within an investment portfolio. The selection of instruments is performed in accordance with previously adopted criteria and may occur in different ways [37] (p. 149).

It is worth mentioning that the interest in socially responsible investments appeared in response to the needs of institutional investors, according to whom the assessment of the risks and the size of profit is significantly impacted by proper corporate governance, i.e., a non-financial variable. In this approach, it was considered necessary to formulate the Principles for Responsible Investment [1] (p. 1), according to which responsible investors should be perceived as persons who, as part of their investment activities, rely on ESG factors [38] (p. 100).

Although these rules are not mandatory, in practice they are considered extremely important, as they were developed to improve the process of taking ESG factors into account in investment activities. Six main directions were formulated in this respect, namely [2] (pp. 202–223):

• Raising ESG issues at the investment analysis stage and during the decision-making process;
• Implementing ESG rules in company policies and promoting the engagement and active participation in the functioning of the company;
• Open presentation of ESG aspects by entities cooperating with the enterprise;
• Promoting the implementation of ESG factors as part of investment activities;
• Engaging in cooperation in order to increase the effectiveness of SRI implementations;
• Preparing reports covering the activities and the degree of implementation of SRI principles.

Reports on the European SRI market, periodically prepared by Eurosif, include an analysis of seven strategies undertaken in the area of socially responsible investments, namely, [4] (pp. 9–10), [6] (pp. 12–13), [39] (pp. 82–83):

• Sustainability-themed investment—this strategy focuses on investing in the area of sustainable development; therefore, it is also referred to as thematic. Investors’ decisions regarding investment choices in this case are in line with broad social and environmental objectives, for example, increasing eco-innovation, moving towards a circular economy, etc.
• Best-in-class investment selection—expansion of the investment portfolio takes place by including companies that have achieved the best results in terms of ESG factors in a specific sector of the economy.
• Exclusion of holdings of investment universe companies—assumes reducing the investment portfolio by companies that participate in promoting issues considered controversial in ethical and social terms, including those related to alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc.
• Norm-based screening—the selection of companies for the investment portfolio is based on the exclusion of those entities whose activities differ from the standards in the area of environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance.
• ESG integration factors in financial analysis—consists of taking into account the ESG criteria in the financial analysis and assessing their impact on the financial result.
• Engagement and voting on sustainability matters—emphasizes an active participation in the implementation of the principles of social responsibility in the enterprise, and is therefore of a long-term nature. Shareholders use their voting rights to contribute to sustainability-related initiatives.
• Impact investing—considered as social investment, the purpose of which is to invest capital in various types of entities in such a way that it ultimately has a positive impact on society and the environment.

The issue of “environmental, social and governance investing” was permanently included in the investment practice in 2004 as one of the main summaries and recommendations specified in the report of the Global Compact Leaders Summit, United Nations Headquarters. The experience of the top 20 financial institutions that have successfully implemented ESG factors within their operations confirmed its importance in terms of the quality of corporate governance [40] (p. 4). According to entrepreneurs, taking environmental, social, and corporate governance issues into account contributes to better a performance, including in the form of increased shareholder value [41] (p. 218), [23] (p. 2). This is possible by integrating different areas, for example, appropriate risk management, skillful anticipation of actions planned by regulators, or the search for new markets while creating favorable conditions for the development of the society in which a given enterprise operates. In practice, these issues have a key impact on a company’s reputation and determine its value [42] (p. 5).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development perceives ESG investing as an approach aimed at taking into account ESG factors in decision-making processes regarding asset allocation and risk-taking [43] (p. 77). This means that, in the long run, sustainable profits are expected to be generated. According to the OECD, the increased interest in ESG investing is due to the growing awareness among entrepreneurs of the results that this style of investing achieves. The rate of return achieved through ESG investing is no different from that achieved through traditional investing. In addition, the social and environmental objectives that characterize this mode of investment positively impact corporate performance, with operators choosing to shift from a short-term approach to risk and returns to a long-term perspective [44] (p. 202).

The ESG facilitates the definition of strategic objectives in relation to individual criteria. In addition, in the opinion of financial actors, it helps to align these objectives with the investment objectives. In the context of ESG investing, investments corresponding to three key aspects are indicated, namely, [45] (p. 121), [46] (p. 83), [47] (p. 1174), [48] (pp. 2–3):

• Environmental—for example: it assumes investing in companies whose activities are aimed at protecting biodiversity;
• Social—for example: investments are made in companies that respect human rights;
• Corporate governance—for example: companies that have a transparent and open information policy play a key role in this respect.

ESG criteria apply in the area of SRIs enabling the selection of a company for the portfolio. As noted above, SRIs, based on a negative assessment approach, eliminate from the investment strategy those companies that distribute harmful substances, participate in activities that create a risk to the environment, or violate human rights. SRIs rarely analyze enterprises positively, i.e., looking for those that promote sustainable practices in their activities and use clean technology in their production processes. All efforts undertaken in this area are aimed at defining principles and criteria in the area of climate change or human rights, which in the future is to facilitate such investments [24] (p. 15), [49] (p. 2), [50] (p. 147).

Companies that recognize the impact of social responsibility and uphold a sustainable approach to business practices and stakeholder relationship management have a high awareness of the role ESG plays at present in the international market. The scale and nature of the environmental impact and the promotion of ethical behavior by companies are key aspects in terms of building customer trust. At present, therefore, the implementation of ESG assumptions seems to be a prerequisite for creating a positive corporate image [13] (p. 1).

In the literature on the subject, ESG is often presented as a leading model that indicates a specific investment style aimed at achieving a specific social goal [36] (p. 14). ESG investing seeks to shape financial markets in such a way as to be in line with the implementation of sustainable development principles. Improved corporate sustainability performance is the result of the effective implementation of ESG goals [51] (p. 526).

There is a belief among proponents of ESG that spreading ESG activities contributes to the quality of the performance. This approach is related to the stakeholder theory, according to which maintaining a company’s long-term profits and competitive advantage should involve taking into account the needs of all stakeholders [52] (p. 70), [53] (p. 12). The lack of a valid ESG strategy can, in turn, result in outcomes that are not sufficiently sustainable. It is worth mentioning that companies that are guided by ESG assumptions in their operations create sustainable relationships with their environment. In addition, the goals indicated as part of their ESG strategy are long term in nature, and therefore they do not conduct the deliberate manipulation of the financial data. Reporting non-financial data, on the other hand, makes the company prove its commitment to environmental and social issues, and thus becomes credible to its audience in terms of upholding the idea of sustainable development [54] (p. 5).

At this point, it should also be mentioned that the term impact investing is closely related to the concept of environmental, social, and governance investing, which emphasizes the manager’s focus on a specific result [55] (p. 1), [56] (p. 1). ESG factors, on the other hand, are used in the evaluation process of an enterprise, including to identify risks and growth opportunities based on non-financial criteria. Impact investing aims to achieve a beneficial and, at the same time, measurable outcome for the company, which is the result of an investment of an environmental or social nature, whereas ESG only provides a direction to achieve this goal [57] (p. 9).

When addressing the topic of how enterprises operate in accordance with ESG criteria, performance reporting issues cannot be overlooked [25] (p. 8289), [50] (p. 1093), [33] (pp. 1–2). ESG performance reporting plays an important role, mainly in the view of investors. It is seen by them as a tool for assessing the quality of management to identify potential opportunities and risks, in effect improving their decision-making processes [58] (p. 2). The company’s disclosure of non-financial ESG data is aimed at equalizing the stock of knowledge held by users, improving the company’s image in the social context, meeting the information needs of investors and improving relations with all stakeholders [59] (pp. 3–4).

Particular importance in this respect is attached to the SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) standards, aimed at unifying the way companies report on their activities from the perspective of sustainable development. The standards were developed for companies from 77 sectors of the economy and their assumption was to provide information on both the risks and potential in the areas of the environment, social issues, and corporate governance. These aspects are considered to have a significant impact on the financial result and value of the enterprise. It is important to mention that the SASB’s standard formulation process was based on strict guidelines that drew on scientific research and the substantive support from companies and experts. The entire procedure was supervised and finally approved by an independent SASB. An example of a materiality map (for six selected sectors) is presented in Figure 1 [60].

By reviewing the relationship between sustainability and corporate value creation, it can be seen that SASB standards are set appropriately for the industry in which the analyzed entities are located. The discrepancy in their fit was due to the different risks and different development options of the individual. Companies located in the same industry most often present similar patterns in terms of creating their value.

Table 1. Materiality map components and selected ESG strategies.

Industry Sectors
Consumer goods, extractives and minerals processing, financials, food and beverage, healthcare, infrastructure, renewable resources and alternative energy, resource transformation, services, technology and communications, transportation.
Material indicators
Environment: GHG emissions, air quality, energy management, water and wastewater management, waste and hazardous materials management, ecological impact. Social impact: human rights and community relations, customer privacy, data security, access and affordability, product quality and safety, customer welfare, selling practices and product labeling, data security and privacy. Human capital: labour practices, employee health and safety, employee engagement, diversity and inclusion. Business model and innovation: product design and lifecycle management, business model resilience, supply chain management, materials sourcing and efficiency, physical impacts of climate change. Leadership and governance: business ethics, competitive behaviour, management of the legal and regulatory environment, critical incident risk management, systemic risk management.
Popular ESG strategies
Screening—consists of accepting or excluding resources within the investment portfolio, in accordance with previously determined criteria. Best-in-class—takes into account the high ESG results in the resource selection process. Stock rating—based on the results of the ESG rating. Value integration—assumes referring to ESG criteria when valuing shares. Thematic—refers to building an investment portfolio in a specific thematic area. Engagement—advocates for the continuation of the postulated position on ESG. Alignment—draws attention to integration with social and environmental goals. Activism—emphasizes the essence of the right to vote, including its impact on the involvement of the enterprise. Systematic—indicates the use of empirical factors.

shows the 11 categories for the aforementioned 77 economic sectors, as well as 5 dimensions and corresponding material indicators—used to create an individual materiality map [49] (p. 6), [61] (pp. 590–591), [62] (p. 25), [63]. Popular ESG strategies were also identified in the aforementioned statement. SASB standards make it possible to set specific indicators relating to environmental, social, and corporate governance issues that can have a significant impact on the financial performance of the enterprise and the industry as a whole.

From a stakeholder’s point of view, ESG should be considered in at least three basic ways, including [61] (p. 589):

• Selecting areas of industry where the assumption of risks and the use of opportunities in the area of ESG are particularly emphasized;
• Choosing the most effective way to implement the ESG strategy;
• Identification of material indicators impacting the company’s financial performance.

Despite the prevailing belief that ESG strategies and SRIs are unambiguous, the terms should not be considered synonymous. ESG provides a basis for risk management rather than an independent strategy [64] (p. 1). In addition, it makes it possible to determine the scale of the impact of social and environmental investments on the enterprise. The use of ESG criteria to evaluate a company contributes to achieving better financial results in the future [57] (p. 9). Companies that are characterized by a good ESG performance are accompanied by a higher level of competitiveness and, consequently, higher investor interest. The results determine the improvement of profitability and improve the risk management process [65,66].

It is recognized that non-financial risks determined by ESG factors are equally as important in the context of investment assessment as financial risk [67] (p. 2). ESG data are therefore important mainly because they contribute to minimizing risks, including financial risks, and therefore to making a more accurate assessment of an enterprise’s investment opportunities. The risks considered under the ESG areas are contained in three aspects [38] (p. 100–101):

• Environmental (E), where they include climate change, including any anomalies and the effects of global warming; the increased incidence of more noticeable natural disasters; issues related to the depletion of natural resources; and environmental pollution;
• Social (S), where the following aspects are taken into account: the occurrence of financial exclusion and, thus, among other things, the risk of poverty and growing inequalities in society; the development of social illnesses, especially obesity, diabetes, etc.; disrespect for human and workers’ rights as manifested by excessive work assignments, mobbing, and discrimination; and the demographic decline in and aging of the population;
• Corporate governance (G), with risks relating to ignoring applicable regulations, leading to fraudulent financial transactions, counterfeiting, collusive pricing, and non-statutory complaint procedures; breaches of professional ethics standards, including through dishonest contracts, controversial marketing strategies, and misleading advertising to the public; standards of equal treatment of stakeholders; conflict of interest issues and organizational structure; and transparency of information policy.

The long-term process of transformation that has taken place in the economy in recent years has fundamentally influenced many aspects of business operations, including the perception of responsible investment, especially in the context of achieving financial results. It should be noted that, both in the literature and based on investor experience, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that an investment strategy emphasizing environmental, social, and corporate governance criteria has the same impact on the bottom line as traditional investments. The inclusion of the financial aspect within ESG investing facilitates the definition of strategic objectives, whereas the mere specification of ESG factors does not determine the outcome achieved. This way of investing leads to increased opportunities regarding the choice of ESG strategies and thus guarantees investments at a higher level [68] (p. 14).

In this area, there are significant barriers, such as finance and insufficient motivation, to introduce ESG assumptions aimed at maximizing the interests of shareholders. Many companies are affected at present by the limited capacity and high costs associated with implementing ESG strategies and, in addition to this, increasing external funding for these purposes. Consequently, it significantly reduces their drive to develop this area within the company. In the context of sustainable development, it is particularly important to break down the barriers preventing the internal financing of restrictions and increase the motivation within the enterprise for ESG investing [10] (p. 2).

Based on the literature review presented above, the following research hypotheses are set within this study:

H1. 

The UNIMOT Group’s implementation of its ESG strategy has no impact on its financial performance.

H2. 

The implementation of the ESG strategy by the UNIMOT Group does not affect the sales volume achieved by it.

H3. 

The non-financial results available in ESG reports do not affect the UNIMOT Group’s financial result.

H4. 

The objectives included in the UNIMOT Group’s strategy are in line with the standards selected by the SASB.

The research hypotheses are verified later in the article. The UNIMOT Group is included in the research, the characteristics of which are outlined below.

2.2. UNIMOT Group: Specifics of Functioning

The UNIMOT Group is an independent fuel and energy importer in Poland. The Group consists of the parent company UNIMOT S.A. (founder) and 17 subsidiaries. It is the parent company’s responsibility to control the activities of its subsidiaries. It is also responsible for implementing the Group’s business and ESG strategies. The objective of the subsidiaries, on the other hand, comes down to developing the Group in the liquid fuels, gaseous fuels, and electricity sectors. An additional area of growth for the Group is the expansion of the AVIA service station network [32] (p. 13).

Its activities are mainly focused on the import of liquid and gaseous fuels, including [69]:

• Diesel fuel—the Group’s activities relate to the wholesale of petrol and diesel fuels. Sales of liquid fuels in Poland are conducted according to two systems, i.e., franco, where the sale of fuel also includes its delivery, and loco, where the customer is responsible for the transport of the sold fuel. The Group’s business customers include construction and transport companies, wholesalers and petrol stations, and agriculture;
• Liquefied petroleum gas—the sale of LPG is conducted on wholesale and retail markets. Gas is supplied to filling stations and heating tanks, including our own (leased out) and those belonging to individual customers and other companies. The specific nature of the industry significantly affects the diversity of customers;
• Natural gas—the Group’s activities in this area include trading in natural gas on the TGE (Towarowa Giełda Energii—Energy Stock Exchange) and the over-the-counter market, as well as the sale and distribution of gas to the final recipient;
• Biofuels—products sold as independent fuel that is dedicated to diesel-powered vehicles. It should be noted that, unlike traditional diesel, biofuels emit significantly less harmful substances into the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this respect, the Group offers diesel B100 and methyl esters;
• Electricity—in this area, the Group conducts wholesale energy trading using exchange and brokerage platforms (Tradea) and the sale of energy to the final customer using a foreign infrastructure;
• Asphalt products—from 2019. The Group imports and sells asphalt products in Poland (AVIA Bitumen);
• Engine oils and lubricants—the sale and distribution of these products was initiated in 2019 on the Chinese market. Hence, the actions taken in 2018 involved the creation of an additional company and the launch of an office in Shanghai. In 2019, using UNIMOT’s distribution network, oil sales in Ukraine also started. In addition, from 2020, the Group pursued sales of AVIA oils on the domestic market;
• Photovoltaics—the Group has sold photovoltaic systems under the AVIA Solar brand since 2020. Customers serviced in this area belong to the business sector, and the offer addressed to them includes the production of photovoltaic panels (from 2021), installation of equipment, the possibility of buying back the generated energy, energy storage, and supplying it with power from the grid. In 2021, the sector was expanded to include photovoltaic farms. The Group is assuming the dynamic development of this area of business and thus creating added value from it in the future.

UNIMOT S.A. has been operating in the market since 2011, while it has been listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange since 2017 (it had its debut in 2012 on the NewConnect market). Fuel sales are performed both on a wholesale and retail scale. In the case of individual customers, it mainly covers propane–butane gas, natural gas, and electricity. The company’s activity is characterized by a gradual escalation, as evidenced by the construction of the aforementioned network of service stations in Poland in 2017 and the expansion of this network in 2019 in Ukraine [69] (p. 23), [70].

It should be mentioned that 2021 has proven to be a key year for the Group from an ESG perspective. It was then decided to develop a thematic strategy, which was adopted a year later. According to its assumption, the aim was to disseminate the Group’s view on sustainable development. It pointed to specific solutions that would be implemented with the intention of protecting the environment, caring for society and keeping corporate governance at a high level. The ESG strategy is a reflection of the transparent policy of the UNIMOT Group, which, as part of its activities, particularly emphasizes environmental, social, and corporate governance aspects. It is based on five strategic objectives appropriately located in the three ESG areas mentioned. Their achievement, in turn, is associated with the implementation of the tasks assigned to them [69] (p. 15). These aspects are presented in

Table 2. Areas, strategic goals, and objectives for the implementation of the UNIMOT Group’s ESG strategy.

ESG Area	Strategic Objective	Tasks
Environment	I. Systematic reduction in the Group’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions	Development of business based on renewable energy sources
		Continuous delivery of NCW and NCR responsibilities to the highest standards
		Striving for greenhouse gas neutrality in scopes 1 and 2
	II. Effective management of UNIMOT Group’s environmental impact	Improving environmental management processes
		In-depth analysis of climate risks and opportunities
Social	III. Increasing the safety, commitment, and skills of employees, and promoting a healthy and active lifestyle among them	Improving safety at work
		Continuous improvement of staff competence and commitment
		Providing access to private health insurance and sports cards
	IV. Support for social development and young talent	Support for local communities
		Supporting young talent and creating opportunities for their development
Governance	V. UNIMOT Group management for sustainable development	Building a culture of sustainability in the organization
		Introduction of the Business Partner Code

.

The Group’s declaration on the implementation of the ESG strategy involves the need to perform actions consistent with the idea of sustainable development and requires cyclical reporting on the tasks conducted within it. The ESG reports are non-financial in nature and will be produced annually, with the first one produced for 2021. The Group’s intention is also the gradual development of ESG criteria management, which will be crucially influenced by increasing the competences of the indicated organizational unit and gradually expanding the scope of reporting. It is worth mentioning that ESG issues are also important for investors. This is evidenced by the results of a survey conducted on a group of UNIMOT S.A. investors in 2021, according to which the implementation of the ESG strategy and reporting its results will significantly affect the estimation of the company’s value in the future [69] (pp. 19–20).

At this point, one should also refer to the location of UNIMOT S.A. in the sustainable industry classification system (SICS), which allows for the classification of the aforementioned company into the oil and gas midstream [71]. SASB standards should be considered depending on the industry in which a given enterprise is located, while its adjustment is determined by the spectrum of sustainability criteria (including opportunities and threats).

Table 3. General issue category and disclosure topics for the oil and gas midstream.

Oil and Gas Midstream
General Issue Category (Dimension)	Disclosure Topics
GHG Emissions (Environment)	Greenhouse gas emissions—the activity of enterprises classified in this sector is identified with the generation of significant levels of greenhouse gases and other harmful substances. Undoubtedly, these emissions have a negative impact on the climate, at the same time generating costs for entrepreneurs related to the need to adapt activities to legal regulations. There is also an emerging risk that relates to climate change mitigation. In practice, striving to reduce methane emissions and minimize thier negative impact on the climate is part of the risk of enterprises in the sector, including operational, reputational, and regulatory.
Air Quality (Environment)	Air quality—companies from oil and gas midstream release harmful substances into the air, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are dangerous for both the environment and people. In addition to VOCs, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are also considered to be extremely toxic.
Ecological Impacts (Environment)	Ecological mpacts—in this area, the degradation of the natural environment and the risk of a threat to society from the storage and distribution of crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas are particularly emphasized. The direct impact is associated with the extensive infrastructure of the sea, land (freight and trains), and pipelines, which results in accidental leaks, prohibited discharges, the occupation of areas with an extensive network of pipelines, or established easements in sensitive areas. As a result, there is human interference in ecosystems, which causes the destruction of natural habitats or the migration of species.
Competitive Behaviour (Leadership and Governance)	Competitive Bbehaviour—the functioning of enterprises that have pipelines and natural gas storage facilities depends on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and specifying the standards introduced by this institution. These regulations apply to all areas of activity, i.e., from issues related to the calculation of fees to accessibility options for pipelines, as well as decisions related to the location and construction of subsequent facilities.
Critical Incident Risk Management (Leadership and Governance)	Operational safety, emergency preparedness, and response—the specificity of the functioning of enterprises belonging to the discussed sector is associated with the handling of a specific type of asset, characterized by a high risk of accidents or leaks. For example, the unexpected release of hydrocarbons into the environment has long-term effects that are unfavourable to the environment, employees, and residents. Therefore, the development of new safety regulations for the operation of pipelines and railways is considered crucial in this respect.

shows the relevant issues and disclosure topics assigned to UNIMOT S.A. using the Materiality Finder [72]. Issues that are not bolded in the list of standards (as part of the Materiality Finder) are defined as insignificant in terms of impacts on the value of the enterprise. However, based on the feedback from the environment, they may be updated, including both adding and removing selected issues. In practice, each enterprise makes an individual assessment of the impact of individual aspects of sustainable development on the creation of its value. SASB standards indicate industry-specific criteria, while companies can supplement them with additional aspects in accordance with their business models [72,73], [74] (p. 337).

According to SICS, the oil and gas midstream industry includes companies whose activities relate to the transport and storage of gas, crude oil, and petroleum products. This sector also includes companies operating stations and bulk handling terminals, as well as manufacturers of storage tanks and pipelines [72].

The general issue category indicated in Table 3 refers to issues of a general nature, i.e., those that occur irrespective of the specifics of an industry and are therefore taken into account when SASB standards are developed for any entity. Disclosure topics, on the other hand, emphasize the impact of specific issues on a particular industry, thus guaranteeing their matching. The topics included in Table 3 were selected for UNIMOT S.A., and more specifically for the oil and gas midstream industry to which the company belongs. In practice, SASB standards set the general direction of the company’s development in the area of ESG strategies, with an emphasis on topics that should be compulsorily reported within a given sector [72].

It should be noted that all of the disclosure topics presented in Table 3 are in line with the ESG policy pursued by the UNIMOT Group. In this respect, GHG emissions, air quality, and ecological impact correspond to the assumptions of two strategic objectives in the area of the environment, i.e., a systematic reduction of the Group’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the effective management of the UNIMOT Group’s impact on the environment, while competitive behavior and critical incident risk should be associated with the fifth strategic objective: managing the UNIMOT Group for sustainable development, defined as part of corporate governance.

As the name suggests, in the context of GHG emissions, the focus is on greenhouse gas emissions. The UNIMOT Group’s ESG strategy assumptions show that the successive reduction in the unit’s share of these emissions is the first strategic objective. Its achievement, on the other hand, is correlated with activities of a specific nature, which include among others, the development of the Group’s activities in the field of renewable energy sources (including on the market of photovoltaic systems and small modular reactors), maintaining the national indicator target (NCW) and the national reduction target (NCR) at the required level, and striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the scope of scopes 1 (direct emissions) and 2 (indirect emissions). As part of air quality and ecological impacts, the negative effects of the impact of companies from the oil and gas midstream sector on the external environment are emphasized. In the first case, we focus on the emissions of volatile organic compounds as well as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides into the air. The second example involves human contributions to the degradation of the natural environment. In order to minimize the negative impact on these areas, the UNIMOT Group decided to implement the second strategic objective, which assumed the effective management of its impact on the environment. In this respect, it provided for the implementation of operational systemic measures and solutions aimed at improving environmental management standards. The last of the listed disclosure topics, namely, competitive behavior and critical incident risk management, occur within the leadership and governance aspect, which proves the need for the company to report on issues related to the pricing policy and the quality and effectiveness of the services offered. It should be mentioned that these issues are considered to be paramount, especially when there is a concern of monopolistic practices. In response to the issue raised, the UNIMOT Group defined specific actions within the ESG strategy (Strategic Objective V) among which the following aspects were highlighted: the application and control of the implementation of the adopted strategy, regulations and operating standards, dissemination of the concept of sustainability within the supply chain, updating of contracts with partners, and development and implementation of a business partner code for service providers, suppliers, and key stakeholders.

The comment above justifies the alignment of SASB standards with the development directions indicated by the UNIMOT Group in the ESG strategy, and therefore confirms hypothesis 4. As noted above, the SASB standards only set a potential direction for the development of an entity in a specific area. Therefore, the ESG policy implemented by a given enterprise does not have to be narrowed down only to disclosure topics; however, in the expanded version with additional issues, it should correspond to the business model of the company. The situation is similar for the UNIMOT Group, which includes an additional aspect, namely, the social aspect in its ESG strategy that is not indicated by the Materiality Finder. In this respect, two strategic objectives were defined: increasing the safety, commitment, and qualifications of employees, and promoting a healthy and active lifestyle among them, as well as supporting social development and young talents. It was assumed that the implementation of these objectives would be based on specific tasks, including the use of solutions aimed at increasing the work safety of employees and contractors, in addition to the gradual development of competences and building employee involvement, or the introduction of private health insurance and sports cards.

According to the assumption, later on in the article, an attempt is made to verify whether the implementation of the ESG strategy by the UNIMOT Group has any impact on the financial result and sales revenues.

3. Materials and Methods

This section refers to the methods and variables used to verify the previously stated hypotheses. For this purpose, the econometric package GRETL was used [75,76,77,78], which:

• Allowed us to build a correlation matrix between the selected variables;
• Based on the method of ordinary least squares (OLS), it enabled the development of a sample logit model between the dependent and independent variables.

The data referred to above are financial and non-financial (

Table 4. Selected financial data of the UNIMOT Group from 2017 to 2021.

Variable		2017 (v1)	2018 (v2)	2019 (v3)	2020 (v4)	2021 (v5)
Selected financial data and indicators
Revenue from sales (kPLN)	x1	3,009,249	3,367,462	4,450,180	4,769,994	8,207,216
Gross profit (kPLN)	x2	145,404	121,899	221,605	249,521	366,239
EBIT (kPLN)	x3	29,896	727	68,744	49,255	103,734
Sales volume by segment
Diesel, petrol, biofuels (m3)	x4	826,755.4	840,366	1,121,601	1,347,350	1,583,850
LPG (T)	x5	113,666	126,632	167,860	185,271	221,445
Natural gas (GWh)	x6	349.9	405	504.8	774.4	2507
Electricity (GWh)	x7	588.7	1529	2078.5	2573.2	3145
Fuels at stations (thousand liters)	x8	0	47.5	75.5	107,387	179,834
Petroleum products (T)	x9	0	0	21,409	48,824	56,672
Photovoltaics (KWp)	x10	0	0	0	1391	4249
Sales revenue by segment (in kPLN)
Diesel, petrol, biofuels	x11	2,610,100	2,932,880	3,898,509	3,845,935	6,436,642
LPG	x12	251,727	301,709	343,476	342,960	645,338
Natural gas	x13	32,186	44,750	47,868	71,777	552,622
Electricity	x14	97,678	73,398	87,306	120,127	222,971
Fuel at the stations	x15	16,600	17,972	35,204	69,855	214,235
Petroleum products	x16	0	165	30,943	309,641	105,153
Photovoltaics	x17	0	0	0	5018	14,756

and

Table 5. Selected financial and non-financial data of UNIMOT Group in 2020–2022.

Selected Financial Data (kPLN)	Variable
	2020 (z1)	2021 (z2)	2022 (z3)
Revenues from sales	4,819,488	8,193,018	13,369,364
Gross profit	249,521	366,239	954,205
EBIT	49,255	104,410	485,374
EBITDA	58,293	116,418	502,463
Net profit	75,961	75,961	373,897
Equity capital	265,881	325,875	703,794
Long-term liabilities	52,690	92,297	96,614
Short-term liabilities	471,764	813,116	864,869
Total assets	790,335	1,231,288	1,665,277
Selected Non-Financial Data	2020 (z4)	2021 (z5)	2022 (z6)
Total number of accidents	0	2	0
Total fuels consumed in transport (MWh)	4270.50	5429.50	6691.00
Total fuels consumed by buildings and installations (MWh)	550.6	16,563.90	10,408.30
Total energy consumption from all sources (MWh)	5347.40	22,960.10	19,136.40
Energy from all renewable sources (MWh)	285.7	540.3	948.3
Energy from all non-renewable sources (MWh)	5069.60	22,419.70	18,188.10
Total energy from all sources (MWh)	5355.40	22,960.10	19,136.40
Electricity generated from RESs (MWh)	0.50	4.20	36.30
Total GHG scope-1 emissions (Mg CO2e)	1257.30	3478.00	3074.10
Scope 2 location-based (Mg CO2e)	326.7	750.2	1318.7
Scope 2 market-based (Mg CO2e)	173.4	445,7	797.20
Scopes 1 + 2 location-based + scope 3 (Mg CO2e)	1628.6	4300.90	4517.10
Scopes 1 +2 market-based (Mg CO2e)	1475.3	3956.40	3995.70
GHG scope-3 emissions (Mg CO2e)	44.6	76.90	124.40
Wastewater discharged into the municipal network (m3)	1534.90	7215.60	14,767.20
Hazardous waste (Mg)	0.00	0.00	0.39
Non-hazardous waste (Mg)	0.093	0.085	0.678

).

It was assumed that the implementation of an ESG strategy may have indirectly affected a company’s sales revenue or financial result. Table 4 summarizes the selected financial data of the UNIMOT Group and the volume and value of sales revenues for specific business segments. This information relates to the period 2017–2021 [79,80,81].

Using the information in Table 4, the relationships that existed between the selected groups of data were verified, namely:

• Years (variables: v1–v5) in the area of selected data and financial indicators (variables: x1–x3)—Figure 2a;
• Years (variables: v1–v5) in the area of sales revenue in specific segments (variables: x11–x17)—Figure 2b;
• Years (variables v1–v5) in the area of sales volume by segment (variables: x4–x10)—Figure 3.

These relationships were presented in the form of correlation matrices.

At this point, it is also worth noting the development of non-financial data and, consequently, the relationships that exist between them and the selected financial data (presented in Table 5). Since the UNIMOT Group’s ESG strategy was effective from 2021, the temporal scope of the non-financial data included in the ESG reports and the corresponding financial data covered the years 2020–2022 [82,83].

Based on the data in Table 5, an attempt was made to build logit models aimed at defining the relationships that exist between the selected financial and non-financial data. Using the method of ordinary least squares, all the possible combinations of relationships that could occur between the following areas were assessed:

• Financial (dependent variables: z1–z3) and non-financial (independent variables: z4–z6) data in a particular year;
• Non-financial data in a particular year (dependent and independent variables: z4–z6).

Figure 4 and Figure 5 present two example models. Regardless of the assumptions made, the different pairs of variables (put together in specific groups) were characterized by the same trend. An interpretation is presented in the subsequent section of the paper.

4. Results

Figure 2 shows the correlation map between variables v1–v5, which correspond to the time range: 2017–2021. In the context of the development of selected financial results, including sales revenue, gross profit, and EBIT, a full correlation between years is evident. Particular attention should be paid to 2021, the year in which the ESG strategy was implemented and that shows a complete correlation with each of the other periods.

Figure 2. Correlation matrix: (a) between selected financial data and ratios from 2017 to 2021; (b) between sales revenue in specific segments from 2017 to 2021.

Figure 2. Correlation matrix: (a) between selected financial data and ratios from 2017 to 2021; (b) between sales revenue in specific segments from 2017 to 2021.

A one-hundred-percent correlation also occurred between all other years. This situation demonstrated the absence of deviations in the selected financial data and indicators. It can be concluded that all the activities implemented in the UNIMOT Group’s operation, including the specific tasks aimed at introducing strategic assumptions within the ESG framework, did not influence the direction of the data in question. The situation is similar in Figure 3, where the correlation map relates to the variables v1–v5 within the sales revenue generated in each segment. A full correlation exists between all of the periods analyzed, including between the year of implementation of the ESG strategy, 2021, and the remaining years. In the same way, we can assume that, regardless of the actions taken, including those resulting from the adopted ESG policy, sales revenues in specific segments were characterized by an unchanging upward trend. Based on the conclusions presented, the validity of the previously stated hypotheses 1 and 2 can be assumed.

Table 6. Value-based correlation matrices.

Correlation matrix between selected financial data and indicators from 2017 to 2021	Using observations 1–4 5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.9500 for n = 4
	v1	v2	v3	v4	v5
	1.0000	0.9999	1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	v1
		1.0000	0.9999	0.9999	0.9999	v2
			1.0000	1.0000	1.0000	v3
				1.0000	1.0000	v4
					1.0000	v5
Correlation matrix between sales revenues in specific segments in 2017–2021	Using observations 1–8 5% critical value (two-tailed) = 0.7067 for n = 8
	v1	v2	v3	v4	v5
	1.0000	0.9999	0.9998	0.9966	0.9973	v1
		1.0000	0.9998	0.9966	0.9976	v2
			1.0000	0.9975	0.9976	v3
				1.0000	0.9946	v4
					1.0000	v5

shows the critical values of the correlation coefficients for both matrices and the values of the individual coefficients.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient (r*) included in Table 6 was determined based on the significance test for the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. In a situation where the null hypothesis is presented as H₀:R_ij = 0, then the formula for the critical value of the correlation coefficient is [75] (p. 55):

$$r^{*}=\sqrt{\frac{\frac{t_{\alpha ,s}^2}{n-2}}{1+\frac{t_{\alpha ,s}^2}{n-2}}}$$

($t_{\alpha ,s}^2$ is the critical value of the t-student statistics for the adopted level of significance $\alpha$ and degrees of freedom $s=n-2$).

As can be seen from the analysis above, all the correlation coefficients obtained can be considered to be significantly different from zero ($\left|r_{ij}\right|>r^{\mathrm{*}}$).

An additional justification for the lack of impact of ESG strategy implementation activities on UNIMOT Group’s operations is also provided by the correlation matrix presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Correlation matrix of sales volumes in specific segments from 2017 to 2021 in graphical and value terms.

Figure 3. Correlation matrix of sales volumes in specific segments from 2017 to 2021 in graphical and value terms.

As can be seen from the data presented in Figure 3, the volume of sales in the various segments from 2017 to 2021 followed the same trend as the development of financial results and sales values in the aforementioned segments. The full correlation of sales volumes was recorded in each of the periods analyzed and, most importantly, in the year that was strategic in terms of the analysis conducted, i.e., 2021. The absence of deviations between the variables considered demonstrated a stable sales policy. This meant that, irrespective of the nature of the changes implemented, for example, those related to the implementation of an ESG strategy or any other innovation of any nature, there were no intermediate results in the form of, for example, a drop in the sales of products and services or a worsening of the Group’s financial situation.

In order to detail the present research, at a further stage, an attempt was made to evaluate the impact of non-financial data on the financial data (Figure 4). For this purpose, the method of ordinary least squares was used. This analysis focused on a specific year: 2022.

Figure 4. Model 1: Parameters of the ordered logit model of z3 (using observations 1–9). *—the strength of the independent variable influence on the dependent variable. It can range from 1 to 3. A large number means greater strength of influence.

Figure 4. Model 1: Parameters of the ordered logit model of z3 (using observations 1–9). *—the strength of the independent variable influence on the dependent variable. It can range from 1 to 3. A large number means greater strength of influence.

From the data in Figure 4, it can be seen that the dependent variable in the indicated model is financial data from 2022, while the independent variable is assigned to non-financial values from the same period. The attempt to build the model was to show the strength of the influence of the non-financial aspect on the company’s financial situation. However, analyzing the results obtained, it should be pointed out that the independent variable is at a significance level of p > 0.01, and therefore its influence on the dependent variable cannot be presented in this case. The poor fit of the variables to the model was also evidenced by the value of the R-squared coefficient. In this case, the variation in the dependent variable was explained as only 18.8% by the variation in the independent variable. Additionally, the p-value for the F-test oscillates at 0.244, which proves the lack of significance of the variables in the model. Regardless of the time range of the variables, in each case, both in 2020 and 2021, the variables showed the same trend as in 2022, i.e., non-significance. In accordance with the above results, it should be assumed that the non-financial data do not affect the development of the company’s financial performance, which confirms the validity of hypothesis 3.

At the last stage of the research, the relationships occurring between the non-financial data (included in the ESG reports) were verified. The results obtained are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Model 2: parameters of the ordered logit model of z6 (using observations 1–17). *—the strength of the independent variable influence on the dependent variable. It can range from 1 to 3. A large number means greater strength of influence.

Figure 5. Model 2: parameters of the ordered logit model of z6 (using observations 1–17). *—the strength of the independent variable influence on the dependent variable. It can range from 1 to 3. A large number means greater strength of influence.

Figure 5 presents a model that allows the verification of the relationship between the non-financial data in each year. Non-financial data from 2021 were used as the independent variable, while the dependent variable was non-financial data from 2022. In these years, the ESG strategy was already in place; therefore, the analyzed data were the result of reports developed in this regard. The results presented in the figure in question indicate the high significance of the independent variable, which, in this case, oscillates at p < 0.01. In addition, the sign of the estimation of this variable showed that an improvement in the non-financial performance in the base year influenced the improvement of this performance in the following year. The proper fit of the variables to the model was also determined by the R-squared coefficient, the value of which confirmed that the variation in the dependent variable was explained as much as 90% by the variation in the independent variable. The p-value for the F-test ranked below 0.01, which also proved the significance of the variables in the model. It should be noted that the same trend characterized the impact of the non-financial data from 2020 on non-financial data from 2021. Therefore, it can be assumed that, in accordance with the company’s ESG development policy, improving the non-financial performance significantly improved the same performance in subsequent years.

5. Discussion

The results of the above analysis prove that the implementation of the ESG policy as part of the UNIMOT Group’s activities is aimed at creating added value in the context of the environment, society, and corporate governance, without taking into account the financial issues. The implementation of the ESG strategy represents the management’s perspective on the further development of the entity and can therefore be said to be indicative of broad horizons and openness to new experiences. Given the range of benefits it generates, including both for the environment and the company itself, the Group should follow the chosen course of development.

The research conducted in the previous part of the article clearly shows that there is no correlation between the financial and non-financial data. This is evident both from the correlation analysis of the formation of specific financial results for the company in 2017–2021, and from the interpretation of the parameters of the ordered logit model of z3. It should be noted that, in the first case, no deviations from the formation of the selected financial data in subsequent years were found, which meant that taking ESG measures did not affect the financial situation of the company, enabling its unwavering and successive development. The parameters defined within model 1 only confirmed this trend. Additionally, the impact of the independent variable (2022 non-financial data) on the dependent variable (2022 financial data) was not demonstrated. The misfit of the variables to the model confirmed both significance tests and the R-squared coefficient. The situation was quite different for model 2, where the explanatory variable was assigned to the non-financial data for 2021, while the explanatory variable was the non-financial data for 2022. In this case, the significance of the variables in the model was proven. It is worth noting that the same direction characterized the relationship present between non-financial data in 2020–2021. Accordingly, it should be assumed that this will continue in each subsequent year, which, on the one hand, may be an opportunity and, on the other hand, pose a threat to the company. Undoubtedly, there will be a favorable situation when the annual increase will concern indicators with a positive impact on the environment, such as energy generated from RESs, for example, while it will be unfavorable when the increase will be characterized by indicators with a negative impact on the environment, such as greenhouse gas emissions, which the Group aims to reduce in accordance with the ESG strategy.

Despite the fact that the research conducted above focused only on one enterprise and the results obtained cannot be generalized, they addressed the important and current topic that is the role of ESG strategies in the functioning of modern enterprises. The content contained within the framework of this article allowed for a detailed assessment of the measures taken by the enterprise and made it possible to identify the directions that required improvements. Finally, the research conducted proved the validity of the direction taken, especially when it came to enterprises in sectors with a strong impact on the environment. Regardless of the scope of the study, the conclusions show that the implementation of ESG strategies creates many benefits, including both for the company itself, such as improving the brand image and creating mutual relations with stakeholders, as well as other aspects, such as environmental protection. It should be mentioned that all this was performed without affecting the financial results. Thus, taking into account a number of benefits, these considerations can provide a basis for deciding on the dissemination of ESG strategies within the activities of a particular enterprise.

The issue of mainstreaming sustainability into the activities of businesses over time has evolved into a process of developing and implementing a long-term strategy that, in practice, involves active participation in setting and implementing social responsibility standards. It is worth mentioning that an important role in this respect is attributed to shareholders, who, with their voting rights, can directly influence the nature of the policy pursued, the development strategy, and, consequently, the specific tasks undertaken in this area. Investments within the framework of sustainable development are identified with social investment, which in turn is understood as a long-term strategy of engaging capital in various assets, aimed at creating added value in the areas of the environment and society [39] (p. 82).

As part of the above outcomes, it is also important to emphasize the role of the board, which in practice boils down to staying ahead of shareholder expectations in developing and reporting on ESG strategies. These activities are most often related to the management’s key objective of pursuing a competitive advantage for the company. Taking into account the issue of social responsibility as part of its function may ultimately result in expanding the circle of potential shareholders. Expecting the board to play such a role is particularly important in markets where ESG awareness is still emerging or in the early stages. The relatively underdeveloped countries of a conscious ESG strategy can also include Poland, where relatively few companies publish a strategy in this area.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of modern enterprises is not only to achieve the assumed financial results but leads to significant changes in the perception of the company, within which its development is only possible if it also guarantees the development of its environment. The introduction of an ESG policy should not be performed with the sole intention of improving the image of an enterprise, including both in the opinion of shareholders and the local community or rating companies. Above all, it should take into account the positive impact a company can have on society and the environment, based on its policies.

The issues related to creating added value for the environment were the motivation for the UNIMOT Group to develop and implement an ESG strategy. As part of its strategic plans, the unit highlighted in detail those issues it wished to improve in the area of its environmental, social, and corporate governance impact. In addition, the company did not ignore the role of employees and the local community in the context of its expansion. It should be noted that the implementation of the ESG strategy in no way affected the financial results achieved or the sales revenues achieved by the Group (both in terms of quantity and value). This is evidenced by the trend of these values, which is the same in each of the periods analyzed and shows no deviation in the year of implementation of the ESG strategy. The lack of impact of the ESG strategy on the company’s financial performance was also confirmed when trying to build a logit model, where the dependent variable was financial data from 2022 and the independent variable was the non-financial performance in the same period. Using statistical tests, the non-significance of the matched variables was proven. Particular attention was also paid to the relationship between the non-financial variables in subsequent years and the consequences that may accompany their annual increase. Due to the fact that, among the strategic ESG objectives of the UNIMOT Group is the dissemination of the reduction in certain emissions, it is important that the company successively strives to achieve the intended goals, taking care of the environmental, social, and governance aspects first.

The research conducted in this study should be considered as an introduction to the issues addressed by the authors. The timeframe for the available non-financial data, i.e., 2020–2022, was taken as the main limitation due to the availability of the ESG reports. It is worth mentioning that UNIMOT Group’s ESG strategy is binding only from 2021.

Strategy is long term; therefore, it is assumed that the adopted plans will be implemented successively, but in a long-term perspective. As the Group makes its annual ESG reports available, it is expected that it will be possible to conduct in-depth analyses to verify the correlations that exist between the non-financial and financial aspects.