Nexus of Green Finance, ESG Ratings, and Financial Performance: Evidence from G20 Economies

Hilal Ahmad  Malik; Imran Riaz  Malik

doi:10.62270/jirms.v7i3.153

Authors

Hilal Ahmad Malik Ph.D Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, Capital University of Science & Technology (CUST), Islamabad, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5736-1607
Imran Riaz Malik Associate Professor, Department of Management Sciences, Capital University of Science & Technology (CUST), Islamabad, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6867-0321

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62270/jirms.v7i3.153

Keywords:

Green Finance, ESG Ratings, Financial Performance, G20, System GMM

Abstract

Purpose— Prior evidence on green finance and ESG ratings is mixed because studies normally test the two constructs in isolation, in single-country settings, and without addressing dynamic endogeneity. Grounded in Stakeholder Theory, the Resource-Based View (RBV), and Legitimacy Theory, this study jointly examined the direct and interactive effects of green finance engagement and ESG ratings on firm financial performance across the institutionally diverse G20 economies, where regulatory regimes, capital-market development, and ESG disclosure maturity vary widely.

Study Design/methodology/approach—Using firm-level data from Refinitiv Eikon and Refinitiv ESG databases for an unbalanced panel of 489 firms across G20 economies over 2010-2022, System GMM was used to address endogeneity, dynamic panel bias, and firm-specific heterogeneity. Financial performance was measured through two proxies: Return on Assets (ROA) and Tobin's Q.

Findings—Both green finance engagement (b = 0.028, p < .001 for ROA; b = 0.094, p < .01 for Tobin's Q) and ESG ratings (b = 0.019, p < .001 for ROA; b = 0.061, p < .001 for Tobin's Q) were positively and significantly associated with financial performance. The environmental pillar was the strongest single ESG driver (b = 0.024, p < .001), and the green finance × ESG interaction was the strongest joint effect, significant for Tobin's Q (b = 0.038, p < .01) but only marginal for ROA (b = 0.011, p < .10). Findings were robust to pooled OLS, fixed-effects, sub-period, and ESG pillar robustness checks.

Practical Implications— The G20 evidence suggests that ESG performance and green finance contribute to financial value despite institutional differences across countries. These findings highlight the importance of integrating both dimensions into corporate sustainability strategies. Firms should pursue green finance and ESG performance jointly, while policymakers strengthen green finance frameworks and ESG disclosure standards, and investors incorporate both into investment assessments.

Originality/Value— Whereas most prior studies test green finance or ESG performance separately, in single-country samples, and without formally addressing dynamic endogeneity, this study makes three specific contributions: it jointly tests green finance and ESG ratings as interacting predictors; it applies System GMM across a 489-firm, 13-year G20 panel to address reverse causality and persistence; and it decomposes ESG into environmental, social, and governance pillars to identify environmental performance as the dominant driver.

References

Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Berg, F., Kolbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315-1344.

Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143.

Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97-116.

Broadstock, D. C., Chan, K., Cheng, L. T., & Wang, X. (2021). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101716.

Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745-783.

Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 639-647.

Clarkson, P. M., Fang, X., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. (2013). The relevance of environmental disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally informative? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(5), 410-431.

Climate Bonds Initiative. (2021). Green bonds global state of the market 2021. CBI.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.

Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59-100.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.

Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45-64.

Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499-516.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.

Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889.

Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1996). Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 78-101.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566-584.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.

Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.

Li, Z., Liao, G., & Albitar, K. (2021). Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 544-560.

Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824.

Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). The price of ethics and stakeholder governance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 302-322.

Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86-136.

Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534-559.

Shakil, M. H. (2021). Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: Moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resources Policy, 72, 102144.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463-490.

Tang, D. Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Do shareholders benefit from green bonds? Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101427.

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2020). Drivers of green bond market growth. Energy Policy, 147, 111887.

Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169-178.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.

Wang, Y., & Wang, B. (2022). Does green finance regulatory policy promote enterprise green innovation? Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability, 14(9), 5587.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.

Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25-51.

Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581-606.

Zhou, G., Liu, L., & Luo, S. (2022). Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value. Sustainability, 14(1), 445.