Next Article in Journal
Light Grazing Significantly Reduces Soil Water Storage in Alpine Grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau
Previous Article in Journal
Local Nuances of Authoritarian Environmentalism: A Legislative Study on Household Solid Waste Sorting in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Technical Note

Detecting Green-Washing or Substantial Organizational Communication: A Model for Testing Two-Way Interaction Between Risk and Sustainability Reporting

1
Center for Narratological Studies (CNS), University of Southern Denmark, Universitetsparken 1, 6000 Kolding, Denmark
2
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Universitetsparken 1, 6000 Kolding, Denmark
3
Institute of Management, Accounting and Finance, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(6), 2520; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062520
Submission received: 3 March 2020 / Revised: 13 March 2020 / Accepted: 17 March 2020 / Published: 23 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)

Abstract

:
This paper contributes to the expanding landscape of methodological approaches and tools for investigating organizational sustainability communication. Our method allows for exploring two-way interactions between company risk and sustainability reporting. We present a basic but extendable method, while using only publicly available data. Our method adds additional features to established methods: It covers only risk (not returns), as theory mainly supports risk-reporting relationships and not return-reporting relationships. It tests for reverse causality of the risk-reporting relationship and links complementary explanations to different theoretical schools. Our method tests the model by employing data from a market with mandatory sustainability reporting to avoid self-selection bias.

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem Statement

This paper uses the Overview-Design-Details (ODD) protocol of a related article [1] to provide a standardized explanation of our model of two-way interaction between risk and sustainability reporting [2,3,4]. Sustainability reporting integrates diverse organizational practices, including the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), or Integrated Reporting (<IR>) [5]. One problem when investigating sustainability reporting is the disputed causality it has with risk (or company performance in more general terms): Economic-theory-based researchers regard sustainability reporting as a substantial organizational communication that will reduce risk and/or increase performance of a company [6,7]. In the meantime, neo-institutional-theory-based researchers are more prone to investigating the opposite relationship. Sustainability reporting, in this context, can be critically assessed as greenwashing, and consequently, it can be assumed that high risk and/or bad performance precede sustainability reporting [8,9]. Unfortunately, empirical research follows these theoretical schools strictly and often only tests for one-way causalities. This technical note suggests a simple way to take both theoretical explanations into consideration at the same time. It is our intention to facilitate the use of statistics that simultaneously account for two-way interaction of sustainability reporting with risk (or company performance in more general terms).

1.2. Purpose of the Model

Our model contributes a two-way interactional perspective on the relationship between risk and sustainability reporting. Ideally, the definitive stakeholders of an organization (shareholders) have goals that align well with those of other, less salient, stakeholders, in the long term [3,4,10]. The diversity of goals, though, might lead to inter-group conflicts between stakeholders. Such conflicts could show, inter alia, in permanent issues, protests, or employee counter-narratives [11], and obstruct organizational progress [12,13]. In order to prevent stakeholder conflicts, many contemporary organizations demonstrate their stakeholder orientation by way of voluntary sustainability reporting [14,15]. This paper showcases how publicly available data can supplement insights into two-way risk-reporting relationships. We mobilize different theoretical paradigms to elaborate on the opposing effects. Overall, our technical note is helpful for future research that addresses the research question: “Which two-way interactions exist between risk and sustainability reporting”?

1.3. Research Method

1.3.1. Entities of Investigation: Listed South African Organizations

We initially selected all organizations listed at the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for which Bloomberg measures an Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) score in the five years from 2012 to 2016 (n=91 organizations). We eliminated all organizations with missing data during this period, which reduced the sample to 59 organizations in this five-year period (n=295 organization years). There are two reasons we chose the South African setting: First, <IR> is mandatory there for all capital-market oriented companies, which offers a good selection of ESG reporters to us (economic theory) [16]. Second, South Africa is a relatively unequal society where sustainability reporting has strong legitimizing purposes for for-profit companies (neo-institutional theory) [17].

1.3.2. Independent Variables (Two-Way: Also Dependent): ESG Scores

This study applies the Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores as used by Bloomberg as a proxy for corporate sustainability [18,19]. Bloomberg [19,20] appraises ESG scores based on publicly available organizational communication. The company collects data, grouped into over 200 categories for each monitored organization. Thus, using ESG scores allows the tracking of sustainability performance directly. Each category has an industry-specific weight, whose exact specifications constitute proprietary information that Bloomberg does not share in detail. Scores are normalized from zero to 100 [19]. The scores are available as an overall score (ESG score) or as single-component scores (E score; S score; G score). According to Bloomberg [19,20], the Environment score (E) reflects, e.g., carbon footprint, consumption of energy and water, spoilage, and policies of production by the organization and its suppliers. The Social score (S) measures, e.g., fair employee treatment, employee training hours, equal opportunities, and policies about safety and wellbeing, as well as the impact that the final products have on society. The Governance score (G) tracks the structure of the board (e.g., size and diversity) and its functionality (e.g., meetings frequency), an organization’s involvement in policy development, and executive remuneration. Before the introduction of Bloomberg ESG measurement, many studies used data from KLD Research & Analytics. While the data is extensive and provides a broad picture of sustainability, KLD data is binary and thus less rich in terms of variance.

1.3.3. Dependent Variables (Two-Way: Also Independent): Risk

We measure total (market) risk as volatility, and disaggregate it into its two subcomponents of systematic and idiosyncratic risk [21,22]. We assess Total Risk by taking the standard deviation (SD) of annualized monthly returns. We calculate the volatility of stock returns (annualized from a monthly basis) to gauge Total Risk. We then split Total Risk into idiosyncratic risk and systematic risk. Beta measures the covariance between the volatilities of the market portfolio and the stock of the company, and represents Systematic Risk (also: the market risk in this industry). The difference between Total Risk and Systematic Risk is a common representation of Idiosyncratic Risk [23]. While traditional portfolio theory [24] claims that idiosyncratic risk is irrelevant to investors as it is fully removed by diversifying a portfolio, empirical evidence shows that investors are not fully diversified [25], and idiosyncratic risk emerges from differences in organizational characteristics [23]. We suggest using the most recent five-factor model [26,27] for determining idiosyncratic risk [27]. The five-factor-model is defined as follows:
R it R ft =   α i + β 1 Mkt + β 2 SMB t + β 3 HML t + β 4 Prof +   β 5 Investment + e it
Abnormal returns are represented by Rit – Rft (i = company; t = day). The market premium on the stock exchange in Johannesburg (Mkt) is computed by subtracting the risk-free rate from the market return. We use non-convertible debenture (NCD) rates (3-month) to approximate the risk-free rate. We proxy size (SMB) as the differential between large and small cap companies. High-Minus-Low (HML) is based on a book-to-market estimate (B/M), signaling the gap between lowest and highest stock values. Company profitability (Prof) is the ratio of profits (operative) to the book value of total equity. Investment trails 6-month asset growth. Residuals (i.e., idiosyncratic risk) is captured by eit.

1.3.4. Control Variables

We have chosen six standard control variables to account for confounding effects from organizational characteristics [28]. All variables are annualized to match the ESG scores. Of course, future studies should select a context-specific selection of controls. Organizational size is measured in total assets (Bloomberg code—bs_total_assets). Return on Assets (ROA) (Bloomberg code—return_on_asset) controls for performance. Leverage (Bloomberg code—tot_debt_to_tot_asset) accounts for different financing choices of organizations. The market-to-book ratio (Bloomberg code—M/B) adjusts for growth opportunities. Dividend payout ratio (Bloomberg code—dvd_payout_ratio) accounts for strong bottom line performance. We also control for investment into Research and Development (Bloomberg code—R&D).

1.4. Robustness Tests for Biases

1.4.1. Propositions

Based on our literature study of the positivist literature [6,7], we first derived the propositions that better practices and reporting in Corporate Sustainability should lower the systematic and idiosyncratic (and thereby also the total) risk of an organization. Previous literature following instrumental stakeholder theory purports that reporting more on ESG [29,30,31,32], or separately on E [33], S [34], and G [28] reduces risk. Likewise, improving disclosure quality on existing ESG information reduces risk [16,35,36]. We test this proposition in a one-way direction:
Proposition 1:
More sustainability reporting decreases (H1) total, (H2) systematic, and (H3) idiosyncratic risk.
T R S K i t = β 0 + β 1 E S G i t + β 2 S I Z E i t + β 3 R O A i t + β 4 D E B T i t + β 5 M B i t + β 6 D I V i t + β 7 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
B E T A i t = β 0 + β 1 E S G i t + β 2 S I Z E i t + β 3 R O A i t + β 4 D E B T i t + β 5 M B i t + β 6 D I V i t + β 7 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
I D I O F M i t = β 0 + β 1 E S G i t + β 2 S I Z E i t + β 3 R O A i t + β 4 D E B T i t + β 5 M B i t + β 6 D I V i t + β 7 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
We then conjecture—based on critical management studies [8,9]—that the subcomponents of the ESG scores might exhibit intricate relationships to risk. For instance, organizations that experienced an increase in idiosyncratic risk (e.g., due to a scandal it was involved in) might react with an increase in sustainable practices and reporting [23]. A reason for this reaction may be managerial opportunism [37,38]. This way, risk may also affect ESG scores in subsequent periods. We therefore explore:
Proposition 2:
Higher E, S, and G scores show two-way interactions with (H4) total, (H5) systematic, and (H6) idiosyncratic risk.
T R S K i t = β 0 + β 1 E i t + β 2 S i t + β 3 G i t + β 4 S I Z E i t + β 5 R O A i t + β 6 D E B T i t + β 7 M B i t + β 8 D I V i t + β 9 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
B E T A i t = β 0 + β 1 E i t + β 2 S i t + β 3 G i t + β 4 S I Z E i t + β 5 R O A i t + β 6 D E B T i t + β 7 M B i t + β 8 D I V i t + β 9 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
I D I O F M i t = β 0 + β 1 E i t + β 2 S i t + β 3 G i t + β 4 S I Z E i t + β 5 R O A i t + β 6 D E B T i t + β 7 M B i t + β 8 D I V i t + β 9 I N V E S T i t + F E y + F E i + ε it
We used panel regressions (year and industry fixed effects) to estimate results. For the exploratory proposition on explore two-way causal effects, we employed the Granger causality test. This helped us to understand if risk had an impact on the E, S, and G scores, or if causality was opposite. Using Granger causality, we tested how future values of variables were affected by historic values of other variables [39]. We employed regressions that were vector autoregressive (VAR). We tested this Granger causality on all risk variables, as well as the (dis)aggregated scores for E, S, and G (Table 1):

1.4.2. Robustness Tests for Biases

We performed several procedures to test for robustness [39]. We first tested if error terms were correlated (Durbin–Watson test). For a null hypothesis to be accepted, all Durbin–Watson test statistics should be very close to the minimum level of 1.84 or higher [40]. This suggests that the regressions are free from autocorrelation. Second, we excluded both autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity by investigating cross-section standard errors from White. Third, we excluded outliers by performing data winsorization at the 1%-level [41]. Fourth, multicollinearity could not be detected [39]. Multicollinearity is seen as a problem if Variance inflation factors (VIFs) exceed the critical value of 10. In our case, their values were less than 2 (Table 2).

2. Application of the Statistical Procedure

2.1. Basic Principles of the Modelled Paradigm(s)

We test for two-way interactions since two major paradigms predict opposite causality of sustainability reporting. Positivistic management studies—including, e.g., risk management theory [31] and instrumental stakeholder theory—suggest that, in an initial state, non-managing shareholders have little information about the risks their organization faces. Cautious shareholders would therefore overestimate risk, withhold their financial resources, which leads to a discount of organizational value. Top managers of such an organization counteract this discount by increasing transparency on risks through voluntary, non-financial sustainability reporting. Shareholders and powerful stakeholders gain full access to the information, on average correctly evaluate these risks, and make the valuation discount disappear. Thereby, positivists argue that sustainability reporting decreases risk. In contrast, and in line with a critical management approach, e.g., managerial opportunism theory [37], we argue: Upon facing organizations risks—such as scandals or new, controversial technologies—organizations respond by legitimizing their actions through emphasizing sustainable practices (greenwashing; window-dressing).

2.2. Emergence of the Model

We expect the results from the model to vary substantially in other research settings as the following three parameters change: First, self-selection could introduce substantial endogeneity and insignificant results. ESG reporting is mandatory in our chosen South-African setting. In markets with voluntary ESG disclosure, we expect that only exemplary organizations decide to report. Second, functional fixation on measurable indicators can lead to gaming. Organizations can learn which indicators matter for Bloomberg’s ESG scores, optimize their value, but still not be sustainable as they ignore other important, but fuzzy, sustainable practices. Third, the model will most likely yield unpredictable results in inefficient capital markets, where private ownership and transactions are restricted, where information-processing capacities are limited, or where governments deny that non-sustainability (e.g., pollution or mistreating employees) is a market inefficiency that needs corrective action to maximize welfare.

2.3. Adaptation and Prediction of Managerial Decisions toward Sustainability Reporting

Internal decision models of actors can change over time, which might lead to different future conditions than the ones we encountered when testing the model. We assume that management practices such as sustainability reporting follow fads and fashions [42] and are affected by top management decisions [43]. In one scenario, sustainability may become mandatory. As organizations optimize the practice, it will stop being a distinctive feature that notably interacts with risk [44]. In another scenario, sustainability reporting may become a controversial distinction of an entrenched group of top managers, and its distinctive effects on risk will continue [45].

2.4. Details

The data stem from the South African stock market where sustainability reporting has been mandatory for years. Therefore, the model assumes equilibrium as a starting point, and organizations in the dataset optimally manage risk as the conditions in the industry and organization itself change. Models on markets where sustainability reporting is being introduced might consider interpreting results from a disequilibrium perspective. All data used in our model is publicly available (partly for fees) from Bloomberg, Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and Peregrine Securities Research, as well as from annual reports and investor relations websites of the investigated organizations.

3. Conclusions

The goal of this paper was to showcase how publicly available data can enhance our understanding of risk-reporting relationships. While the initial models test only for one-way causality, we also elaborate on the two-way nature of the risk-reporting relationship by testing for reverse causality. It was the complementarity of different theoretical perspectives that eventually enabled an in-depth understanding of the specific interactions, and also allows for broader reflections of applying this model under different conditions. We hope we can contribute to more comprehensive statistical models for future research on this risk-reporting relationship.

4. Limitations

One limitation to the method is the confiding use of Bloomberg ESG scores. The scores are a black box to researchers, since neither the eventual list of variables collected, their descriptive values, nor their industry specific weighting is available. Future research should assume command over such aggregated scores by coding annual reports and organizational communication in a reproducible way, e.g., by self-assessing these scores using Computer-Aided Text Analyses (CATA) [46]. Furthermore, two-way interactions for causality could be assessed using alternative statistical methods, such as propensity score matching. Finally, our results refer to the South African context only. Researchers applying our methodology in other settings might get results that deviate in size and significance from ours.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.L. and R.L.; methodology, K.L. and R.L.; validation, K.L. and R.L.; formal analysis, K.L. and R.L.; investigation, K.L. and R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.L. and R.L.; writing—review and editing, K.L. and R.L.; visualization, K.L. and R.L.; supervision, K.L. and R.L.; project administration, K.L. and R.L. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We thank Boris Krastev for research support on the empirical part of this larger research project [1].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lueg, K.; Krastev, B.; Lueg, R. Bidirectional effects between sustainability disclosure and risk—A disaggregate analysis of listed companies in South Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grimm, V.; Berger, U.; DeAngelis, D.L.; Polhill, J.G.; Giske, J.; Railsback, S.F. The ODD protocol: A review and first update. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 2760–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Lueg, R. Value-Based Management: Empirical Evidence on Its Determinants and Performance Effects; WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management: Vallendar, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lueg, R. Value-based Management—Antecedents and performance effects. In Summa Cum Laude 2008: Wirtschaftswissenschaften; Pantz, K., Ed.; Roter Fleck Verlag Darmstadt: Darmstadt, Germany, 2010; pp. 284–285. [Google Scholar]
  5. Perego, P.; Kennedy, S.; Whiteman, G. A lot of icing but little cake? Taking Integrated Reporting forward. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lys, T.; Naughton, J.P.; Wang, C. Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. J. Account. Econ. 2015, 60, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Lozano, R.; Nummert, B.; Ceulemans, K. Elucidating the relationship between sustainability reporting and organisational change management for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 125, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Powell, W.W.; DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds.) New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  9. Meyer, H.-D.; Rowan, B. The New Institutionalism in Education; State University of New York Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lueg, R. Shareholder Value und Value Based Management—Wie steuern die HDAX-Konzerne? Z. Für Control. 2010, 22, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lueg, K. Organizational changes towards a European academic field. A case study of frictions in the narratives of Europeanization at a German university from an institutional perspective. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2018, 31, 484–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Lueg, R.; Clemmensen, S.N.; Pedersen, M.M. The role of corporate sustainability in a low-cost business model—A case study in the Scandinavian fashion industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lueg, R.; Radlach, R. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lueg, K.; Lueg, R.; Andersen, K.; Dancianu, V. Integrated reporting with CSR practices: A pragmatic constructivist case study in a Danish cultural setting. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2016, 21, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Muheki, M.K.; Lueg, K.; Lueg, R.; Schmaltz, C. How business reporting changed during the financial crisis: A comparative case study of two large U.S. banks. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2014, 12, 191–208. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bernardi, C.; Stark, A.W. Environmental, social and governance disclosure, integrated reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts. Br. Account. Rev. 2016, 50, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Cahan, S.F.; De Villiers, C.; Jeter, D.C.; Naiker, V.; Van Staden, C.J. Are CSR disclosures value relevant? Cross-country evidence. Eur. Account. Rev. 2016, 25, 579–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Eccles, R.G.; Krzus, M.P. One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bloomberg. Our Bottom Line Is Impact. Available online: https://data.bloomberglp.com/company/sites/28/2017/05/17_0516_Impact-Book_Final.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2018).
  20. Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Professional Service Overview; Bloomberg: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lueg, R.; Borisov, B.G. Archival or perceived measures of environmental uncertainty? Conceptualization and new empirical evidence. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 658–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Borisov, B.G.; Lueg, R. Are you sure about what you mean by ‘uncertainty’? The actor’s perspective vs. the institutional perspective. Proc. Pragmatic Constr. 2012, 2, 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sassen, R.; Hinze, A.-K.; Hardeck, I. Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe. J. Bus. Econ. 2016, 86, 867–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Markowitz, H.M. Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1968; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jo, H.; Harjoto, M. Analyst coverage, corporate social responsibility, and firm risk. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2014, 23, 272–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bouzzine, Y.D.; Müller-Bosse, S.; Steen, H.; Trautberg, M.; Wöhlert, M. The five-factor asset pricing model—A theoretical review and assessment. Manag. Stud. 2019, 9, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fama, E.F.; French, K.R. International tests of a five-factor asset pricing model. J. Financ. Econ. 2017, 123, 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bouslah, K.; Kryzanowski, L.; M’Zali, B. The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. J. Bank. Financ. 2013, 37, 1258–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Frias-Aceituno, J.V.; Rodríguez-Ariza, L.; Garcia-Sánchez, I.M. Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting: Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability reporting. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2014, 23, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Godfrey, P.C.; Merrill, C.B.; Hansen, J.M. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luo, X.; Bhattacharya, C.B. The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Mishra, S.; Modi, S.B. Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 117, 431–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bansal, P.; Clelland, I. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 93–103. [Google Scholar]
  34. Oikonomou, I.; Brooks, C.; Pavelin, S. The impact of corporate social performance on financial risk and utility: A longitudinal analysis. Financ. Manag. 2012, 41, 483–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Doorey, D.J. The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nike and Levi-Strauss. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103, 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhou, S.; Simnett, R.; Green, W. Does Integrated Reporting matter to the capital market? Abacus 2017, 53, 94–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Preston, L.E.; O’Bannon, D.P. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Bus. Soc. 1997, 36, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Prior, D.; Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A. Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2008, 16, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wooldridge, J.M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach; South-Western College Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Savin, N.E.; White, K.J. The Durbin-Watson test for serial correlation with extreme sample sizes or many regressors. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1977, 45, 1989–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kennedy, D.; Lakonishok, J.; Shaw, W.H. Accommodating outliers and nonlinearity in decision models. J. Account. Audit. Financ. 1992, 7, 161–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abrahamson, E. Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 586–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Burkert, M.; Lueg, R. Differences in the sophistication of Value-based Management—The role of top executives. Manag. Account. Res. 2013, 24, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. DiMaggio, P.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Etzion, D. Diffusion as classification. Organ. Sci. 2014, 25, 420–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Short, J.C.; Broberg, J.C.; Cogliser, C.C.; Brigham, K.H. Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) an illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organ. Res. Methods 2010, 13, 320–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Reverse causality tests.
Table 1. Reverse causality tests.
Risk (Total) Risk (Systematic) Risk (Idiosyncratic)
Line Coeff.Chi2p valueCausal direction (Granger)Coeff.Chi2p valueCausal direction (Granger)Coeff.Chi2p valueCausal direction (Granger)
[model 4][model 5][model 6]
1ESG has no effect on risk+3.5950.166One-way-***100.006***One-way+0.3360.562No relation
2Risk has no effect on ESG(from Model 1)5.0920.078***(from Model 2)0.1990.905(from Model 3)1.7460.186
3E has no effect on risk-3.1970.202One-way+12.540.001***One-way-13.6930.001***Two-way
4Risk has no effect on E5.8220.054***0.0080.9954.7220.094*
5S has no effect on risk+***4.2030.122One-way-**24.60.000***Two-way+***0.7060.702One-way
6Risk has no effect on S4.4420.100***2.240.000***76.9950.000***
7G has no effect on risk+0.2620.213No relation-***3.570.475One-way-0.0080.927One-way
8Risk has no effect on G1.5510.6087.550.000***3.8770.048**
These analyses test for one- or-two-way effects between risk and E (Economic), S (Social), and G (Governance) scores based on Granger causality. We see that risk (systematic) is affected by total ESG and the single S score. Simultaneously, the S score is impated by all types of risk. the G score is affected by Beta. Granger Causality is present when we do not accept a hypotesis (i.e., p is smaller than 0.01; 0.05; or 0.10, respectively). Any causal relationship could be one- or two-way; Sig. levels * 1%; ** 5%; *** 10%. Sources 2012-2016: Datastream and Bloomberg.
Table 2. Multicollinearity tests for full sample.
Table 2. Multicollinearity tests for full sample.
TRSK_ESGTRSK_DISSYS_ESGSYS_DISIDIO_ESGIDIO_DIS
VariableModels 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6
ESG1.084 1.084 1.084
E 1.266 1.266 1.266
S 1.237 1.237 1.237
G 1.108 1.108 1.108
LOG(SIZE)1.5241.5391.5241.5391.5241.539
ROA1.4491.4511.4491.4511.4491.451
LOG(MB)1.2551.3081.2551.3081.2551.308
DEBT1.4771.5251.4771.5251.4771.525
DVD_PAYOUT1.0401.0551.0401.0551.0401.055
INVEST1.1241.1341.1241.1341.1241.134
Sources 2012-2016: Datastream and Bloomberg.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lueg, K.; Lueg, R. Detecting Green-Washing or Substantial Organizational Communication: A Model for Testing Two-Way Interaction Between Risk and Sustainability Reporting. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062520

AMA Style

Lueg K, Lueg R. Detecting Green-Washing or Substantial Organizational Communication: A Model for Testing Two-Way Interaction Between Risk and Sustainability Reporting. Sustainability. 2020; 12(6):2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062520

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lueg, Klarissa, and Rainer Lueg. 2020. "Detecting Green-Washing or Substantial Organizational Communication: A Model for Testing Two-Way Interaction Between Risk and Sustainability Reporting" Sustainability 12, no. 6: 2520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062520

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop