Environmental responsibility and financial performance nexus in South Africa: panel Granger causality analysis

  • Received June 5, 2017;
    Accepted June 30, 2017;
    Published August 23, 2017
  • Author(s)
    Thomas Adomah Worae ,
    Collins C. Ngwakwe
    ORCID
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(3).2017.03
  • Article Info
    Volume 8 2017, Issue #3, pp. 29-34
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    7 articles
  • 1411 Views
  • 853 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

The authors examined environmental responsibility and financial performance nexus of Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s socially responsible investing manufacturing and mining firms during the period of 2008-2014. The study employs annual panel dataset of fourteen manufacturing and mining companies on the index, and Granger causality analysis using Gcause2 Baum’s version. The paper found unidirectional causal relationship between environmental responsibility, measured by emissions intensity and equity returns, and bidirectional causal relationship between emissions intensity and market value of equity deflated by sales at 1% significant levels. Impliedly, improvements in ‘energy efficient technologies’ to reduce fossil energy consumption (prevention activities) seem to exhibit value destroying tendencies, while improvements in ‘end-of-pipe’ activities seem to estimate a drive market value of equity deflated by sales and equity returns. The Pesaran CD and Breusch-Pagan LM tests confirmed existence of cross-sectional dependence amongst panel members. The authors tend to support institutional and stakeholder theories.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Cross-sectional dependence tests
    • Table 2. Panel Granger causality tests
    • Table 3. Panel Granger causality tests
    • Arellano, M., Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297.
    • Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de gestion des ressourceshumaines, 57, 18.
    • Barley, R. (2009). Drax in power struggle with S & P, Heard on the street. The Wall Street Journal, 25.
    • Baum, C. F. (2010). Boston College Department of Economics. Statistical Software Components series, Number S428201.
    • Carbon Disclosure Project (2014). Carbon Action Initiative Annual Report, January.
    • Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
    • Chapple, L., Clarkson, P. M., & Gold, D. L. (2009). The cost of carbon: Capital market effects of the proposed emission trading scheme (ETS). Unpublished paper, Australian National University, The University of Queensland, and UBS.
    • Chien, C., & Peng, C. (2011) Does going green pay off in the long run? Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1636-1642.
    • Clarkson, P. M., Overell, M. B., & Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. ABACUS, 47(1), 27-60.
    • De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6(4), 482.
    • Emirmahmutoglu, F., & Kose, N. (2011).Testing for Granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870-876.
    • Endrikat, J., Guenther, E., & Hoppe, H. (2014). Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: A meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance. European Management Journal, 32(5), 735-751.
    • Erhemjamts,O., Li, Q., & Venkateswaran, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and its impact on firms’ investment policy, organizational structure, and performance. Journal of Business Ethics,118(2), 395-412.
    • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, Sept 13.
    • Fujii, H., Nishitani, K., Kaneko, S., & Komatsu, S. (2012). Are firms’ voluntary environmental management activities beneficial for the environment and business? An empirical study focusing on Japanese manufacturing firms. Journal of Environmental Management, 105, 121-130.
    • Gallego-Alvarez, I., Segura, L., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2014). Carbon emission reduction: The impact on the financial and operational performance of international companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 149-159.
    • Gonzalez-Benito, J., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2005). Environmental proactivity and business performance: An empirical analysis. Omega, 33(1), 1-15.
    • Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (2009). Change is coming: A framework for climate change. A defining Issue of the 21 Century, 1-21.
    • Guenster, N., Bauer, R., Derwall, J., & Koedijk, K. (2011). The economic value of corporate eco‐efficiency. European Financial Management, 17(4), 679-704.
    • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy. Accounting and business research, 19(76), 343-352.
    • Hood III, M. V., Kidd, Q., & Morris, I. L. (2008). Two sides of the same coin? Employing Granger Causality tests in a time series cross-section framework. Political Analysis, 324-344.
    • Horvathova, E. (2014). Does environmental performance affect financial performance’? A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 52-59.
    • Hurlin, C. (2008). Testing for Granger non causality in heterogeneous panels, Mimeo. Department of economics: University of Orleans.
    • Johnston, D. M., Sefcik, S. E., & Soderstromn, S. (2008). The value relevance of greenhouse gas emissions allowances: An exploratory study in the related United States SO2 market. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 747-764.
    • Kar, M., Nazlıoglu, S., & Agır, H. (2011). Financial development and economic growth nexus in the MENA countries: Bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis. Economic Modelling, 28(1), 685-693.
    • Klingenberg, B., Timberlake, R., Geurts, T. G., Brown, R. J. (2013). The relationship of operational innovation and financial performance: A critical perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 142(2), 317-323.
    • Konya, L. (2006). Exports and growth: Granger causality analysis on OECD countries with a panel data approach. Economic Modelling, 23(6), 978-992.
    • Ki-Hoon, L., Byung, M., & Keun-Hyo, Y. (2015). The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 167, 1-11.
    • Lioui, A., & Sharma, Z. (2012). Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects. Ecological Economics, 78, 100-111.
    • Makni, R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 409-422.
    • Muhammad, N., Scimgeour, F., Reddy, K., & Adidin, S. (2015). The relationship between environmental performance and financial performance in periods of growth and contraction: Evidence from Australian publicly listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 102, 324-332.
    • Nishitani, K., Kaneko, S., Fujii, H., & Komatsu, S. (2011). Effects of the reduction of pollution emissions on the economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis focusing on demand and productivity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17), 1956-1964.
    • Nyirenda, G., Ngwakwe, C. C., & Ambe, C. M., (2013). Environmental management practices and firm performance in a South African mining firm). Managing Global Transitions, 11(3), 243.
    • Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size comfound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 167-180.
    • Patari, S., Arminen, H., Tuppura, A., Jantunen, A. (2014). Competitive and responsible? The relationship between corporate social and financial performance in the energy sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 142-154.
    • Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Faculty of economics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge working papers in economics No. 0435.
    • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621-634.
    • Pintea, M. O., Stanca, L., Achim, S. A., & Pop, I. (2014). Is there a Connection among Environmental and Financial Performance of a Company in Developing Countries? Evidence from Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 822-829.
    • Przychodzen, J., & Przychodzen, W. (2014). Relationships between eco-innovation and financial performance: Evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, 253-263.
    • Qi, G. Y., Zeng, S. X., Shin, J. J., Meng, X. H., Lin, H., & Yang, Q. X. (2014). Revisiting the relationship between environmental and financial performance in Chinese industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 145(1), 349-356.
    • Sambasivan,. M., Bah, S. M., & Jo-Ann, H. (2012). Making the case for operating green: Impact of environmental proactivity on multiple performance outcomes of Malaysian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 69-82.
    • Sen, P., Roy, M., & Pal, P. (2015). Exploring role of environmental proactivity in financial performance of manufacturing enterprises: A Structural modelling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 583-594.
    • Surroca, J., Tribó, J, A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304-1320.
    • Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2009). Can environmental investment and expenditure enhance financial performance of US electric utility firms under the clean air act amendment of 1990? Energy Policy, 37(11), 4819-4826.
    • Telle, K. (2006). It Pays to be Green: A Premature conclusion? Environmental & Resource Economics, 35(3), 195-220.
    • Wahba, H. (2008). Exploring the moderating effect of financial performance on the relationship between corporate environmental responsibility and institutional investors: Some Egyptian evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(6), 361-371.
    • Wagner, M., Van-Phu, N., Azomahou, T., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2002). The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis of the European paper industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(3), 133-146.
    • Ziegler, A., & Nogareda, J. S. (2007). Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Research Policy, 38(5), 885-893.
Related Articles

  • Financial sector and manufacturing sector performance: evidence from Nigeria

    Abiola John AsaleyeORCID , Joseph Ibrahim AdamaORCID , Joseph Olufemi Ogunjobi doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(3).2018.03
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018         Issue #3         pp. 35-48 Views: 2315 Downloads: 328 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    Nigerian economy depends on oil as the major source of revenue, failure to diversify the revenue base has raised questions about its sustainability and implication on the economy. This study uses market capitalization, broad money stock, credit to private sector, prime interest rate and deposit liability as proxies for the financial sector, while output in the manufacturing sector and manufacturing employment are used as proxies for manufacturing performance. The study examines the causal effects, shock effect and long-run impact using Granger Non-Causality, Vector Error Correction Model, and Dynamic Ordinary Least Square method, respectively. The results showed unidirectional causality, confirming the hypothesis of the ‘supply-leading view’ and ‘demand-following view’ except for market capitalization and output in the manufacturing sector, where independence was observed. The variance decomposition shows that the forecast error shock of credit to private sector and prime interest rate show more variations in manufacturing sector performance than other financial indicators. The long-run result using output in manufacturing sector as dependent variable shows a positive significant relationship with other financial sector indicators, except for broad money stock and deposit liability. This study recommended credit channel for transmission of monetary policy using interest rate to improve the performance of manufacturing sector, among others.

  • The impact of strategic planning on enhancing the strategic performance of banks: evidence from Bahrain

    Abdul Aziz A. Abdul Rahman doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.14(2).2019.12
    Banks and Bank Systems Volume 14, 2019         Issue #2         pp. 140-151 Views: 1602 Downloads: 1004 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    This study aims to test the impact of strategic planning on enhancing the strategic performance of Bahraini banks. The study has two variables. The strategic planning as an independent variable includes a group of four perspectives, namely environmental scanning, strategy formulation, strategy implementation, and strategy evaluation. The strategic performance as a dependent variable also includes a group of four perspectives: financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth. The sample of the study consists of the employees of 10 of all the 12 commercial banks in Bahrain. A questionnaire was developed to gather the data. Five questionnaires were distributed to each bank totaling 50 questionnaires. The results showed that the strategic planning has a good statistically significant impact on financial, customer, and learning and growth. The results also showed a medium statistically significant impact of strategic planning on internal business process. The research recommended focusing on all aspects of the strategic performance in the banks under study, specifically the internal business process perspective.

  • The impact of cash flow statement components on stock volatility: Evidence from Qatar

    Mo’taz Kamel Al ZobiORCID , Othman Hel Al-DhaimeshORCID doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(2).2021.29
    Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 18, 2021         Issue #2         pp. 365-373 Views: 1491 Downloads: 1148 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ

    The published financial statements are considered one of the most important sources of information that investors rely on in forecasting stock performance or even judging the organization’s ability to cover short-run liabilities. Cash flows play a core role in maintaining a high market value for its shares. Hence, this study came to analyze the explanatory value of the cash flow statement in explaining stock volatility (SV) in the Qatar financial market. Study data were collected using published financial statements from a sample of 44 Qatari-listed companies throughout 2013–2019. A panel cross-sectional data technique using the E-views program was used to analyze the data. The study results show there is a positive and significant impact of cash flows from operating CFO activities on SV, indicating that the higher change in CFO increases stock volatility. This means that operating cash flows give significant information to investors, and it is reflected in the stock price movements directly. Also, the cash flow from CFF financing activities has a positive and significant effect on SV. This means that CFF affects stock prices, causing greater changes and fluctuation in stock returns. This is because one of the major components of CFF is dividends, which affect directly stock prices and stock returns. In contrast, there is an insignificant effect of CFI on SV, which may indicate that investors do not build their investment decisions based on CFI. Accordingly, the cash flow from investing activities failed to explain the stock volatility of the listed Qatari companies.

Download Preview
Close
Environmental Economics
Environmental Economics