Skip to main content

Corporate Financial Performance and ESG Performance: Which One Leads European Banks?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Issues in Sustainable Finance

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance ((SIF))

  • 664 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter goes beyond the relationship between a bank ESG performance (ESGP) and traditional financial measures, known in the literature as Corporate Financial Performance (CFP). Here, the link between ESG factors and financial benchmarks is analysed to verify whether banks may find sufficient stimuli (higher CFP) in the market reaction to adopt ESG conduct spontaneously. Starting from the results achieved in our previous pilot study (Torre et al., Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28:1620–1634, 2021) on a limited number of European listed banks, we decided to deepen the relationship between ESGP and CFP to all available listed European banks between 2008 and 2020. Using panel estimation methods, we are going to further explore the relationship between ESGP and CFP, considering different dimensions of financial performance at once, both accounted-based (ROA and ROE) and market-based (Capitalisation to Book Value, Tobin's Q). Furthermore, we employ VBM, namely EVA Spread, less explored in literature. Unlike our previous pilot study, we use the single Pillar Scores (Environmental, Social and Governance) as ESGP instead of the ESG Score.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As of May 2021.

References

  • Aboud, A., & Diab, A. (2018). The impact of social, environmental and corporate governance disclosures on firm value. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(4), 442–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. (2011). Organisational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization (American Psychological AssociationIn S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atan, R., Razali, F. A., Said, J., & Zainun, S. (2016). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and its effect on firm's performance: A comparative study. International Journal of Economics and Management, 10(2), 355–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, D. P., Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13(2), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (2010). Financial institutions and markets across countries and over time: The updated financial development and structure database. The World Bank Economic Review, 24(1), 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocean, C. G., & Barbu, C. M. (2007). Corporate governance and firm performance. Management and Marketing Journal, 5(1), 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodhanwala, S., & Bodhanwala, R. (2019). Do investors gain from sustainable investing? An empirical evidence from India. International Journal of Business Excellence, 19(1), 100–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers, A., Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & Ter Horst, J. (2013). Stakeholder relations and stock returns: On errors in investors’ expectations and learning. Journal of Empirical Finance, 22, 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 98–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buallay, A., Fadel, S. M., Al-Ajmi, J. Y., & Saudagaran, S. (2020). Sustainability reporting and performance of MENA banks: Is there a trade-off? Measuring Business Excellence, 24(2), 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buallay, A., Hamdan, A., & Barone, E. (2019). Sustainability reporting and firm's performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(3), 431–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018). The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 583–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 467–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprio, L., Croci, E., & Del Giudice, A. (2011). Ownership structure, family control, and acquisition decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1636–1657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: concepts and practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Ooford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 19–46). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Schwartz, M. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 503–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cek, K., & Eyupoglu, S. (2020). Does environmental, social and governance performance influence economic performance? Journal of Business Economics and Management, 21(4), 1165–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cespa, G., & Cestone, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and managerial entrenchment. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 741–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chih, H. L., Chih, H. H., & Chen, T. Y. (2010). On the determinants of corporate social responsibility: International evidence on the financial industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2015). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. Available at SSRN 2508281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compact, U. G. (2004). The global compact leaders summit: Final report. Global Compact Office, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornett, M. M., Erhemjamts, O., & Tehranian, H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and its impact on financial performance: Investigation of US commercial banks. pp. 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornett, M. M., Erhemjamts, O., & Tehranian, H. (2016). Greed or good deeds: An examination of the relation between corporate social responsibility and the financial performance of US commercial banks around the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 70, 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S., & Orlando, B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental, social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Cuesta-González, M., Muñoz-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á. (2006). Analysis of social performance in the Spanish financial industry through public data. A proposal. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Mar Miras-Rodríguez, M., Carrasco-Gallego, A., & Escobar-Pérez, B. (2015). Are socially responsible behaviors paid off equally? A Cross-cultural analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derwall, J., Koedijk, K., & Ter Horst, J. (2011). A tale of values-driven and profit-seeking social investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(8), 2137–2147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Do, Y., & Kim, S. (2020). Do higher-rated or enhancing ESG of firms enhance their long–term sustainability? Evidence from market returns in Korea. Sustainability, 12(7), 2664.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J. (2019). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of Multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • EBA. (2020, May). Guidelines on Loan Origination and Monitoring. Final Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2018). Action plan: Financing sustainable growth.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECB. (2020, May). Guide on climate-related and environmental risks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabozzi, F. J., & Grant, J. L. (2008). Equity Analysis Using Traditional and Value‐Based Metrics. Handbook of Finance, 3, 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finger, M., Gavious, I., & Manos, R. (2018). Environmental risk management and financial performance in the banking industry: A cross-country comparison. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money, 52, 240–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgione, A. F., Laguir, I., & Staglianò, R. (2020). Effect of corporate social responsibility scores on bank efficiency: The moderating role of institutional context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2094–2106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. S. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2013). ESG in Focus: The Australian Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 529–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 107–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, A. S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Orsato, R. J. (2019). Corporate sustainability, capital markets, and ESG performance. In Individual Behaviors and Technologies for Financial Innovations (pp. 287–309). Springer, Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, C. (2010). ESG and earnings performance. Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassel, L. G., & Semenova, N. (2013). The added value of ESG/SRI on company and portfolio levels–What can we learn from research. CSR and Beyond–A Nordic Perspective, 137–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(6), 1251–1271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou, M., Liu, H., Fan, P., & Wei, Z. (2016). Does CSR practice pay off in East Asian firms? A meta-analytic investigation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(1), 195–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. F., & Shan, H. (2019, October 24). Corporate ESG Profiles and Banking Relationships. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3331617 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331617

  • Hu, V. I., & Scholtens, B. (2014). Corporate social responsibility policies of commercial banks in developing countries. Sustainable Development, 22(4), 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D. Z. (2019). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: a review and consolidation. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Corporate sustainability: A strategy? Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, 19(065), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev., 16, 443–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, M. K., & Rangarajan, K. (2020). The approach of Indian corporates towards sustainable development: An exploration using sustainable development goals based model. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1019–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, Y. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(10), 2549–2561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. M. (1995), Instrumental stakeholder theory. A synthesis of ethics and economics, 20 Academy MGMT REV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klettner, A., Clarke, T., & Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, P. S., Qian, C., & Wang, H. (2014). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1464–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, M. (2012). Which banks are more risky? The impact of loan growth and business model on bank risk-taking, Discussion Papers 33/2012, Deutsche Bundesbank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). Creating shared value (Vol. 17). FSG.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Torre, M., Leo, S., & Panetta, I. C. (2021). Banks and environmental, social and governance drivers: Follow the market or the authorities? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), 1620–1634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landi, G., & Sciarelli, M. (2019). Towards a more ethical market: the impact of ESG rating on corporate financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(1), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, K. Y., & Kwan, C. L. (2017). The effect of environmental, social, governance and sustainability initiatives on stock value–Examining market response to initiatives undertaken by listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 606–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Arceiz, F. J., Bellostas, A. J., & Rivera, P. (2018). Twenty years of research on the relationship between economic and social performance: A meta-analysis approach. Social Indicators Research, 140(2), 453–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, W., & Taylor, M. E. (2016). Which factors moderate the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance? A meta-analysis study. Journal of International Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren, T., & Marklund, P. O. (2015). Climate policy, environmental performance, and profits. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 44(3), 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miralles-Quirós, M. M., Miralles-Quirós, J. L., & Redondo Hernández, J. (2019a). ESG Performance and shareholder value creation in the banking industry: International differences. Sustainability, 11(5), 1404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miralles-Quirós, M. M., Miralles-Quirós, J. L., & Redondo-Hernández, J. (2019b). The impact of environmental, social, and governance performance on stock prices: Evidence from the banking industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1446–1456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miralles-Quirós, M. M., Miralles-Quirós, J. L., & Valente Gonçalves, L. M. (2018). The value relevance of environmental, social, and governance performance: The Brazilian case. Sustainability, 10(3), 574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet? Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (1991). Principles of corporate finance. McGraw-Hill. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nizam, E., Ng, A., Dewandaru, G., Nagayev, R., & Nkoba, M. A. (2019). The impact of social and environmental sustainability on financial performance: A global analysis of the banking sector. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 49, 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020). OECD Business and Finance Outlook 2020: Sustainable and Resilient Finance. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/eb61fd29-en

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, L. S., & Isa, M. (2020). Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Practices And Performance In Shariah Firms: Agency or Stakeholder Theory? Asian Academy of Management, 16(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Horst, J. T., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behaviour. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32, 1723–1742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revelli, C., & Viviani, J. L. (2015). Financial performance of socially responsible investing (SRI): What have we learned? A meta-analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 158–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, K., & Ehrmann, T. (2017). Reporting biases in empirical management research: The example of win-win corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 56(6), 840–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtens, B. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in the international banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtens, B., & Dam, L. (2007). Banking on the equator. Are banks that adopted the equator principles different from non-adopters?. World Development, 35(8), 1307–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serafeim, G. (2020). Social-impact efforts that create real value. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakil, M. H., Mahmood, N., Tasnia, M., & Munim, Z. H. (2019). Do environmental, social and governance performance affect the financial performance of banks? A cross-country study of emerging market banks. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(6), 1331–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, B. (2015). Defining CSR: Problems and solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 625–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C. H., Wu, M. W., Chen, T. H., & Fang, H. (2016). To engage or not to engage in corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from global banking sector. Economic Modelling, 55, 207–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirasu, Y., & Kawakita, H. (2020). Long-term financial performance of corporate social responsibility. Global Finance Journal, 100532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, W., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 1997, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den End, J. W. (2016). A macroprudential approach to address liquidity risk with the loan-to-deposit ratio. The European Journal of Finance, 22(3), 237–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velte, P. (2019). Does CEO power moderate the link between ESG performance and financial performance? A focus on the German two-tier system. Management Research Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business & Society, 55(8), 1083–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widyawati, L. (2020). A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 619–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M. W., & Shen, C. H. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in the banking industry: Motives and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(9), 3529–3547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, B., Lee, J. H., & Byun, R. (2018). Does ESG performance enhance firm value? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability, 10(10), 3635.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina Leo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix A. Data Panel Descriptive Statistic

Variable

 

Mean

Std. Dev

Min

Max

Observations

E_PS

overall

4.969.317

3.283.496

0

9.743.303

N = 920

between

 

2.978.189

0

9.054.602

n = 98

within

 

1.437.594

–8.610.095

1.084.005

T-bar = 9.38776

S_PS

overall

5.663.108

2.302.494

0.6306375

9.724.301

N = 920

between

 

1.979.921

12.558

9.032.054

n = 98

within

 

1.161.393

–7.808.608

9.897.261

T-bar = 9.38776

G_PS

overall

5.601.424

2.369.941

1.857.506

9.718.805

N = 920

between

 

2.085.504

2.660.524

8.813.325

n = 98

within

 

1.240.258

1.199.819

9.908.402

T-bar = 9.38776

LTD

overall

1.234.031

5.031.875

51.571

5.198.318

N = 898

between

 

4.436.409

1.041.035

2.876.958

n = 96

within

 

2.687.189

3.607.411

3.555.391

T-bar = 9.35417

NET_REV_GRW

overall

5.832.171

5.816.445

–873.258

1.653.792

N = 914

between

 

8.838.402

–1.626.925

872.014

n = 97

within

 

4.120.052

–7.759.463

7.876.106

T-bar = 9.42268

TRBC

overall

1.651.651

3.966.185

–5

39.73

N = 882

between

 

301.322

1.146.667

287.975

n = 93

within

 

2.813.961

0.0006746

2.744.901

T-bar = 9.48387

C_I

overall

6.384.396

3.062.973

–970.615

3.516.778

N = 917

between

 

2.041.729

1.983.521

1.389.773

n = 97

within

 

2.343.858

–7.493.388

2.993.643

T-bar = 9.45361

NIRR_IM

overall

0.5874469

0.1659129

–0.5423775

1.962.766

N = 917

between

 

0.1567717

0.075804

1.003.892

n = 97

within

 

0.0953016

–0.6080081

1.760.501

T-bar = 9.45361

GRW_TOT_LOAN

overall

6.076.422

1.901.198

–290.845

1.991.306

N = 892

between

 

1.596.115

–1.279.673

1.057.353

n = 96

within

 

1.579.907

–5.844.448

1.888.024

T-bar = 9.29167

ROA_TO_ROE

overall

0.0735408

0.0436986

–0.4755

0.4926

N = 917

between

 

0.0394987

–0.0131417

0.2583

n = 98

within

 

0.0281309

–0.3888175

0.4544408

T-bar = 9.35714

GDP_GRW

overall

0.0200851

0.0685152

–0.3378723

0.34815

N = 919

between

 

0.0248443

–0.0334347

0.093743

n = 98

within

 

0.0647122

–0.361214

0.3392399

T-bar = 9.37755

log_TA

overall

5.339.151

0.7794824

3.087.841

7.556.495

N = 920

between

 

0.8179462

321.341

7.253.287

n = 98

within

 

0.0948874

4.914.298

5.694.205

T-bar = 9.38776

EVA_S

overall

–0.9273173

4.347.834

–634.924

200.367

N = 920

between

 

3.390.739

–1.015.565

1.156.535

n = 98

within

 

3.482.696

–5.426.407

1.529.317

T-bar = 9.38776

A_CAP_BV

overall

1.096.266

0.8012441

0.0269

85.201

N = 916

between

 

0.8537427

0.3268615

659.345

n = 98

within

 

0.4569083

–1.676.501

6.562.899

T-bar = 9.34694

T’s_Q

overall

1.008.558

0.0609786

0.5689

14.565

N = 915

between

 

0.0589698

0.9292

127.314

n = 98

within

 

0.0382508

0.6087888

1.346.858

T-bar = 9.33673

N_ROA

overall

0.5317132

1.009.741

–124.461

38.701

N = 916

between

 

0.8138232

–1.338.533

3.523.633

n = 98

within

 

0.7142329

–1.057.585

2.771.322

T-bar = 9.34694

N_ROE

overall

7.698.787

1.412.876

–1.489.404

1.425.936

N = 916

between

 

1.065.142

–196.572

8.061.231

n = 98

within

 

9.584.283

–1.215.844

6.968.008

T-bar = 9.34694

Country

overall

1.192.935

5.648.038

1

21

N = 920

between

 

5.701.643

1

21

n = 98

within

 

0

1.192.935

1.192.935

T-bar = 9.38776

Banks

overall

4.856.196

2.812.363

1

98

N = 920

between

 

2.843.413

1

98

n = 98

within

 

0

4.856.196

4.856.196

T-bar = 9.38776

Year

overall

2.014.455

3.659.943

2008

2020

N = 920

between

 

217.994

2013

2019.5

n = 98

within

 

3.338.521

2.008.455

2.020.872

T-bar = 9.38776

Appendix B. Correlation Matrix

 

E_PS

S_PS

G_PS

LTD

NET_REV

_GRW

TRBC

C_I

NIRR_IM

GRW_TOT

_LOAN

ROA_TO

_ROE

GDP_GRW

log_TA

EVA_S

A_CAP_BV

Ts_Q

N_ROA

N_ROE

E_PS

1.0000

                

S_PS

0.7964

1.0000

               

G_PS

0.4944

0.5431

1.0000

              

LTD

0.0380

–0.0240

–0.0047

1.0000

             

NET_REV_GRW

–0.0688

–0.0650

–0.0777

–0.0379

1.0000

            

TRBC

0.1474

0.1585

0.1173

–0.0893

0.0062

1.0000

           

C_I

0.0203

0.0079

–0.0497

–0.0982

–0.0037

–0.0709

1.0000

          

NIRR_IM

–0.1403

–0.1314

–0.1051

0.2177

–0.0260

–0.1446

–0.0183

1.0000

         

GRW_TOT_LOAN

–0.1673

–0.1110

–0.0449

–0.0832

0.3729

–0.0058

–0.0657

–0.0429

1.0000

        

ROA_TO_ROE

–0.3090

–0.1949

–0.0729

–0.1126

0.1381

0.0511

–0.1211

0.1377

0.0875

1.0000

       

GDP_GRW

–0.0831

–0.0503

–0.0029

–0.1073

–0.0073

0.0814

0.0845

–0.0173

0.0435

0.0482

1.0000

      

log_TA

0.5327

0.4738

0.3101

0.0837

–0.0888

0.1110

–0.1144

–0.0344

–0.1215

–0.2192

–0.0132

1.0000

     

EVA_S

–0.0197

0.0478

0.0701

–0.0639

–0.0417

0.0987

–0.5586

0.0036

0.0839

0.0642

–0.0771

0.0211

1.0000

    

A_CAP_BV

–0.2296

–0.1659

–0.0145

–0.2239

0.0588

0.2003

–0.1773

–0.1157

0.3283

0.2036

0.1882

–0.1859

0.1896

1.0000

   

Ts_Q

–0.2488

–0.2073

–0.0106

–0.2017

0.0888

0.1418

–0.1548

–0.0668

0.2371

0.2689

0.0974

–0.1845

0.1061

0.6832

1.0000

  

N_ROA

–0.1961

–0.0870

0.0344

–0.1849

0.0189

0.2269

–0.3741

–0.0150

0.2000

0.3580

0.2068

–0.0097

0.3296

0.4096

0.3704

1.0000

 

N_ROE

–0.1526

–0.1344

–0.0419

–0.1560

0.0203

0.1919

–0.4475

0.0232

0.1981

0.0213

0.0749

0.0260

0.3101

0.2823

0.2218

0.5640

1.0000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

La Torre, M., Leo, S., Panetta, I.C. (2023). Corporate Financial Performance and ESG Performance: Which One Leads European Banks?. In: La Torre, M., Leo, S. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Sustainable Finance. Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22539-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22539-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-22538-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-22539-0

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics