Advertisement

ESG Risk Perception in Sustainable Financial Decisions. Quantitative Methods Perspective

  • Magdalena ZioloEmail author
  • Iwona Bak
  • Ria Sinha
  • Manipadma Datta
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

The role of ESG risk in both decisions of financial institutions and enterprises is systematically growing. The financial sector is particularly predisposed to the exposure of ESG risk, which is an increasingly important element taken into account in the credit risk management process. Therefore, sustainable financial decisions are those that take into account the ESG risk in the decision-making process. The paper discusses the quantitative methods used in the ESG risk analysis. The critical literature review, induction, and deduction methods were implemented to diagnose the significance of qualitative methods in ESG assessment process. Within the methods enabling the analysis on the financial market, the mathematical, statistical, and econometric methods are of particular use. The results of the study confirmed that usage of quantitative tools in the study of ESG factors is beneficial for the analysis of economic and financial conditions of entities.

Keywords

Sustainability ESG Finance Financial decisions Qualitative methods 

JEL

G21 G23 G24 C15 C18 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research results presented in this paper are an element of research project implemented by the National Science Center Poland under the grant OPUS13 no UMO-2017/25/B/HS4/02172.

References

  1. 1.
    Changhong, Z., Yu, G., Jiahai, Y., Mengya, W., Daiyu, L., Yiou, Z., Jiangang, K.: ESG and corporate financial performance: empirical evidence from China’s listed power generation companies. Sustainability 10(8), 1–18 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finansinspektionen: How Can the Financial Sector Contribute to Sustainable Development. https://www.fi.se/contentassets/123efb8f00f34f4cab1b0b1e17cb0bf4/finansiella_foretags_hallbarhetsarbete_eng.pdf (2016). Accessed 19 Nov 2018
  3. 3.
    Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.A., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Escrig-Olmedo, E.: Can environmental, social, and governance rating agencies favor business models that promote a more sustainable development? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hachigian, H., McGill, S.M.: Reframing the governance challenge for sustainable investment. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2(3–4), 166–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Wildlife Fund: Living Planet Report. https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2014 (2014). Accessed 19 Nov 2018
  6. 6.
    Bravo, R., Matute, J., Pina, J.M.: CSR as a vehicle to reveal the corporate identity: a study focused on the websites of Spanish financial entities. J. Bus. Ethics 107(2), 129–146 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Przychodzen, J., Gomez-Bezares, F., Przychodzen, W., Larreina, M.: ESG issues among fund managers: factors and motives. Sustainability 8, 1078 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar, N.C.A., Smith, C., Badis, L., Wang, N., Ambrosy, P., Tavares, R.: ESG factors and risk-adjusted performance: a new quantitative model. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 6(4), 292–300 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2016.1234909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    HSBC: Sustainable Financing and ESG Investing Report. https://www.gbm.hsbc.com/insights/sustainable-financing/sustainable-financing-and-esg-investing-report (2018). Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  10. 10.
    FA Institute: Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Survey. http://www.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/survey/esg-survey-report-2017.ashx (2017). Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  11. 11.
    Morningstar: The Morningstar Sustainability Rating: Helping Investors Evaluate the Sustainability of Portfolios. https://www.morningstar.com/articles/745467/morningstar-sustainability-rating.html (2017). Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  12. 12.
    MSCI: MSCI ESG Ratings Methodology. https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/123a2b2b-1395-4aa2-a121-ea14de6d708a (2018). Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  13. 13.
    Risklab: ESG Risk Factors in a Portfolio Context. https://www.ipe.com/esg-risk-in-a-portfolio-context/34522.article (2010). Accessed 31 Dec 2018
  14. 14.
    Łuniewska, M.: Ekonometria finansowa. Analiza rynku kapitałowego. PWN, Warszawa (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiśniewski, J.W.: Ekonometryczne badanie zjawisk jakościowych. Studium metodologiczne. Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chow, G.C.: Ekonometria. PWN, Warszawa (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnston, J.: Econometric Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zeliaś, A., Pawełek, B., Wanat, S.: Prognozowanie ekonomiczne. Teoria, przykłady, zadania. PWN, Warszawa (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruszczyński, M. (ed.): Mikroekonometria. Modele i metody analizy danych indywidualnych, pp. 63, 75. Wolters Kluwer Polska Sp. z o.o., Warszawa (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gruszczyński, M.: Corporate governance and financial performance of companies in Poland. Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 12(2), 251–259 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruszczyński, M.: Uporządkowany model logitowy: zastosowana biznesowe i finansowe. In: Tarczyński, W. (ed.) Rynek kapitałowy. Skuteczne inwestowanie. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Szczecin (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curry, T., Fissel, G., Hanweck, G.: Market information, bank holding company risk, and market discipline. FDIC Working Paper 2003-04 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.886687
  23. 23.
    Berger, A.E.: Potential competitive effects of Basel II on banks in SME credit markets in the United States. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 26(1), 5–36 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Masciandaro, D., Porta, A.: Single authority in financial markets supervision: lessons for UE enlargement. Paper presented at conference Financial Intermediation in the New Europe: Economics, Policies and Institutions, Mediolan (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Freytag, A., Masciandaro, D.: Financial supervision fragmentation and central bank independence: the two sides of the same coin? University of Lecce Economics Working Paper 76(37) (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.837124
  26. 26.
    Del-Rio, A., Young, G.: The impact of unsecured debt on financial distress among British households. Bank of England Working Paper 262 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.824147
  27. 27.
    Gascogine, J., Turner, P.: Asymmetries in Bank of England monetary policy. Appl. Econ. Lett. 11(10), 615–618 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485042000227296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Łuniewska, M., Tarczyński, W.: Metody wielowymiarowej analizy porównawczej na rynku kapitałowym, pp. 41–43, 57. PWN, Warszawa (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hellwig, Z.: Zastosowanie metody taksonomicznej do typologicznego podziału krajów ze względu na poziom ich rozwoju oraz zasoby i strukturę wykwalifikowanych kadr. Przegl. Stat. 4, 307–326 (1968)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grabiński, T., Wydymus, S., Zeliaś, A.: Metody prognozowania rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego. Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, Kraków (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pociecha, J., Podolec, B., Sokołowski, A., Zając, K.: Metody taksonomiczne w badaniach społeczno-ekonomicznych, p. 71. PWN, Warszawa (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nowak, E.: Metody Taksonomiczne w Klasyfikacji Obiektów Spo-łeczno-gospodarczych. PWE, Warszawa (1990)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jajuga, K.: Statystyczna analiza wielowymiarowa. PWN, Warszawa (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malina, A.: Wielowymiarowa analiza przestrzennego zróżnicowania struktury gospodarki Polski według województw. Wydawnictwo AE w Krakowie, Kraków (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Młodak, A.: Analiza taksonomiczna w statystyce regionalnej, pp. 136–137. Centrum Doradztwa i Informacji DIFIN, Warszawa (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Panek, T.: Statystyczne metody wielowymiarowej analizy porównawczej, pp. 57–58. SGH w Warszawie, Warszawa (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walesiak, M.: Uogólniona miara odległości GDM w statystycznej analizie wielowymiarowej z wykorzystaniem programu R. Wydanie drugie poprawione i rozszerzone. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vicke, P.: Multicriteria Decision-Aid. Wiley, Chichester (1992)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Broniewicz, B., Dziurdzikowska, E.: Metody wielokryterialne w równoważeniu procesów społeczno-gospodarczych. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. Wrocław. 491, 53–62 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2017.491.05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mendoza, G.A., Martins, H.: Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manage. 230(1–3), 1–22 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., Linkov, I.: Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 409(19), 3578–3594 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Buchholz, T., Rametsteiner, E., Volk, T.A., Luzadis, V.A.: Multi criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37(2), 484–495 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, London (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nermend, K.: Metody analizy wielokryterialnej i wielowymiarowej we wspomaganiu decyzji. PWN, Warszawa (2017)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., Roy, B.: ELECTRE methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Frondel, M., Horbach, J., Rennings, K.: End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Bus. Strategy Environ. 16, 571–584 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moussiopoulos, N., Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Spyridi, D., Nikolaou, K.: Environmental, social and economic information management for the evaluation of sustainability in urban areas: a system of indicators for Thessaloniki, Greece. Cities 27(5), 377–384 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Inglehart, R.: Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28(1), 57–72 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.2307/420583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bassen, A., Meyer, K., Schlange, J.: The Influence of Corporate Responsibility on the Cost of Capital. http://ssrn.com/abstract=984406/ (2006). Accessed 30 Dec 2018
  51. 51.
    Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B.: Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation: A Study of Multinational Enterprises in Mexico. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9426392.pdf (1996). Accessed 31 Dec 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magdalena Ziolo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iwona Bak
    • 2
  • Ria Sinha
    • 3
  • Manipadma Datta
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and ManagementUniversity of SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsWest Pomeranian University of Technology SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  3. 3.Department of Business and SustainabilityTERI School of Advanced StudiesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations