CC BY-NC-ND
52
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.17.3.2023.152-159 JEL classification: G30, O32
(cc)
Impact of ESG Activities on the Innovation Development and Financial Performance of Firms
In the technology-driven economy, a firm's sustainable financial performance is significantly influenced by its efficiency in research and development (R&D) and broader innovation initiatives. Conversely, while embracing ESG-related activities can potentially open up a broader spectrum of funding, it may also impose challenges on companies as they strive to meet the escalating demands for sustainability practices and contend with increasing ESG-related risks. Hence, businesses are confronted with the imperative of making prudent ESG-related investments while simultaneously maintaining a strong track record in innovation performance. The findings of numerous studies suggest that investments in ESG projects can yield both positive and negative outcomes for innovation performance. However, recent trends within the ESG industry have amplified concerns regarding the trade-offs between ESG considerations, innovation endeavors, and overall financial performance
Keywords: ESG, social responsibility, R&D investments, innovation performance, information asymmetry, ESG rating
For citation: Dranev Y. (2023) Impact of ESG Activities on the Innovation Development and Financial Performance of Firms. Journal of Corporate Finance Research. 17(3): 152-159. https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.17.3.2023.152-159
Yury Dranev
PhD, Leading Research Fellow,
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, [email protected], ORCID
Abstract
The journal is an open access journal which means that everybody can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles in accordance with CC Licence type: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
In the past few decades, businesses worldwide have significantly expanded their focus on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) considerations. This shift towards greater social and environmental responsibility has substantially influenced resource allocation strategies within companies. This strategic shift, however, appears to be in conflict with the predictions of standard economic theory, famously articulated by Milton Friedman: "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits" [1]. The substantial transformation in business practices and the underlying reasons for this transformation have garnered considerable attention from scholars. This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic discourse surrounding the relationship between ESG practices and company innovation activities, shedding light on potential risks to R&D performance arising from the growing prominence of ESG agendas.
Initially, the proliferation of ESG practices was often linked to various benefits for businesses, including a positive influence on long-term financial performance and the advancement of R&D initiatives. However, recent literature has documented diminishing benefits for firms engaging in social responsibility practices as well as raising concerns about the synergistic effects of ESG and innovation activities. A critical question for financial scholars pertains to whether adherence to ESG criteria generates added value for investors [2-4]. The discussion regarding market reactions to ESG-labeled assets and the drivers behind the substantial surge in ESG investments is explored in the first section of this paper.
The environmental, social, and governance dimensions of ESG practices are frequently cited as factors that could potentially enhance a firm's innovation performance [5; 6]. However, several authors have posited that a trade-off may exist between social responsibility and R&D projects [7; 8]. The literature examining the relationship between ESG and innovation and its implications for a firm's R&D performance is examined in the second section. While ecological innovations and improvements in HR management and social governance practices are generally regarded as catalysts for technological advancement, the benefits of social responsibility have led to the rapid and often unregulated proliferation of ESG activities. This, in turn, has given rise to the phenomenon of "greenwashing" and an information asymmetry between businesses and various stakeholders [9; 10]. Consequently, the diversity in ESG practice standards, coupled with economic instability, introduces additional risks that may undermine the positive outcomes of ESG activities on R&D development. These risks are explored in the third section of this paper, which is followed by a concluding summary.
ESG and Financial Performance
The significant growth in the ESG-labeled assets market has prompted a crucial question in contemporary finance research: What motivates investments in ESG? On the one
hand, portfolio theory posits that investors are rational, aiming to optimize risk-return ratios; therefore, the pursuit of green investments should be driven by superior returns, effectively transforming investors' social responsibility into a quest for profitability [11]. Nonetheless, numerous studies have found that ESG-labeled assets often fail to deliver higher returns [3]. An examination of equity mutual funds in the U.S. market from 2004 to 2012 showed the existence of financial rewards from socially irresponsible investments [12]. Country-level analyses highlight the significance of the economic environment and financial stimuli in emerging countries, where the ESG aspects of investments are frequently overlooked [13]. On the other hand, the nonpecuniary utility of investors suggests an alternate behavior pattern [14]: investors may be willing to sacrifice some returns if they have strong preferences for ESG investments [15]. Some research challenges the positive relationship between ESG performance and market returns. For example, B.R. Auer and F. Schuhmacher [16] found that ESG investors achieved market-level returns in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S., while ESG assets often underperformed in the European market.
Despite decades of research, predicting the market's reaction to ESG-related news remains challenging. Several authors have focused on analyzing the financial market's response to the emergence of ESG-related news and its impact on company value. However, while there is some consistency in the negative effects of bad news, the connection between positive news and company performance remains unclear. P. Krüger [17], who collected data on 2,116 corporate events categorized as positive or negative, revealed that the market reacts negatively to both good and bad corporate social responsibility-related news, although the effect of positive news is smaller, and linked the negative effect of positive news to the agency problem. In contrast, G. Capelle-Blancard and A. Petit [18], who studied a sample of 33,000 ESG news items about public companies, found that negative news from the media decreased a firm's market value by 0.1%, while the impact of positive news was insignificant. Consequently, while "being good" and taking steps toward social and environmental responsibility does not pay, the market penalizes companies for "being bad" [19]. Recent studies by G. Serafeim and A. Yoon [20; 21], in contrast to prior literature, found that positive (negative) news led to positive (negative) stock price reactions. Although empirical research on the market's reaction to firms' ESG activities yields mixed results, various me-ta-analyses aggregating empirical research have concluded that, in general, socially responsible investing and ESG considerations can be associated with higher returns compared to conventional instruments (e.g., [4; 22; 23]). Firms with good ESG performance can achieve higher long-term and short-term returns (e.g., [24-26]), as well as improved return on assets (ROA) [24; 27] and return on equity (ROE) [28]. Most empirical literature also supports the view that good ESG performance is usually associated with lower risk and a lower cost of capital [2]. ESG investing has an indirect impact and serves as a marketing tool,
increasing customer satisfaction and demand for the firm's products [29]. Given the potential benefits of ESG projects, poor ESG performance and negative media coverage increase the likelihood of CEO dismissal [30].
It is also essential to note that the rapid growth of ESG assets has not been limited by the overall growth of the financial market itself; rather, there has been a shift towards ESG investing and a diversion of funds from conventional assets. For instance, a significant study analyzed the impact of the launch of Morningstar sustainability ratings in the mutual fund industry in 2016. This natural experiment resulted in statistically significant increases in fund inflows for highly rated ESG assets, while low sustainability ratings were associated with net outflows [31]. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that market reactions to ESG assets can change over time. A case in point is the important and widespread ESG practice of green bond issuance. Green bonds have been negatively perceived up until recently due to higher associated costs, lower returns, and increased risk [32; 33]. Green bonds, as financial instruments, resemble conventional bonds but aim to finance environmental projects. Recent studies, however, show a changing landscape: the index of green municipal bonds slightly outperformed the closest S&P index in the secondary market from 2014 to 2018, and the introduction of a "green" premium in the primary market also holds promise [34].
ESG and Innovation Performance
The previous section delved into the effect of ESG on financial performance and value creation. Equally significant in the ESG literature is the exploration of the relationship between social responsibility and a company's innovation activity. The allocation of limited resources has always been a major topic of interest for economists [35]. In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, efficient utilization of innovations and new technologies significantly influences both financial and overall firm performance [36]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the connections between ESG activities and R&D development. Modern economic growth, in the Schumpeterian sense, is fundamentally rooted in a continuous flow of innovations [37; 38]. Leveraging new technologies is a critical competitive advantage not only for R&D-intensive industries. The consequences of deciding not to invest in innovations and the inability to adapt to changes often outweigh the inherent risks associated with R&D activities [39-41]. However, a fundamental issue with the ESG agenda must be kept in mind: ESG encompasses a broad and often inconclusive spectrum of environmental, social, and governance practices, while the impact of E, S, and G factors on a firm's R&D performance varies significantly [42]. Academic literature describes scenarios of both synergy and trade-offs in the direct relationship between ESG activities and a firm's R&D performance [43; 44].
The synergy effect is particularly significant when ESG activities and R&D projects overlap [5; 6; 45]. For instance, many ecological innovation programs enhance the effi-
ciency of core business processes, offering innovators a competitive advantage, especially when implementing successful proactive environmental strategies [6; 46]. As an example of gains from ESG-driven innovations, several authors have discussed cost reductions due to efficient resource utilization [47; 48]. Recent research has shown that ecological innovations in the Chinese market from 2014 to 2019 typically improved a company's overall ESG profile, with the enhancement of the ESG rating playing a pivotal mediating role between green innovation and financial performance [49].
However, outside of overlapping R&D - ESG projects, most environmental practices introduce additional risks for firms, insofar as the latter tend to perceive the choice between ESG and R&D as a trade-off [7]. Nevertheless, green subsidies and direct government regulations remain significant instruments for promoting green development [50; 51]. Some scholars have revealed a positive link between R&D intensity and CSR specialization [52]: R&D-intensive firms tend to be more focused in their selection of ESG activities and avoid resource-related trade-offs between processes [53]. Another study found that higher R&D investments are usually associated with better green innovation performance measured by the number of green patents [54]. Given that the environmental aspect of the ESG agenda implies increased efficiency in energy and materials usage and promotes a sustainable, low-emission economy, some scholars have emphasized sectoral differences in the ESG - R&D relationship and identified synergistic effects from environmental practices in the industrial sector [55]. Implementing any ESG practice requires additional internal resources, and firms often face resource constraints [8]. Moreover, as several studies have emphasized, despite the importance of ecological and social investments, such investments are generally less attractive than R&D development in terms of returns [8; 56]. As a result, some scholars have discussed the role of society in supporting ESG initiatives and improving environmental quality through regulatory enhancements and subsidies [57]. Excluding the synergistic potential of green projects, the link between social practices and R&D performance is usually perceived as a trade-off between labor costs and labor productivity. However, R&D performance also correlates positively when ESG activities improve labor conditions, staff motivation, and organizational structure [58]. To a large extent, the individual innovativeness and creativity of key knowledge employees determine the efficiency of R&D investments [59; 60]. Empirical research demonstrates that fostering social values and social capital formation within R&D teams often yields positive outcomes for innovation performance [61].
Regarding the assessment of ESG impact on corporate profitability, several studies have emphasized the crucial role of corporate governance practices and the ability to establish efficient management systems aligned with the interests of the firm's shareholders [62]. The relationship between R&D investments and corporate governance has been explored at both firm and country levels [63]. Inno-
vation-oriented companies tend to rely on equity financing and typically have a higher proportion of activist institutional investors [64], while lower leverage and the presence of activist investors are often associated with greater levels of R&D investments [65]. Good corporate governance, meanwhile, sets the stage for efficient investments in environmental and social projects, creating value for shareholders and other stakeholders [66]. Overall, corporate governance plays an integrating role, as unagile management has limited capacity to benefit from investments in environmental and social projects and foster technological development. In contrast, good governance implies greater discipline and a focus on long-term sustainability [67].
ESG-related Risks and Innovation Performance
For several decades, the implementation of ESG activities did not prioritize high returns, not counting innovative firms with overlapping R&D and ESG specialization. Nevertheless, businesses have undeniably benefited from the ESG agenda, as all stakeholders, including investors and consumers, have exhibited a growing demand for it [68; 69]. ESG disclosure practices, in particular, have helped compliant firms attract additional financial resources on financial markets and increase revenues due to product differentiation and heightened customer attention [69]. Thus, common ESG practices have aimed to enhance company reputation and attract investors and customers. Firms tend to report only such ESG information that demonstrates regulatory compliance [68]. ESG practices have evolved into useful business tools with a positive impact on core business activities, with innovation playing a mediating role in this process [70]. Nevertheless, for a number of reasons the benefits of ESG-enhanced innovation may significantly diminish in the future.
Firstly, due to the growth of the ESG industry, firms are compelled to allocate more resources to compete with other ESG-compliant enterprises. In other words, when everyone is socially responsible, being socially responsible no longer gives a competitive advantage. As the new generation of investors may be hesitant to invest in firms with poor ESG performance [69], every business will be obligated to allocate resources to ESG merely to maintain its presence in the market. For companies with average ESG records, this increased spending can lead to additional financial constraints, potentially crowding out R&D investments and reducing financial efficiency. Scholars are already discussing the potential effects of mandatory ESG disclosure, which, in addition to the direct costs of report preparation and certification, could involve proprietary costs and litigation expenses [71].
Secondly, a growing body of literature on regulatory practices asserts that the ESG field requires additional regulation to assure greater transparency and coverage [72; 73]. Information asymmetry is one of the primary challenges in ESG investments. Companies typically provide non-standardized reports on ESG, often emphasizing their own
achievements. The costs associated with processing this information, along with news from the media, are exceedingly high and typically require a certain level of professional expertise, thereby biasing investment decisions and diminishing financial market efficiency.
To some extent, information asymmetry can be mitigated by professional intermediaries. Over the last decade, various rating agencies have attempted to make ESG performance more transparent. However, the use of ESG ratings as a proxy for socially responsible business practices still faces significant limitations. One of the main problems is that raters from different providers frequently disagree about a firm's ESG profile [74]. The industry suffers from a lack of standardized rankings, resulting in inconsistent information being available to investors [75]. For example, F. Berg et al. [76] reported that the average correlation between five different ESG raters ranged from 0.42 to 0.73, whereas the correlation between the credit ratings of leading agencies is often close to 1. Furthermore, ESG ranking can be subject to bias, with several researchers noting that large companies with more resources may gain advantages in corporate sustainability assessments (e.g., [77; 78]). Each ranking system aggregates the three pillars, yet these aggregations differ substantially and typically do not capture sectoral distinctions [79]. Consequently, while ESG investors differentiate among environmental, social, and governance issues, the ESG score has limited implications for the academic discussion of the factors directing the modern financial market [80]. Disagreement about a firm's ESG profile is positively correlated with equity risk, while the lack of reporting standards diminishes the potential benefits of ESG investments, as it remains unclear which practices matter to rating agencies and influence investor decisions [81]. From an investor's standpoint, mixed information about ESG profiles increases uncertainty, with the perspectives for above-market returns depending on the choice of ranking provider [10]. This may pose even greater challenges for firms actively engaged in innovation activities. Finally, the global crisis has introduced additional risks to ESG-related markets. Some investors have considered ESG investing as a strategy to reduce portfolio risks [82]. However, the market downturn caused by COVID-19 provided a critical examination of the sustainability of ESG investments. The high level of uncertainty resulted in a surge of fund flows into low-ESG-risk assets [83]. However, some scholars pointed out that ESG assets displayed mixed financial performance [84; 85]. While investors sought safer investment strategies to mitigate downside risks [86], ESG assets did not prevent financial losses during severe economic shocks [87; 88]. The reasons behind instances of poor risk mitigation by ESG assets may be linked to the failure of ranking systems to capture what genuinely matters in ESG practices. Moreover, the pursuit of higher ESG ratings can incentivize "greenwashing" and ineffective ESG procedures rather than real actions toward sustainable development, with the consequences only becoming apparent during a crisis [9]. The volatile behavior of investors with regard to ESG-related risks during economic down-
turns can increase the cost of capital and negatively impact the innovation performance of firms.
Conclusion
The proliferation of ESG practices has been driven by society's inclination to reward socially responsible firms. Nevertheless, the absence of standardized reporting norms, discrepancies in ranking systems, the inability to effectively mitigate downside risks, and fragmented regulations have given rise to substantial information asymmetry and uncertainty regarding the true ESG profiles of firms. Consequently, as ESG practices become commonplace, company expenditures on social responsibility no longer confer competitive advantages and diminish the potential for synergy between ESG and R&D projects.
Acknowledgement
This article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Programme of the HSE University.
References
1. Friedman M. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profitability. The New York Times Magazine. 1970 September 13. URL: https://www. nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to. html (accessed on 15.06.2023)
2. Gillan S.L., Koch A., Starks L.T. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021;66:101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j-. jcorpfin.2021.101889
3. Derwall J., Koedijk K., Ter Horst J.R. A tale of values-driven and profit-seeking social investors. Journal of Banking and Finance. 2011;35(8):2137-2147. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.01.009
4. Margolis J.D., Elfenbein H.A., Walsh. J.P. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2009:1-68. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371
5. Salim N., Ab Rahman N.M, Abd Wahab D. A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;209:1445-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. jclepro.2018.11.105
6. Ryszko A. Proactive environmental strategy, technological eco-innovation and firm performance—Case of Poland. Sustainability. 2016;8(2):156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020156
7. Epstein M.J., Buhovac A.R., Yuthas K. Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously. Long Range Planning. 2015;48(1):35-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/jj.lrp.2012.11.001
8. Mithani M.A. Innovation and CSR—Do they go well together? Long Range Planning. 2017;50(6):699-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j'.lrp.2016.08.002
9. Bae K.H., El Ghoul S., Gong Z.J., et al. Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021;67:101876. https://doi.org/10.1016/''. jcorpfin.2020.101876
10. Halbritter G., Dorfleitner G. The wages of social responsibility—where are they? A critical review of ESG investing. Review of Financial Economics. 2015;26:25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2015.03.004
11. Revelli C. Socially responsible investing (SRI): From mainstream to margin? Research in International Business and Finance. 2017;39(Part B):711-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/jj.ribaf.2015.11.003
12. Borgers A., Derwall J., Koedijk K., et al. Do social factors influence investment behavior and performance? Evidence from mutual fund holdings. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2015;60:112-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbankfin.2015.07.001
13. Fifka M. Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective - a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2013;22(1):1-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.729
14. Fama E.F., French K.R. Disagreement, tastes, and asset prices. Journal of Financial Economics. 2007;83(3):667-689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfineco.2006.01.003
15. Baker M., Bergstresser D., Serafeim G., et al. Financing the response to climate change: The pricing and ownership of US green bonds. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2018;25194. https://doi. org/10.3386/w25194
16. Auer B.R., Schuhmacher F. Do socially (ir) responsible investments pay? New evidence from international ESG data. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 2016;59:51-62. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.qref.2015.07.002
17. Krüger P. Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics. 2015;115(2):304-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfineco.2014.09.008
18. Capelle-Blancard G., Petit A. Every Little Helps? ESG News and Stock Market Reaction. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;157:543-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-017-3667-3
19. Cornell B., Damodaran A. Valuing ESG: Doing good or sounding good? The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing. 2020;1(1):76-93. https://doi.org/10.3905/ jesg.2020.1.1.076
20. Serafeim G., Yoon A. Stock price reactions to ESG news: The role of ESG ratings and disagreement. Review of Accounting Studies. 2022;28:1500-1530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09675-3
21. Serafeim G., Yoon A. Which corporate ESG news does the market react to? Financial Analysts Journal. 2022;78(1):59-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/001519 8X.2021.1973879
22. Tsai K.H., Huang C.T., Chen Z.H. Understanding variation in the relationship between environmental management practices and firm performance across studies: A meta-analytic review. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(2):547-565. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.2386
23. Friede G., Busch T., Bassen A. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2015;5(4):210-233. https://doi.org/10.1 080/20430795.2015.1118917
24. Lins K.V., Servaes H., Tamayo A. Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance. 2017;72(4):1785-1824. https://doi. org/10.1111/jofi.12505
25. Flammer C. Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science. 2015;61(11):2549-2568. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.2014.2038
26. Flammer C. Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics. 2021;142(2):499-516. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
27. Borghesi R., Houston J.F., Naranjo A. Corporate socially responsible investments: CEO altruism, reputation, and shareholder interests. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2014;26:164-181. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.008
28. Cornett M.M., Erhemjamts O., Tehranian H. 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. 2016;70:137-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. jbankfin.2016.04.024
29. Ghanbarpour T., Gustafsson A. How do corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovativeness increase financial gains? A customer perspective analysis. Journal of Business Research. 2022;140:471-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. jbusres.2021.11.016
30. Burke J.J. Do boards take environmental, social, and governance issues seriously? Evidence from Media Coverage and CEO Dismissals. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022;176:647-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-020-04715-x
31. Hartzmark S.M., Sussman A.B. Do investors value sustainability? A natural experiment examining ranking and fund flows. The Journal of Finance. 2019;74(6):2789-2837. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jofi.12841
32. Chiang J. Growing the US Green Bond Market -Volume 1: The Barriers and Challenges. California Treasury; 2017. URL: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ greenbonds/publications/reports/green_bond_ market_01.pdf (accessed on 15.06.2023)
33. Banga J. The green bond market: a potential source of climate finance for developing countries. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2019;9(1):17-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2018.1498617
34. Partridge C., Medda F.R. The evolution of pricing performance of green municipal bonds. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2020;10(1):44-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2019.1661187
35. Darroch J. Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2005;9(3):101-115. https://doi. org/10.1108/13673270510602809
36. Chaudhary S., Batra S. Absorptive capacity and small family firm performance: exploring the mediation processes. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2018;22(6):1201-1216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0047
37. Galindo M.Á., Méndez M.T. Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research. 2014;67(5):825-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j-. jbusres.2013.11.052
38. Pece A.M., Simona O.E.O., Salisteanu F. Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015;26:461-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00874-6
39. Katz J.A., Aldrich H.E., Welbourne T.M., et al. Guest editor's comments special issue on human resource management and the SME: Toward a new synthesis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2000;25(1):7-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870002500102
40. Audretsch D.B., Segarra A., Teruel M. Why don't all young firms invest in R&D? Small Business Economics. 2014;43:751-766. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-014-9561-9
41. Pellegrino G., Piva M. Innovation, industry and firm age: are there new knowledge production functions? Eurasian Business Review. 2020;10:65-95. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40821-019-00129-6
42. Lee M.T., Raschke R.L., Krishen A.S. Understanding ESG scores and firm performance: Are high-performing firms E, S, and G-balanced? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2023;195:122779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j-.techfore.2023.122779
43. Orlitzky M., Schmidt F.L., Rynes S.L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies. 2003;24(3):403-441. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
44. Aguinis H., Glavas A. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility:
A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. 2012;38(4):932-968. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206311436079
45. Skordoulis M., Ntanos S., Kyriakopoulos G.L., et al. Environmental innovation, open innovation dynamics and competitive advantage of medium and large-sized firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020;6(4):195. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040195
46. Delmas M., Hoffmann V.H., Kuss M. Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Business
& Society. 2011;50(1):116-154. https://doi. org/10.1177/0007650310394400
47. Hart L.S. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. The Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(4):986-1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/258963
48. Munodawafa R.T., Johl S.K. A systematic review of eco-innovation and performance from the resource-based and stakeholder perspectives. Sustainability. 2019;11(21):6067. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11216067
49. Zheng J., Khurram M.U., Chen L. Can green innovation affect ESG ratings and financial performance? evidence from Chinese GEM listed companies. Sustainability. 2022;14(14):8677. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14148677
50. Ringel M., Schlomann B., Krail M., et al. Towards a green economy in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Applied Energy. 2016;179:1293-1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2016.03.063
51. Zhang D., Meng L., Zhang J. Environmental subsidy disruption, skill premiums and ESG performance. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2023;90:102862. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. irfa.2023.102862
52. Zhou S., Rashid M.H.U., Mohd. Zobair S.A., et al. Does ESG impact firms' sustainability performance? The mediating effect of innovation performance. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):5586. https://doi. org/10.3390/su15065586
53. Fu L, Boehe D, Orlitzky M. Are R&D-Intensive firms also corporate social responsibility specialists? A multicountry study. Research Policy. 2020;49(8):104082. https://doi.org/10.1016/. respol.2020.104082
54. Xu J., Liu F., Shang Y. R&D investment, ESG performance and green innovation performance: evidence from China. Kybernetes. 2021;50(3):737-756. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0793
55. Dicuonzo G., Donofrio F., Ranaldo S., et al. The effect of innovation on environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices. Meditari Accountancy Research. 2022;30(4):1191-1209. https://doi. org/10.1108/MEDAR-12-2020-1120
56. Margolis J.D., Walsh J.P. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2003;48(2):268-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/35566
57. Huang Z., Liao G., Li Z. Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019;144:148-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/. techfore.2019.04.023
58. Vinding A.L. Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2006;15(4-5):507-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590500513057
59. Gong Y., Zhou J., Chang S. Core knowledge employee creativity and firm performance: The moderating role of riskiness orientation, firm size, and realized absorptive capacity. Personnel psychology. 2013;66(2):443-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12024
60. Schweisfurth T.G., Raasch C. Absorptive capacity for need knowledge: Antecedents and effects
for employee innovativeness. Research Policy. 2018;47(4):687-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/. respol.2018.01.017
61. Akhavan P., Hosseini M. Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: an empirical study of R&D teams in Iran. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2016;28(1):96-113. https://doi.org/10.1 080/09537325.2015.1072622
62. Kim S., Li Z. Understanding the impact of ESG practices in corporate finance. Sustainability. 2021;13(7):3746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073746
63. Miroshnychenko I., De Massis A. Three decades of research on corporate governance and R&D investments: a systematic review and research agenda. R&D Management. 2020;50(5):648-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12432
64. Ivashkovskaya I., Evdokimov S. Does the Corporate Financial Architecture of Innovative Companies Differ? The Evidence From the USA. Korporativnye Finansy = Journal of Corporate Finance Research. 2018;12(4):7-28. https://doi.org/10.17323/jjcfr.2073-0438.12.4.2018.7-28
65. David P., Hitt M.A., Gimeno J. The influence of activism by institutional investors on R&D. The Academy of Management Journal. 2001;44(1):144-157. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069342
66. Hvidkj^r S. ESG investing: a literature review. 2017. URL: https://dansif.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ Litterature-review-UK-Sep-2017.pdf (accessed on 29.07.2023)
67. Khan M. Corporate governance, ESG, and stock returns around the world. Financial Analysts Journal. 2019;75(4):103-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/001519 8X.2019.1654299
68. Mohammad W.M.W., Wasiuzzaman S. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Cleaner Environmental Systems. 2021;2:100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cesys.2021.100015
69. Park S.R., Jang J.Y. The impact of ESG management on investment decision: Institutional investors' perceptions of country-specific ESG criteria. International Journal of Financial Studies. 2021;9(3):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9030048
70. Ge G., Xiao X., Li Z., et al. Does ESG performance promote high-quality development of enterprises in China? The mediating role of innovation inpu. Sustainability. 2022;14(7):3843. https://doi. org/10.3390/su14073843
71. Christensen H.B., Hail L., Leuz C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies. 2021;26(3):1176-1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11142-021-09609-5
72. Hockerts K., Moir L. Communicating corporate responsibility to investors: The changing role of the investor relations function. Journal of Business Ethics. 2004;52:85-98. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:BUSI.0000033109.35980.16
73. Gyönyörova L., Stachon M., Stasek D. ESG ratings: relevant information or misleading clue? Evidence from the S&P Global 1200. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2023;13(2):1075-1109. https:// doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1922062
74. Chatterji A.K., Levine D.I., Toffel M.W. How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 2009;18(1):125-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1530-9134.2009.00210.x
75. Avramov D., Cheng S., Lioui A., et al. Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics. 2022;145(2 Part B):642-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009
76. Berg F., Koelbel J.F., Rigobon R. Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance. 2022;26(6):1315-1344. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/ rfac033
77. Drempetic S., Klein C., Zwergel B. The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020;167:333-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04164-1
78. Crespi F., Migliavacca M. The determinants of ESG rating in the financial industry: The same old story or a different tale? Sustainability. 2020;12(16):6398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166398
79. Capelle-Blancard G., Petit A. The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit all. Business & Society. 2017;56(6):919-943. https://doi. org/10.1177/0007650315620118
80. Dupuy P., Garibal J.C. Cross-dispersion bias-adjusted ESG rankings. Journal of Asset Management. 2022;23(7):631-643. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-022-00293-x
81. Widyawati L. A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020;29(2):619-637. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.2393
82. Cerqueti R., Ciciretti R., Dalö A., et al. ESG investing: A chance to reduce systemic risk. Journal of Financial Stability. 2021;54:100887. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. jfs.2021.100887
83. Ferriani F., Natoli F. ESG risks in times of Covid-19. Applied Economics Letters. 2021;28(18): 1537-1541. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1830932
84. Demers E., Hendrikse J., Joos P., et al. ESG did not immunize stocks during the COVID-19 crisis, but investments in intangible assets did. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 2021;48(3-4):433-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12523
85. Sun L., Small G. Has sustainable investing made an impact in the period of COVID-19?: evidence from Australian exchange traded funds. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2022;12(1):251-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1977577
86. Singh A. COVID-19 and ESG preferences: Corporate bonds versus equities. International Review of Finance. 2022;22(2):298-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ irfi.12351
87. Folger-Laronde Z., Pashang S., Feor L., et al. ESG ratings and financial performance of exchange-traded funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment. 2022;12(2):490-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1782814
88. Takahashi H., Yamada K. When the Japanese stock market meets COVID-19: Impact of ownership, China and US exposure, and ESG channels. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2021;74:101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/'. irfa.2021.101670
The article was submitted 06.07.2023; approved after reviewing 08.08.2023; accepted for publication 14.09.2023.
