This study investigates the relationship among Asian commercial banks’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores, risk-taking and value. The empirical results find that for banks either already in high or low risk, an increase in ESG scores is significantly associated with a decrease in risk and a decrease in bank value. These two results corroborate the stakeholder theory and the overinvestment theory, respectively. In addition, this paper also tests the correlation between risk-taking and ESG, concluding that although ESG posts negative effect on bank’s value, ESG and risk together are significantly associated with an increase in bank value, compensating for the inevitable impact of higher ESG resulting in reduced bank value.

Mingjie He. ESG Disclosure, Risk-taking and Value-An Empirical Study of Commercial Banks in Asia. Academic Journal of Business & Management (2022) Vol. 4, Issue 16: 32-40. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJBM.2022.041606.

[1] Brunnermeier, M. K. (2009). Deciphering the liquidity and credit crunch 2007-08. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 77-100.

[2] DeYoung, R., Peng, E. Y., & Yan, M. (2013). Executive compensation and business policy choices at US commercial banks. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(1), 165-196.

[3] Srivastav, A., & Hagendorff, J. (2016). Corporate governance and bank risk-taking. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 334-345.

[4] Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

[5] Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 21(3), 479-486.

[6] Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71-86.

[7] Drago, D., Carnevale, C., & Gallo, R. (2019). Do corporate social responsibility ratings effect credit default swap spreads? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 644-652.

[8] Bolton, B. J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and bank performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[9] Neitzert, F., & Petras, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and bank risk. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10] Menz, K. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility: Is it rewarded by the corporate bond market? A critical note. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 117-134.

[11] Magnanelli, B. S., & Izzo, M. F. (2017). Corporate social performance and cost of debt: The relationship. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2), 250-265.

[12] Galema, R., Plantinga, A., & Scholtens, B. (2008). The stocks at stake: Return and risk in socially responsible investment. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(12), 2646-2654.

[13] Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97-109.

[14] Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97-116.

[15] Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2015). Legal vs. normative CSR: Differential impact on analyst dispersion, stock return volatility, cost of capital, and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 1-20.

[16] Harjoto, M. A., & Laksmana, I. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 353-373.