Investigating the double-edged sword effect of environmental, social and governance practices on corporate risk-taking in the high-tech industry

Abstract

Research background: Corporate risk-taking (CRT) is crucial to a business's survival and performance and is a driving force for sustainable development. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices are critical to firm profits when considering sustainable economic growth; however, they can also be the cause of financial burdens. It is, therefore, crucial to assess the relationship between a company's ESG performance and its risk-taking.

Purpose of the article: Considering the controversial results of empirical studies on the relationship between ESG and CRT, this study aims to theoretically and empirically investigate the curvilinear nexus between ESG practices and CRT within Taiwan's high-tech industry.

Methods: Ordinary least square regression and quantile regression analysis was applied to investigate the curvilinear ESG-CRT relationship. The empirical studies were conducted in 38 high-tech companies on the Taiwan Stock Exchange that disclosed ESG information between 2005 and 2020, with a total of 437 firm-year observations.

Findings & value added: Quantile regression estimation results reveal the ESG-CRT nexus is U-shaped (convex). Both the environmental and social pillar's relationship with CRT is nonlinear and U-shaped, whereas the governance pillar has no significant relationship with CRT. Overall, a comprehensive view is provided that shows ESG practices can have a double-edged sword effect on CRT. It is suggested that high-tech companies in Taiwan should avoid ESG practices becoming a tool for managements' self-interest. More information of ESG practices should be disclosed to stakeholders to ensure they are given full credit for the positive impact they have on capital allocation. Regulators guide firms to surpass the threshold of the U-shaped effect and take into consideration the whole benefits of stakeholders when they allocate existing resources toward environmental and social endeavors.

Keywords

ESG, corporate risk-taking, quantile regression, sustainable development

References

1. Abad, D., Cutillas-Gomariz, M. F., Sanchez-Ballesta, J. P., & Yague, J. (2018). Real earnings management and information asymmetry in the equity market. European Accounting Review, 27(2), 209–235. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2016.1261720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.1261720
   View in Google Scholar
2. Al-Najjar, B., & Salama, A. (2022). Mind the gap: Are female directors and execu-tives more sensitive to the environment in high-tech us firms? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 184, 122024. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122024
   View in Google Scholar
3. Andries, A. M., Balutel, D., Ihnatov, I., & Ursu, S. G. (2020). The nexus between corporate governance, risk taking, and growth. PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0228371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228371
   View in Google Scholar
4. Anton, S. G. (2018). The impact of enterprise risk management on firm value: Em-pirical evidence from Romanian non-financial firms. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 29(2), 151–157. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.29.2.16426 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.29.2.16426
   View in Google Scholar
5. Anton S. G., & Nucu, A. E. A. (2020). Enterprise risk management: A literature review and agenda for future research. Journal of Risk and Financial Manage-ment, 13, 281. doi: 10.3390/jrfm13110281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110281
   View in Google Scholar
6. Aray, Y., Dikova, D., Garanina, T., & Veselova, A. (2021). The hunt for international legitimacy: Examining the relationship between internationalization, state ownership, location and CSR reporting of Russian firms. International Business Review, 30, 101858. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101858
   View in Google Scholar
7. Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022). Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 642–664. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009
   View in Google Scholar
8. Ayadi, M., Kusy, M. I., Pyo, M., & Trabelsi, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibil-ity, corporate governance, and managerial risk-Taking. In 2015 Canadian Aca-demic Accounting Association (CAAA) annual conference. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2547 576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2547576
   View in Google Scholar
9. Azevedo, G., Oliveira, J., Sousa, L., & Borges, M.F.R. (2022). The determinants of risk reporting during the period of adoption of Basel II Accord: Evidence from the Portuguese commercial banks. Asian Review of Accounting, 30(2), 177–206. doi: 10.1108/ARA-03-2021-0051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-03-2021-0051
   View in Google Scholar
10. Banerjee, R., & Gupta, K. (2017). The effects of environmental sustainability and R&D on corporate risk taking: International evidence. Energy Economics, 65, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.016
    View in Google Scholar
11. Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 71–86. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
    View in Google Scholar
12. Behl, A., Kumari, P. S. R., Makhija, H., & Sharma, D. (2022). Exploring the relation-ship of ESG score and firm value using cross-lagged panel analyses: Case of the Indian energy sector. Annals of Operations Research, 313(1), 231–256. doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04189-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04189-8
    View in Google Scholar
13. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. C., & Saffar, W. (2013). The role of state and foreign own-ers in corporate risk-taking: Evidence from privatization. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(3), 641–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.007
    View in Google Scholar
14. Bruna, M. G., & Nicolò, D. (2020). Corporate reputation and social sustainability in the early stages of start-ups–A theoretical model to match stakeholders’ ex-pectations through corporate social commitment. Finance Research Letter, 35, 101508. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101508
    View in Google Scholar
15. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2021). The nonlinear relationship between financial flexibility and enterprise risk-taking during the COVID-19 pandemic in Tai-wan’s semiconductor industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(2), 307–333. doi: 10.24136/ oc.2021.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.011
    View in Google Scholar
16. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2022a). Convex-concave effect of financial flexibility on hospitality performance: Quantile regression approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(2), 687–712. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2021-0867
    View in Google Scholar
17. Chang, B. G., & Wu, K. S. (2022b). Concave effect of financial flexibility on semi-conductor industry performance: Quantile regression approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(4), 948–978. doi: 10.3846/tede.2022.16622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2022.16622
    View in Google Scholar
18. Chen, L., Khurram, M. U., Gao, Y., Abedin, M. Z., & Lucey, B. (2023). ESG disclo-sure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 65, 101974. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.202 3.101974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.101974
    View in Google Scholar
19. Chen, Y., Podolski, E. J., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2015). Does managerial ability facilitate corporate innovative success? Journal of Empirical Finance, 34, 313–326. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2015.08.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2015.08.002
    View in Google Scholar
20. Chen, S. H., Thi Kim, D. X., & Hsu, F. J. (2021). ESG and firm’s risk-taking: Interna-tional study. In Proceedings of 5th international conference on research in manage-ment and economics (pp. 92–105). Berlin: Diamond Scientific Publishing.
    View in Google Scholar
21. Chiang, T. C., Li, J., & Tan, L. (2010). Empirical investigation of herding behavior in Chinese stock markets: Evidence from quantile regression analysis. Global Finance Journal, 21(1), 111–124. doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2010.03.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2010.03.005
    View in Google Scholar
22. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81–112. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00067-2
    View in Google Scholar
23. Collevecchio, F., Cappa, F., Peruffo, E., & Oriani, P. (2023). When do M&As with fintech firms benefit traditional banks? British Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12701
    View in Google Scholar
24. Di Tommaso, C., & Thornton, J. (2020). Do ESG scores effect bank risk taking and value? Evidence from European banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2286–2298. doi: 10.1002/csr.1964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1964
    View in Google Scholar
25. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.02.007
    View in Google Scholar
26. Faccio, M., Marchica, M. T., & Mura, R. (2016). CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39, 193–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.02.008
    View in Google Scholar
27. Fang, M., Nie, H., & Shen, X. (2023). Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance? Economic Modelling, 118, 106101. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101
    View in Google Scholar
28. Fieller, E. C. (1954). Some problems in interval estimation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B16, 175–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00159.x
    View in Google Scholar
29. Folqué, M., Escrig-Olmedo, E., & Santamaría, T. C. (2021). Sustainable develop-ment and financial system: Integrating ESG risks through sustainable invest-ment strategies in a climate change context. Sustainable Development, 29(5), 876–890. doi: 10.1002/sd.2181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2181
    View in Google Scholar
30. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Stakeholder management. A strategic approach. Marchfield: Pitman.
    View in Google Scholar
31. Gallego-Álvareza, I., & Ortas, E. (2017). Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: A quantile regression approach. International Business Review, 26, 337–353. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003
    View in Google Scholar
32. Gangi, F., D’Angelo, E., Daniele, L. M., & Varrone, N. (2021). The impact of corpo-rate governance on social and environmental engagement: What effect on firm performance in the food industry? British Food Journal, 123(2), 610–626. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2020-0140
    View in Google Scholar
33. Gangi, F., Daniele, L. M., & Varrone, N. (2020). How do corporate environmental policy and corporate reputation affect risk-adjusted financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(5), 1975–1991. doi: 10.1002/bse.2482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2482
    View in Google Scholar
34. Gangi, F., Meles, A., D’Angelo, E., & Daniele, L. M. (2019). Sustainable develop-ment and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26, 529–547. doi: 10.1002/csr.1699. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1699
    View in Google Scholar
35. Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195. doi: 10.1002/smj.2399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2399
    View in Google Scholar
36. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    View in Google Scholar
37. Harjoto, M., & Laksmana, I. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on risk taking and firm value. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 353–373. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3202-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3202-y
    View in Google Scholar
38. Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271. doi: 10.2307/1913827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
    View in Google Scholar
39. He, F., Ding, C., Yue, W., & Liu, G. (2023). ESG performance and corporate risk-taking: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 87, 102550. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102550
    View in Google Scholar
40. Iazzolino, G., Bruni, M. E., Veltri, S., Morea, D., & Baldissarro, G. (2023). The im-pact of ESG factors on financial efficiency: An empirical analysis for the selec-tion of sustainable firm portfolios. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-mental Management. Advance online publican. doi: 10.1002/csr.2463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2463
    View in Google Scholar
41. Izcan, D., & Bektas, E. (2022). The relationship between ESG scores and firm-specific risk of Eurozone banks. Sustainability, 14, 8619. doi: 10.3390/su14148619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148619
    View in Google Scholar
42. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
    View in Google Scholar
43. John, K., Litov, L.P., & Yeung, B.Y. (2008). Corporate governance and risk taking. Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1679–1728. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01372.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01372.x
    View in Google Scholar
44. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50. doi: 10.2307/1913643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
    View in Google Scholar
45. Korinth, F., & Lueg, R. (2022). Corporate sustainability and risk management-The U-shaped relationships of disaggregated ESG rating scores and risk in the German capital market. Sustainability, 14, 5735. doi: 10.3390/su14095735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095735
    View in Google Scholar
46. Lahouel, B. B., Zaied, Y. B., Managi, S., & Taleb, L. (2022). Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between envi-ronmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 140, 498–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.019
    View in Google Scholar
47. Li, G., Li, N., & Sethi, S. P. (2021). Does CSR reduce idiosyncratic risk? Roles of operational efficiency and AI innovation. Production and Operations Management, 30(7), 2027–2045. doi: 10.1111/poms.13483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13483
    View in Google Scholar
48. Li, G., Elahi, E., & Zhao, L. (2022a). Fintech, bank risk-taking, and risk-warning for commercial banks in the era of digital technology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 934053. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934053
    View in Google Scholar
49. Li, M. Y. L., Yang, T. H., & Yu, S. E. (2015). CEO stock-based incentive compensa-tion and firm performance: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Interna-tional Financial Management & Accounting, 26(1), 39–71. doi: 10.1111/jifm.12022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12022
    View in Google Scholar
50. Li, X., Liu, G., Fu, Q., Abdul Rahman, A. A., Meero, A., & Sial, M. S. (2022b). Does corporate social responsibility impact on corporate risk-taking? Evidence from emerging economy. Sustainability, 14, 531. doi: 10.3390/su14010531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010531
    View in Google Scholar
51. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
    View in Google Scholar
52. Maiti, M. (2021). Quantile regression, asset pricing and investment decision. IIMB Management Review, 33, 28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.005
    View in Google Scholar
53. Mulia, R. A., & Joni, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and risk taking: Evidence from Indonesia. ACRN Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 8, 152– 162. doi: 10.35944/jofrp.2019.8.1.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35944/jofrp.2019.8.1.010
    View in Google Scholar
54. Nguyen, P. (2011). Corporate governance and risk-taking: Evidence from Japanese firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 19(3), 278–297. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.201 0.12.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2010.12.002
    View in Google Scholar
55. Nguyen, P., & Nguyen, A. (2015). The effect of corporate social responsibility on firm risk. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 324–339. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2013-0093
    View in Google Scholar
56. Okafor, A., Adeleye, B. N., & Adusei, M. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from U.S tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126078. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126078
    View in Google Scholar
57. Ovide, S. (2020). Big tech versus climate change. Oxford University Press.
    View in Google Scholar
58. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.
    View in Google Scholar
59. Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial perfor-mance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36, 419–429. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600406
    View in Google Scholar
60. Qoyum, A., Sakti, M. R. P., Thaker, H. M. T., & AlHashfi, R. U. (2022). Does the Islamic label indicate good environmental, social, and governance (ESG) per-formance? Evidence from sharia-compliant firms in Indonesia and Malaysia. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(2), 306–320. doi: 10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.001
    View in Google Scholar
61. Rao, S., Roy, P. P., & Koirala, S. (2022). Does mandatory CSR expenditure regula-tion induce corporate risk-taking? Journal of Corporate Finance, 72, 102158. doi: 10.213 9/ssrn.4056263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2022.102158
    View in Google Scholar
62. Reber, B., Gold, A., & Gold, S. (2022). ESG disclosure and idiosyncratic risk in initial public offerings. Journal of Business Ethics, 179, 867–886. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04847-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04847-8
    View in Google Scholar
63. Rossi, F., & Harjoto, M. A. (2020). Corporate non‑financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 1149–1181. doi: 10.1007/s11846-019-00358-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00358-z
    View in Google Scholar
64. Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfac-tion. Journal of Business Research, 68, 341–350. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024
    View in Google Scholar
65. Salehi, M., Dashtbayaz, M. L., & Abdulhadi, K. H. (2022). The relationship between managerial entrenchment and firm risk-taking on social responsibility disclo-sure. Journal of Public Affairs, 22, e2511. doi: 10.1002/pa.2511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2511
    View in Google Scholar
66. Sasabuchi, S. (1980). A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypoth-eses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika, 67(2), 429–439. doi: 10.2307/ 2335486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/67.2.429
    View in Google Scholar
67. Sun, W. B., & Cui, K. X. (2014). Linking corporate social responsibility to firm default risk. European Management Journal, 32, 275–287. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2013.04.0 03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.04.003
    View in Google Scholar
68. Teng, X., Ge, Y., Wu, K. S., Chang, B. G., Kuo, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Too little or too much? Exploring the inverted U-shaped nexus between voluntary envi-ronmental, social and governance and corporate financial performance. Fron-tiers in Environmental Science, 10, 969721. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.969721
    View in Google Scholar
69. Testa, F., Boiral, O., & Iraldo, F. (2018). Internalization of environmental practices and institutional complexity: Can stakeholders pressures encourage green-washing? Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 287–307. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2960-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2960-2
    View in Google Scholar
70. Trumpp, C., & Guenther, T. (2017). Too little or too much? Exploring U-shaped relationships between corporate environmental performance and corporate fi-nancial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 49–68. doi: 10.1002/bse.1900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900
    View in Google Scholar
71. Varro, L., & Kamiya, G. (2021). 5 Ways big tech could have big impacts on clean energy transitions. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/commentaries/5-ways-big-tech-could-have-big-impacts-on-clean-energy-transitions (04.04.2023).
    View in Google Scholar
72. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. doi: 10.2307/19 12934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
    View in Google Scholar
73. Wu, K. S., & Chang, B. G. (2022). The concave-convex effects of environmental, social and governance on high-tech firm value: Quantile regression approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1527–1545. doi: 10.1002/csr.2289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2289
    View in Google Scholar
74. Yarram, S. R., & Adapa, S. (2022). Women on boards, CSR and risk-taking: An investigation of the interaction effects of gender diversity and CSR on business risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134493. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134493
    View in Google Scholar
75. Younas, Z. I., & Zafar, A. (2019). Corporate risk taking and sustainability: A case of listed firms from USA and Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(1), 2–15. doi: 10.1108/JGR-07-2018-0027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-07-2018-0027
    View in Google Scholar
76. Zaiane, S., Dabbou, H., & Gallali, M. I. (2022). The non-uniform relationship be-tween CEO stock options and strategic risk-taking: The moderating role of firm performance. EuroMed Journal of Business. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1108/EMJB-02-2022-0023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-02-2022-0023
    View in Google Scholar
77. Zhu, D., Gao, X., Luo, Z., & Xu, W. (2022). Environmental performance and corpo-rate risk-taking: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 74, 101811. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101811
    View in Google Scholar