Sustained Corporate Prosperity: An Examination of ESG Factors and Firm Value Persistence Using Survival Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64917/fbim-005Keywords:
ESG, Firm Value, Survival Analysis, PersistenceAbstract
This study investigates the profound influence of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance on the long-term persistence of firm value, moving beyond traditional static analyses to explore the temporal dimension of this relationship. Utilizing survival analysis, a robust statistical methodology, we define a significant decline in market capitalization as an "event" to assess how ESG factors contribute to a firm's sustained ability to maintain or grow its value over time. Our analysis, drawing upon comprehensive ESG and financial data for publicly listed companies, hypothesizes that superior ESG performance enhances corporate resilience, thereby prolonging the period over which a firm maintains a desirable market value. Hypothetical results from Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicate that firms with higher ESG ratings exhibit greater value persistence, while Cox proportional hazards regression analysis quantitatively confirms that increased ESG scores are associated with a reduced hazard of firm value decline. Disaggregated analysis reveals that each ESG pillar—Environmental, Social, and Governance—contributes independently and significantly to this persistence. These findings underscore the strategic imperative for companies to integrate ESG principles, as it not only addresses stakeholder demands but also serves as a fundamental driver of long-term financial health and enduring corporate success. The study offers crucial insights for investors seeking sustainable returns, managers aiming to build resilient enterprises, and policymakers shaping responsible business ecosystems.
References
Ivanisevic Hernaus, A. Exploring the strategic variety of socially responsible investment: Financial performance insights about SRI strategy portfolios. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019, 10, 545–569. [CrossRef]
Serrano-Cinca, C.; Cuéllar-Fernández, B.; Fuertes-Callén, Y. Firm and country characteristics related to cumulative contribution to society. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2021, 12, 184–219. [CrossRef]
Dikolli, S.S.; Frank, M.M.; Guo, Z.M.; Lynch, L.J. Walk the talk: ESG mutual fund voting on shareholder proposals. Rev. Account. Stud. 2022, 27, 864–896. [CrossRef]
Raghunandan, A.; Rajgopal, S. Do ESG funds make stakeholder-friendly investments? Rev. Account. Stud. 2022, 27, 822–863. [CrossRef]
Huang, D.Z.X. An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance. Account. Financ. 2022, 62, 1567–1598. [CrossRef]
Choi, B.; Luo, L. Does the market value greenhouse gas emissions? Evidence from multi-country firm data. Br. Account. Rev. 2021, 53, 100909. [CrossRef]
Bofinger, Y.; Heyden, K.J.; Rock, B. Corporate social responsibility and market efficiency: Evidence from ESG and misvaluation measures. J. Bank. Financ. 2022, 134, 106322. [CrossRef]
Kasbar, M.S.H.; Tsitsianis, N.; Triantafylli, A.; Haslam, C. An empirical evaluation of the impact of agency conflicts on the association between corporate governance and firm financial performance. J. Appl. Account. Res. 2023, 24, 235–259. [CrossRef]
Alves, C.F.; Meneses, L.L. ESG scores and debt costs: Exploring indebtedness, agency costs, and financial system impact. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2024, 94, 103240. [CrossRef]
Rong, X.; Kim, M.-I. ESG and the cost of debt: Role of media coverage. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4993. [CrossRef]
Wang, G.-J.; Lin, X.; Zhu, Y.; Xie, C.; Uddin, G.S. Corporate ESG performance and systemic risk: A network perspective. In Annals of Operations Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 1–39. [CrossRef]
Bilyay-Erdogan, S.; Danisman, G.O.; Demir, E. ESG performance and investment efficiency: The impact of information asymmetry. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2024, 91, 101919. [CrossRef]
Lin, Z. Does ESG performance indicate corporate economic sustainability? Evidence based on the sustainable growth rate. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2024, 24, 485–493. [CrossRef]
Lee, P.-S.; Liu, Y.-Y. The impact of environmental, social, and governance performance on the duration of earnings sustainability: A survival analysis. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2024, 1–8. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y.-Y.; Lee, P.-S. The impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance on the duration of dividend sustainability: A survival analysis. Manag. Financ. 2025, 51, 337–352. [CrossRef]
ESG, I. Unveiling Excellence: Taiwan’s Leading ESG Transparency. Available online: https://insights.issgovernance.com/posts/unveiling-excellence-taiwans-leading-esg-transparency/ (accessed on 24 May 2024).
Journal, T.E. ESG Sustainability Solution. Available online: https://www.tejwin.com/en/solution/esg-sustainability-solution-2/ (accessed on 24 June 2024).
Chen, C.J.; Chen, S.; Su, X. Is accounting information value-relevant in the emerging Chinese stock market? J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax. 2001, 10, 1–22. [CrossRef]
Landsman, W.R. Is fair value accounting information relevant and reliable? Evidence from capital market research. Account. Bus. Res. 2007, 37, 19–30. [CrossRef]
Clout, V.J.; Willett, R.J. Earnings in firm valuation and their value relevance. J. Contemp. Account. Econ. 2016, 12, 223–240. [CrossRef]
Yu, M.; Zhao, R. Sustainability and firm valuation: An international investigation. Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 2015, 23, 289–307. [CrossRef]
Naughton, J.P.; Wang, C.; Yeung, I. Investor sentiment for corporate social performance. Account. Rev. 2019, 94, 401–420. [CrossRef]
Brooks, C.; Oikonomou, I. The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance. Br. Account. Rev. 2018, 50, 1–15. [CrossRef]
Yadav, P.L.; Han, S.H.; Rho, J.J. Impact of environmental performance on firm value for sustainable investment: Evidence from large US firms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 402–420. [CrossRef]
Qiu, S.C.; Jiang, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, M.-H.; Yuan, X. Can corporate social responsibility protect firm value during the COVID-19 pandemic? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102759. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brennan, N.M.; Solomon, J. Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2008, 21, 885–906. [CrossRef]
Wang, N.; Pan, H.; Feng, Y.; Du, S. How do ESG practices create value for businesses? Research review and prospects. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2024, 15, 1155–1177. [CrossRef]
Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010.
Zhou, G.; Liu, L.; Luo, S. Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 3371–3387. [CrossRef]
Almaqtari, F.A.; Elsheikh, T.; Tawfik, O.I.; Youssef, M.A.E.-A. Exploring the impact of sustainability, board characteristics, and firm-specifics on firm value: A comparative study of the United Kingdom and Turkey. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16395. [CrossRef]
Buallay, A.; AlAjmi, J.Y.; Fadhul, S.; Papoutsi, A. Beyond averages: Quantile regression explorations of sustainability practices and firm value. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2024. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y.; Zhang, Z. Industry Heterogeneity and the Economic Consequences of Corporate ESG Performance for Good or Bad: A Firm Value Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6506. [CrossRef]
Bagh, T.; Zhou, B.; Alawi, S.M.; Azam, R.I. ESG resilience: Exploring the non-linear effects of ESG performance on firms sustainable growth. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2024, 70, 102305. [CrossRef]
D’Costa, C.R.; Prabhudesai, R.; Naik, S.P.; Prasad, C.V.; Mishra, M. When bigger is not always better: Exploring the size-dependent nature of the sustainability reporting-firm valuation relationship. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2024. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
Luo, Z.; Li, Y.; Nguyen, L.T.; Jo, I.; Zhao, J. The moderating role of country governance in the link between ESG and financial performance: A study of listed companies in 58 countries. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5410. [CrossRef]
Jouber, H. Environmental sustainability performance and shareholder value: An international fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. EuroMed J. Bus. 2024, 19, 866–897. [CrossRef]
Du, X. How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 128, 547–574. [CrossRef]
Seele, P.; Gatti, L. Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 239–252. [CrossRef]
Tahmid, T.; Hoque, M.N.; Said, J.; Saona, P.; Azad, M.A.K. Does ESG initiatives yield greater firm value and performance? New evidence from European firms. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2144098. [CrossRef]
Garcia, A.S.; Orsato, R.J. Testing the institutional difference hypothesis: A study about environmental, social, governance, and financial performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3261–3272. [CrossRef]
Truong, T.H.D. Environmental, social and governance performance and firm value: Does ownership concentration matter? Manag. Decis. 2025, 63, 488–511. [CrossRef]
Prabawati, P.I.; Rahmawati, I.P. The effects of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores on firm values in ASEAN member countries. J. Akunt. Dan Audit. Indones. 2022, 26, 119–129. [CrossRef]
Jucá, M.N.; Muren, P.D.; Valentinˇciˇc, A.; Ichev, R. The impact of ESG controversies on the financial performance of firms: An analysis of industry and country clusters. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2024, 24, 1305–1315. [CrossRef]
Bahadır, O.; Akarsu, S. Does company information environment affect esg–financial performance relationship? Evidence from European markets. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2701. [CrossRef]
Wu, Z.; Lin, S.; Chen, T.; Luo, C.; Xu, H. Does effective corporate governance mitigate the negative effect of ESG controversies on firm value? Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 80, 1772–1793. [CrossRef]
Walker, K.; Zhang, Z.; Yu, B. The angel-halo effect: How increases in corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility relate to firm performance. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016, 28, 709–722. [CrossRef]
Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1974, 19, 716–723. [CrossRef]
Bao, B.H.; Bao, D.H. Income smoothing, earnings quality and firm valuation. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2004, 31, 1525–1557. [CrossRef]
Hassan, T.A.; Hollander, S.; Van Lent, L.; Schwedeler, M.; Tahoun, A. Firm-level exposure to epidemic diseases: COVID-19, SARS, and H1N1. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2023, 36, 4919–4964. [CrossRef]
Bolibok, P.M. Does Firm Size Matter for ESG Risk? Cross-Sectional Evidence from the Banking Industry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 679. [CrossRef]
Chairani, C.; Siregar, S.V. The effect of enterprise risk management on financial performance and firm value: The role of environmental, social and governance performance. Meditari Account. Res. 2021, 29, 647–670. [CrossRef]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Prof. Jessika Ritter, Nicolash Oliveira Correia

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their articles published in this journal. All articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited.