Modelling of the relationship between sustainability and shareholder wealth

*Corresponding author. E-mail: Marie.Pavlakova.Docekalo[email protected] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Technological and Economic Development of Economy ISSN: 2029-4913 / eISSN: 2029-4921 2022 Volume 28 Issue 3: 854–871 https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2022.16480 MODELLING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND SHAREHOLDER WEALTH Marie PAVLÁKOVÁ DOČEKALOVÁ *, Alena KOCMANOVÁ , Tomáš MELUZÍN , Stanislav ŠKAPA Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Management, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic Received 19 January 2021; accepted 21 December 2021; first published online 17 March 2022 Abstract. A structural model for the verification of the causal relationship between sustainability and economic value added is presented in this paper. The study has shown that there is no definite and unique relationship between corporate sustainability and economic value. Based on the results of the structural modelling, sustainable value model ESGVA is methodologically improved. The model expresses all four dimensions of corporate sustainability: environmental, social, corporate governance and economic. The case study demonstrates how different the results are if a purely economic concept of company value is used compared to value that takes into account environmental, social and corporate governance factors. The model is applicable to comparative analysis of socially responsible investments. Sustainable value provides extra information on corporate performance and can be used for decision-making of individual investors. Keywords: economic value added, sustainability, environmental, social, corporate governance factors, sustainable value. JEL Classification: G32, M14. Introduction The growing consensus that sustainability approaches and practices have a positive impact on corporate competitiveness (e.g. Bernal‐Conesa etal., 2017; Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Fombrun etal., 2000; Kashmanian etal., 2011; Konar & Cohen, 2001; Kruse & Lundbergh, 2010; Spirig, 2006) leads to growing interest of companies in sustainable development and accelerates their participation in it (Nirino etal., 2021). At the same time, the corporate management must cope with the legislative pressures for higher sustainability and individual stakeholder groups exert an ever-growing influence on the business community, which must not only defend its activities but also demonstrate how they contribute to sustainability. InReview Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 855 creasing number of companies integrate non-financial measures with financial information in their corporate reporting (e.g., Dong & Wong-On-Wing, 2021). Corporate sustainability is defined as “a systematic business approach and strategy that takes into consideration the long-term social and environmental impact of all economically motivated behaviors of a firm in the interest of consumers, employees, and owners or shareholders” (Bergman etal., 2017). Companies adjust their business models in response to social needs, and to secure long-term prospects. Sustainability thus becomes a key concept in corporate management and permeates the entire value chain (Global Reporting Initiative [GRI], United Nations Global Compact [UNGC], & World Business Council for Sustainable Development [WBCSD], 2015). In 2015, the United Nations announced launch of Sustainable Development Goals 2015–2030 (SDGs), which cover a broad range of environmental, social, and economic development issues. These include ending poverty and hunger, improving health and education, making cities more sustainable, combating climate change, and protecting oceans and forests. 17 SDGs are specified to 169 targets which progress is measured by 232 individual Sustainable Development Goals Indicators (United Nations [UN], 2017). According to SDGs sustainability stands on four interdependent pillars: environmental, social, economic, and governance. Business sector was declared as a key partner in achieving SDGs. Nearly 60% of the SDGs targets (99 targets) are directly relevant to industry (United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO], 2016). It is industry who can provide technology solutions to tackle global problems, e.g., pollution prevention technologies; medical devices and pharmaceutical products; the efficient use of natural resources and application of circular economy (Axon & James, 2018). The value created for the society through corporate sustainability practices is demonstrable (see, e.g., voluntary sustainability standards) (Potts etal., 2014). The question remains whether higher sustainable value leads to an increase in value for the owners, i.e., for those who have invested their financial capital in business activities and are the principal bearers of business risk. Research to date has not come up with clear-cut results (e.g., FernándezGuadaño & Sarria-Pedroza, 2018; Raimo etal., 2020; Schaltegger & Synnestvedt, 2002; Wagner, 2010). The aim of the paper is to investigate whether there is a causal relationship between sustainable value measured by environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) value and economic value added (EVA). A case study is then used to demonstrate the difference in the calculation of the value created by the company for the owners and in the creation of corporate sustainable value. 1. Literature and hypotheses The theory and practice of current business management focuses on value management, which is based on the premise that the primary purpose of business activity is to grow the company’s value– in literature, this approach is called value-based management (VBM) (Burkert & Lueg, 2013; Ittner & Larcker, 2001; Malmi & Granlund, 2009). In VBM, two types of value created by the company are distinguished– shareholder value and stakeholder value. Shareholder value represents the wealth of shareholders and in this sense, socially responsible activities are perceived as activities carried out for the benefit of stakeholder groups but at 856 M. Pavláková Dočekalová et al. Modelling of the relationship between sustainability ... the expense of the owners. Resources spent on corporate social responsibility projects mean a reduction in the profitability and wealth for the owners, and investing in such projects may be contrary to the owners’ best interests. In that case, the benefits won by stakeholder groups are at the cost of the shareholders’ wealth, and the shareholders’ wealth is being transferred to other stakeholder groups (Cronqvist etal., 2009; Deng etal., 2013; Friedman, 1998; Pagano & Volpin, 2005; Ren etal., 2020; Surroca & Tribo, 2008; Vance, 1975). Concentration purely on the shareholder wealth growth often led to ethical, social and environmental issues and that is the main reason for including in the value creation also other criteria taking into account the ESG impacts and influences (Pavláková Dočekalová & Kocmanová, 2016). Stakeholder value is the value created for all participating groups that have some interest in the company’s activities. The concept of stakeholder value places greater emphasis on responsibility than on mere profitability. In responsible companies, the interests of owners and stakeholders are more balanced. The value for stakeholder groups is supported by the theory of the firm that sees organizations as coalitions that should serve all stakeholders. According to this theory, a company is a kind of a nexus of contracts between the owners and stakeholder groups that supply resources. These contracts are both in the form of legally binding contracts (e.g., employment contracts) and implicit contracts (e.g., the promise of job security). The value of implicit contracts is determined by stakeholder groups’ expectations that the company will meet its obligations (Cornell & Shapiro, 1987; Deng etal., 2013). Companies that invest in social responsibility (SR) enjoy a better reputation when it comes to complying with obligations under implicit contracts, and stakeholder groups in such companies are more motivated to contribute resources and their efforts (Deng etal., 2013; Freeman etal., 2004; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Jensen, 2001; Nirino etal., 2021). Stakeholder value creation is therefore linked to sustainability and sustainable value (Tapaninaho & Kujala, 2019). Progressive approach to sustainability leads to value creation which is shared with stakeholders and at the same time stakeholders are co-creators of the value (Freudenreich etal., 2020). Traditional financial reporting is no longer adequate for decision making of today’s stakeholders, and new methods to assess corporate performance and value are needed (Lev & Gu, 2016). Sustainable value is a trend in business management orientation in terms of value creation. Sustainable value expresses the utilization of environmental and social resources in monetary terms. It is based on the fundamental economic theory which says that value is created when a company utilizes resources more efficiently than their alternative uses. Sustainable value is based on a comparison between resource utilization and opportunity costs. This idea is applicable to all resources that the company uses. Sustainability is thus expressed in a way that is in line with the thinking of investors and managers. Sustainable Value Added (SVA) takes into account efficiency of environmental and social resources in relation to the economic performance of the company. The principal idea of the SVA model is to determine the difference between the value added created by the company and a specific benchmark, i.e., to quantify the efficiency with which the company consumes resources relative to that benchmark. Environmental and social value added reduces or increases sustainable value depending on the amount of resources consumed by the company relative to the benchmark (Figge & Hahn, 2002). Improving efficiency leads to increased corporate sustainability and value creation (Callens & Tyteca, 1999). Figge and Hahn based their model of SVA on the theory of capital and opportunity costs assuming that the cost of environmental and social Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 857 capital can be calculated similarly to the cost of financial capital. SVA compares the value of alternative uses of capital (opportunity costs) expressed by the benchmark and shows whether the value added created by the company exceeds the cost of the capital used. Since enterprise uses n different forms of capital, SVA can be expressed as follows (based on Figge & Hahn, 2008): * * 1 1 , n i ii i yy SVA x nx x =  = −    ∑ (1) where y/xi– y*/xi* is the value spread, n is the number of forms of capital, y is the company’s value added (output), y* is the value added (output) set by the benchmark, xi is the amount of capital i used by the company, xi* is the amount i set in the benchmark, and y*/xi* expresses the opportunity costs. The SVA model has been subjected to criticism (Ang & Van Passel 2010; T.Kuosmanen & N.Kuosmanen, 2009). Pavláková Dočekalová and Kocmanová (2018) and Kocmanová etal. (2016) further elaborated the SVA model in order that it better reflects the current concept of corporate sustainability as a phenomenon integrating economic and ESG business performance. 1.1. Environmental performance The International Organization for Standardization (2013) defines corporate environmental performance (CEP) as “the measurable results of an organization’s management of its environmental aspects”. ISO 14000 series and Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) are international standards for environmental performance management. Al-Tuwaijri, Christensen and Hughes (2004) studied relationship between environmental reporting, CEP and economic performance. In their study they applied structural equation modelling and concluded that better CEP results in significantly better economic performance and is also conducive to the provision of broader quantitative environmental data. Implementing Industry 4.0 technologies (internet of things, robotic systems, 3D printing, virtual reality, cloud computing, and simulation) and lean manufacturing have the potential to increase CEP through energy, emission, and waste reduction and at the same time improve economic performance through reducing manufacturing costs (Kamble etal., 2018). The assumption of a relationship between environmental performance and economic added value is formulated by hypothesis H1. H1: Companies with better environmental performance achieve higher economic value added. 1.2. Social performance Corporate social performance (CSP) is defined by the social impact of corporate activities on stakeholder groups, since stakeholders are the recipients of corporate activities and they are also a source of expectations of what is desirable corporate performance and, ultimately, they assess the company’s conduct– to what extent their expectations have been met (Spirig, 2006; Wood & Jones, 1995). Standards applicable in social area are ISO 26000– Social Responsibility, AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard, SA8000 Social Accountability Standard, and 858 M. Pavláková Dočekalová et al. Modelling of the relationship between sustainability ... ISO 4500– Occupational Health and Safety. SR positively influence corporate reputation (Lu etal., 2020). The positive relationship between SR and economic performance has been described and discussed in many studies (e.g., Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Falck & Heblich, 2007; Perrini etal., 2011) and confirmed by research (e.g., Margolis etal., 2009; Orlitzky etal., 2003). Emilsson etal. (2012) confirmed a positive relationship between SR and EVA in a sample of Swedish companies. Lisi (2018) found that use of social performance indicators for decision-making and control is economically motivated and the use of social performance indicators influences a firm’s social performance and its bottom line. The assumption of a relationship between social performance and economic added value is formulated by hypothesis H2. H2: Companies with better social performance achieve higher economic value added. 1.3. Corporate governance performance Corporate governance performance (CGP) fundamentally affects environmental, social and economic pillars of corporate sustainability because it creates a structure through which the company’s goals are defined and sets the means to achieve these goals (Hussain etal., 2018; Munir etal., 2019). In their research in a sample of listed companies from travel and tourism industry, Ionescu etal. (2019) found that corporate governance (CG) is from ESG factors the most important one influencing firm market value. Deev and Khazalia (2017) investigated the impact of CG and SR on the economic performance of European financial companies. In their study they focused especially on such aspects of CG as the structure and diversity of the board of directors, the duality of the chief executive officer (CEO) and the chair of the board. The results of their research corroborate the significantly positive effect of these aspects on economic results in a sample of European financial companies. The assumption of a relationship between CG performance and economic value added is formulated by hypothesis H3. H3: Companies with a higher CG performance achieve higher economic value added. 2. Method The aim of the paper is to investigate whether there is a causal relationship between sustainable value and shareholder wealth measured by economic value added. The results of previous research into the impact of sustainability on shareholder wealth have not come up with clear-cut answers (e.g., Fernández-Guadaño & Sarria-Pedroza, 2018; Raimo etal., 2020; Schaltegger & Synnestvedt, 2002; Wagner, 2010). What can also be considered problematic is the fact that a number of studies continue to focus only on the sustainability’s individual pillars without respecting its multidimensional character. Corporate sustainability is by definition (e.g., Artiach etal., 2010; Bergman etal., 2017; van Marrewijk & Werre, 2003), a multidimensional phenomenon integrating the ESG pillars of business activities. This fact must be reflected in the methods used to model their mutual relationships. The scope of using single-dimensional methods for sustainability modelling is very limited, and multidimensional statistical methods must be used instead. Structural equation modelling (SEM) makes it possible to statistically model and test complex relationships and is therefore particularly Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 859 suitable for modelling relationships related to sustainable development. SEM includes statistical methods designed to build causal models. The goal of confirmatory factor analysis and structural modelling is to identify latent variables using a set of manifest variables, and then to evaluate hypotheses about the relationships between latent variables (Gallagher & Brown, 2013). To determine the model validity, the so-called goodness-of-fit indices have been developed, which are also used in modelling to modify and refine the model (Bowen & Guo, 2011; Schreiber etal., 2006). If the goodness-of-fit values are adequate, then we have a statistical argument for the acceptability of the model and for the relationships it expresses. The SPSS Amos 26 software was used to process SEM. 2.1. Theoretical model The graphical representation of proposed hypotheses (H1– H3) is in Figure1. In Figure1, regression effects are represented as single-headed arrows. Works by Kocmanová (2015) and Schaltegger etal. (2006) also demonstrate how necessary it is to consider the mutual relationships between the individual pillars of sustainability, insofar as we assume that CEP, CSP and CGP interact and influence each other. These relationships (correlations: a, b, c) between pillars of sustainability are thus included into theoretical model (Figure1) and are indicated as double-headed arrows. The theoretical model has been tested by SEM, which is suitable for testing such complex relationships. 2.2. Sample The subjects of our research are companies whose shares were traded on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) as at 30 May 2018 and which issue reports on sustainability and social responsibility, or release ESG information using some other form of corporate reporting. The companies were selected based on the availability of ESG data in the Bloomberg database. In this research, secondary data for 2016 were used. As at the date of data collection, we identified 2170 companies whose shares had been admitted to the London Stock Exchange. From among those companies, 280 were selected whose ESG Disclosure Score is published in the Bloomberg database, i.e., ESG data of these companies are available. The ESG Disclosure Score is based on the range of ESG information that a company publishes and takes values from 0.1 to 100. According to the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB), companies are divided into ten industries, see Table1. Figure 1. Theoretical model of the structure of the relationships between ESG performance and EVA EVA CGP CEP H1 H2 H3 ab c CSP 860 M. Pavláková Dočekalová et al. Modelling of the relationship between sustainability ... Table 1. Scope of activities of the companies investigated ICB Industry n% Industrials 76 27.143 Consumer Services 69 24.643 Financials 51 18.214 Consumer Goods 31 11.071 Basic Materials 14 5.000 Technology 10 3.571 Health Care 9 3.214 Oil & Gas 8 2.857 Utilities 7 2.500 Telecommunications 5 1.786 S280 100.000 2.3. Measurement Dependent variable: The best known value-based indicator used is Economic Value Added. EVA expresses economic profit and takes into account the opportunity cost of the invested equity. For that reason, it is used to express the wealth of the owners. EVA may be calculated as follows (Stewart, 1991): EVA= Net Operating Profit After Taxes– Capital Charge. (2) Independent variables: ESG indicators were selected based on the availability of data from the Bloomberg database to capture the dimensionality of corporate sustainability. Data in the Bloomberg database are collected from released company reports. We selected 14 environmental indicators IEnvik, 11 social indicators ISock and 17 corporate governance indicators ICgk, see Table2. A total of 42 ESG indicators were selected. The definitions of the ESG indicators (IEnvik, ISock, ICgk) correspond to the Bloomberg methodology. The SEM also includes confirmatory factor analysis, which allows for the selection of key sustainability indicators. The key sustainability indicators are those that should be used to calculate sustainable value added. 3. Results and discussion The result of SEM is a structural model that includes the assumption of the causality of the relationship between ESG areas of corporate sustainability and EVA as expressed by the above hypotheses H1, H2 and H3. The structural model shown in Figure2 consists of a measurement model which is given by factor analysis, and of a relationship model, which in graphical format shows a regression analysis of ESG factors and EVA. For the purpose of clarity, correlations between residual variables (errors) e1– e10 are omitted. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 861 Table 2. A basic set of ESG indicators Environmental Indicators IEnvik Social Indicators ISock CG Indicators ICgk IEnvi1 Environmental Supply Chain Management ISoc1 Social Disclosure Score ICg1 Board Meeting Attendance IEnvi2 Environmental Quality Management Policy ISoc2 Percentage of Women in Workforce ICg2 Size of the Board IEnvi3 UN Global Compact Signatory ISoc3 Community Spending ICg3 Number of Board Meetings for the Year IEnvi4 GRI Criteria Compliance ISoc4 Lost Time Incident Rate ICg4 Board Duration IEnvi5 Emissions Reduction Initiatives ISoc5 Fatalities per 1000 employees ICg5 Independent Chairperson IEnvi6 Waste Reduction Policy ISoc6 Employee Turnover ICg6 CEO Duality IEnvi7 Climate Change Policy ISoc7 Business Ethics Policy ICg7 Total Compensation Paid to CEO and Equivalent IEnvi8 Total GHG Emissions ISoc8 Human Rights Policy ICg8 Percentage of Independent Directors IEnvi9 Total Waste ISoc9 Training Policy ICg9 Total Salaries and Bonuses Paid to Executives IEnvi10 Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions ISoc10 Anti-Bribery Ethics Policy ICg10 Executive Compensation Linked to ESG IEnvi11 Energy Efficiency Policy ISoc11 Policy Against Child Labor ICg11 Executive Director with Responsibility for CSR IEnvi12 Total Energy Consumption ICg12 CSR/Sustainability Committee IEnvi13 Total Water Use ICg13 Audit Committee Meetings IEnvi14 Biodiversity Policy ICg14 Size of Audit Committee ICg15 Audit Committee Meeting Attendance Percentage ICg16 Percentage of Female Executives ICg17 Number of Women on Board To balance the model, we used methodology developed by Hair etal. (2010). The model balance is assessed by the goodness-of-fit indices. The indices used are: chi-squared divided by degrees of freedom (χ2/df), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), NFI (Normed Fit Index), TLI (Tucker Lewis Index), GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) a IFI (Incremental Fix Index), see Table3. According to the values of the criteria, the structural model can be accepted. Based on the modelling of the relationships between ESG performance expressed by ESG factors and EVA, it can be argued that ESG factors have a positive effect on EVA. In the case of the social factor (β= 0.02, p>0.05), however, the effect is statistically insignificant and thus does not unequivocally support the conclusions expressed in 1.2. Hypothesis H2 formulating the assumption of a relationship between CSP and EVA is not supported by the data. The effect of environmental performance (β= 0.44, p<0.05) and corporate governance (β= 0.35, p<0.05) is statistically significant. Hypotheses H1 and H3 are supported. 862 M. Pavláková Dočekalová et al. Modelling of the relationship between sustainability ... The results of regression analysis, which is part of the structural model (Figure2), showed that the ESG factors measured by selected indicators explain 34% of the variance of EVA (R2= 0.34). ESG factors express corporate responsibility and according to the theory (see e.g. Deng etal., 2013; Freudenreich etal., 2020) stakeholders are more willing to support the company and participate on value creation which leads to increased shareholder wealth (expressed by EVA). The model also shows the relationships between latent variables, i.e., factors CEP, CSP and CGP (relationships a, b and c in Figure1). These relationships are statistically significant (p < 0.05): a= 0.30, b= 0.65, c= 0.31. The measurement model consists of 10 key sustainability indicators. Using the factor analysis, the basic set of ESG indicators was therefore reduced by 76%. Two key indicators (IEnvi4 and ISoc1) in the reduced set of ESG indicators are related to corporate reporting. Figure 2. Structural model of the relationships between ESG factors and EVA EVA IEnvi1 I Soc1 e 1 CSP CEP ICg5 CGP 0.60 0.89 0.88 0.96 0.61 0.81 0.95 0.83 0.53 0.98 0.65 0.30 0.44 0.35 0.31 0.02 0.34 e 2 e 3 e 4 e 5 e 6 e 7 e 8 e 9 e 10 IEnvi4 IEnvi8 I 7Soc I 8Soc I 9Soc ICg7 ICg8 e 11 Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices for the structure model between ESG factors and EVA Index Level of Acceptance (Bowen & Guo, 2011) Results χ2– 83.628 df – 36 χ2/df ≤3 2.323 CFI >0.9 0.922 RMSEA <0.08 0.069 NFI >0.9 0.908 TLI >0.9 0.937 GFI >0.9 0.965 IFI >0.9 0.925 Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 869 Friedman,M. (1998). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In L.B.Pincus (Ed.), Perspectives in business ethics (pp.246–251). McGraw-Hill. Gallagher,W. M., & Brown,T. A. (2013). Introduction to confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. In T.Teo (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research (pp.289–314). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_14 Global Reporting Initiative, United Nations Global Compact, & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2015). SDG Compass: The guide for business action on the SDGs. (GRI, UNGC, WBCSD). https://sdgcompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/019104_SDG_Compass_Guide_2015.pdf Hahn,T., Figge,F., & Barkemeyer,R. (2007). Sustainable Value creation among companies in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 7(5–6), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJETM.2007.015627 Hair,F. J., Black,W. C., Babin,B. J., & Anderson,R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education. Hussain,N., Rigoni,U., & Orij,R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5 Ionescu,G. H., Firoiu,D., Pirvu,R., & Vilag,R. D. (2019). The impact of ESG factors on market value of companies from travel and tourism industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(5), 820–849. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.10294 International Organization for Standardization. (2013). Environmental management– Environmental performance evaluation– Guidelines (ISO 14031:2013). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14031:ed-2:v1:en Ittner,D. C., & Larcker,D. F. (2001). Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1–3), 349–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00026-X Jawahar,I. M., & McLaughlin,G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845803 Jensen,C. M. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2001.tb00434.x Kamble,S. S., Gunasekaran,A., & Gawankar,S. A. (2018). Sustainable industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 117, 408–425. https://doi:10.1016/j.psep.2018.05.009 Kashmanian,M. R., Wells,R. P., & Keenan,C. (2011). Corporate environmental sustainability strategy. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 44, 107–130. Khaksar,E., Abbasnejad,T., Esmaeili,A., & Tamošaitienė,J. (2016). The effect of green supply chain management practices on environmental performance and competitive advantage: A case study of the cement industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1065521 Kocmanová,A. (2015). Integrované hodnocení udržitelné výkonnosti podniku [Integrated evaluation of sustainable corporate performance]. VUTIUM, Brno. Kocmanová,A., Pavláková Dočekalová,M., Škapa,S., & Smolíková,L. (2016). Measuring corporate sustainability and environmental, social, and corporate governance value added. Sustainability, 8(9), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090945 Konar,S., & Cohen,M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1162/00346530151143815 Kruse,C., & Lundbergh,S. (2010). The governance of corporate sustainability. Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, 3(2), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1750-y 870 M. Pavláková Dočekalová et al. Modelling of the relationship between sustainability ... Kuosmanen,T., & Kuosmanen,N. (2009). How not to measure sustainable value (and how one might). Ecological Economics, 69(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.008 Lev,B., & Gu,F. (2016). The end of accounting and the path forward for investors and managers. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119270041 Lisi,I. (2018). Determinants and performance effects of social performance measurement systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3287-3 Lu,J., Ren,L., Zhang,C., Qiao,J., Kovacova,M., & Streimikis,J. (2020). Assessment of corporate social responsibility and its impacts on corporate reputation of companies in selected Balkan Countries former Yugoslavia States. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(2), 504–524. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12069 Malmi,T., & Granlund,M. (2009). In search of management accounting theory. European Accounting Review, 18(3), 597–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180902863779 Margolis,D. J., Elfenbein,H. A., & Walsh,J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good...and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371 Munir,A., Khan,F. U., Usman,M., & Khuram,S. (2019). Relationship between corporate governance, corporate sustainability and financial performance. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(4), 915–933. Nirino,N., Santoro,G., Miglietta,N., & Quaglia,R. (2021). Corporate controversies and company’s financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of ESG practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120341 OECD. (2017). Země G20/OECD Principy správy a řízení společností. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264274075-cs Orlitzky,M., Schmidt,F. L., & Rynes,S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910 Pagano,M., & Volpin,P. F. (2005). Managers, workers, and corporate control. Journal of Finance, 60(2), 841–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00748.x Pavláková Dočekalová,M., & Kocmanová,A. (2016). Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 61, 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.012 Pavláková Dočekalová,M., & Kocmanová,A. (2018). Comparison of sustainable environmental, social, and corporate governance value added models for investors decision making. Sustainability, 10(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030649 Perrini,F., Russo,A., Tencati,A., & Vurro,C. (2011). Deconstructing the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1194-1 Potts,J., Lynch,M., Wilkings,A., Huppé,G., Cunningham,M., & Voora,V. (2014). The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014: Standards and the green economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf Raimo,N., de Nuccio,E., Giakoumelou,A., Petruzzella,F., & Vitolla,F. (2020). Non-financial information and cost of equity capital: An empirical analysis in the food and beverage industry. British Food Journal, 123(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2020-0278 Rao,P., & Holt,D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(9), 898–916. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510613956 Ren,S., Wei,W., Sun,H., Hu,Y., & Chen,X. (2020). Can mandatory environmental information disclosure achieve a win-win for a firm’s environmental and economic performance? Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119530 Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2022, 28(3): 854–871 871 Schaltegger,S., & Synnestvedtb,T. (2002). The link between “green” and economic success: Environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0555 Schaltegger,S., Bennett,M., & Buritt,R. (2006). Sustainability accounting and reporting. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4974-3 Schreiber,B. J., Amaury,N., Stage,F. K., Barlow,E. A., & King,J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 Spirig,K. (2006). Social performance and competitiveness, a socio-competitive framework. In S.Schaltegger & M.Wagner (Eds.), Managing the business case for sustainability (pp.82–106). Greenleaf Publishing. Stewart,G. B. (1991). The quest for value. HarperCollins Publishers. Surroca,J., & Tribó,J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35(5–6), 748–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2008.02090.x Tapaninaho,R., & Kujala,J. (2019). Reviewing the stakeholder value creation literature: Towards a sustainability approach. In Leal Filho,W. (Eds), World sustainability series. Social responsibility and sustainability (pp.3–36). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03562-4 United Nations. (2017). Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20 Indicator%20Framework_A.RES.71.313%20Annex.pdf United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). (2011). The ten principles of the UN Global Compact. https:// www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2016). The 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: Achieving the industry-related goals and targets. https://www.unido. org/sites/default/files/2015-12/ISID_SDG_brochure_final_0.pdf Vance,S. (1975). Are socially responsible firms good investment risks? Management Review, 64, 18–24. van Marrewijk,M., & Were,M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023383229086 Wagner,M. (2010). The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1553-1560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.017 Wood,J. D., & Jones,R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028831