SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 74

The effects of board characteristics on ESG performance: A study on companies included in the BIST sustainability index

Yönetim kurulu özelliklerinin ESG performansı üzerindeki etkileri: BİST sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde yer alan şirketler üzerine bir araştırma

Betül Coşkun(Erciyes Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2629-4540
Azzem Özkan(ERCİYES ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İŞLETME BÖLÜMÜ)
Pages
87–95
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When the effect of the pandemic on social performance has been examined, it has been determined that it is significant only in 2020.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines, the effect of board characteristics on ESG performance and its sub-dimensions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, data on 46 companies listed in the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) sustainability index for the period 2018-2024 were analyzed using the two-step System Generalized Method of Moments (Two-step System GMM).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the effect of the pandemic on social performance has been examined, it has been determined that it is significant only in 2020.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018-2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:ESG performansı · kaynak bağımlılığı teorisi · paydaş teorisi

Abstract

This study examines, the effect of board characteristics on ESG performance and its sub-dimensions. In this context, data on 46 companies listed in the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) sustainability index for the period 2018-2024 were analyzed using the two-step System Generalized Method of Moments (Two-step System GMM). In the study, board size, board independence, gender diversity on the board, CEO duality, and whether the company is the situation of being audited by one of the Big Four audit firms were identified as independent variables. As the dependent variable, ESG performance and the environmental, social and governance dimensions that constitute the sub-components of this performance were used. The data on the dependent and independent variables used in the analysis were obtained from the LSEG Workspace database. As a result of the statistical analyses, it has been determined that board characteristics have different effects on the sub-dimensions of ESG. The strongest positive relationship was observed for gender diversity on the board; this variable was associated with a significant increase in ESG performance and in the governance performance sub-dimension. It was observed that being audited by one of the Big Four audit firms weakened ESG performance and governance performance. In addition, dummy variables for the years 2020-2021 representing the COVID-19 pandemic period have been included in the model as control variables, and their effects on ESG performance have been examined. The analysis has shown that the pandemic has had a significant positive effect on ESG and environmental performance in both the first year (2020) and the second year (2021). When the effect of the pandemic on social performance has been examined, it has been determined that it is significant only in 2020.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, yönetim kurulu özelliklerinin ESG performansı ve alt boyutları üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Bu kapsamda Borsa İstanbul (BİST) sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde faaliyet gösteren 46 şirketin 2018-2024 dönemindeki verileri iki aşamalı sistem genelleştirilmiş momentler yöntemi (Two-step System GMM) ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada; yönetim kurulu büyüklüğü, yönetim kurulu bağımsızlığı, yönetim kurulundaki cinsiyet çeşitliliği, CEO ikiliği ve şirketin dört büyük denetim firması tarafından denetlenme durumu bağımsız değişkenler olarak belirlenmiştir. Bağımlı değişken olarak ise ESG performansı ile bu performansın alt bileşenlerini oluşturan çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim boyutları temel alınmıştır. Analizde kullanılan bağımlı ve bağımsız değişkenlere ait veriler, LSEG Workspace veri tabanından elde edilmiştir. Yapılan istatistiksel analizler sonucunda, yönetim kurulu özelliklerinin ESG’nin alt boyutları üzerinde farklı etkiler yarattığı tespit edilmiştir. En güçlü pozitif ilişki, yönetim kurulundaki cinsiyet çeşitliliğinde gözlenmiş; bu değişkenin ESG performansı ve yönetişim performansı alt boyutunda anlamlı artış sağladığı görülmüştür. Şirketin dört büyük denetim firması tarafından denetlenmesi durumunun ise ESG performansı ile yönetişim performansını zayıflattığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kontrol değişkenleri olarak modele Covid-19 pandemi dönemini temsil eden 2020-2021 yıllarına ilişkin kukla değişkenler eklenmiş ve ESG performansı üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Yapılan analizde, ESG ve çevresel performans üzerinde pandeminin hem birinci yılında (2020) hem de ikinci yılında (2021) anlamlı ve pozitif bir etki yarattığı görülmüştür. Pandeminin sosyal performans üzerindeki etkisi incelendiğinde ise sadece 2020 yılında anlamlı bir etki gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Coşkun, B., Özkan, A., *, B. C. (2026). The effects of board characteristics on ESG performance: A study on companies included in the BIST sustainability index. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 74, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1830296

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Abedin, S. H., Subha, S., Anwar, M., Kabir, M. N., Tahat, Y. A., & Hossain, M. (2023). Environmental performance and corporate governance: Evidence from Japan. Sustainability, 15(4), 3273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043273
  2. Agnese, P., Arduino, F. R., Bruno, E., & Vento, G. A. (2024). On the road to sustainability: The role of board characteristics in driving ESG performance in Africa. Socio Economic Planning Sciences, 95, 101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101994
  3. Akbas, H. E. (2016). The relationship between board characteristics and environmental disclosure: Evidence from Turkish listed companies. South East European Journal of Economics and Business (Online), 11(2), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1515/jeb-2016-0007
  4. Al-Jaifi, H. A. (2020). Board gender diversity and environmental, social and corporate governance performance: Evidence from ASEAN banks. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 12(3/4), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1108/ APJBA-12-2018-0222
  5. Alkhawaja, A., Hu, F., Johl, S., & Nadarajah, S. (2023). Board gender diversity, quotas and ESG disclosure: Global evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 90, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102823
  6. Amara, T., & Ahmadi, A. (2024). Impact of board of directors composition, activity and compensation on the ESG performance in an international context. Applying Business Intelligence and Innovation to Entrepreneurship (224-240). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1846-1.ch010
  7. Anyigbah, E., Kong, Y., Edziah, B. K., Ahoto, A. T., & Ahiaku, W. S. (2023). Board characteristics and corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Sustainability, 15(4), 3553. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043553
  8. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error-component models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29-51. https://doi. org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
  9. Arayssi, M., Jizi, M., & Tabaja, H. H. (2020). The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 137-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136
  10. Aytekin, S. S. (2022). The relationship of board of directors’ structural characteristics and the environmental performance of company: Evidence from BIST companies. PressAcademia Procedia, 15(1), 157-159.
  11. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data (Sixth Edition). Springer International Publishing.
  12. Bhat, B. A., Makkar, M. K., & Gupta, N. (2023). Corporate board structure and ESG performance: An empirical study of listed firms in the emerging market. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 7(2), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv7i2p1
  13. Bigelli, M., Mengoli, S., & Sandri, S. (2023). ESG score, board structure and the impact of the non-financial reporting directive on European firms. Journal of Economics and Business, 127, 106133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2023.106133
  14. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304 4076(98)00009-8
  15. Buchetti, B., Arduino, F. R., & Perdichizzi, S. (2025). A literature review on corporate governance and ESG research: Emerging trends and future directions. International Review of Financial Analysis, 97, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103759
  16. Campanella, F., Serino, L., Crisci, A., & D’Ambra, A. (2021). The role of corporate governance in environmental policy disclosure and sustainable development. Generalized estimating equations in longitudinal count data analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 474-484. https://doi. org/10.1002/csr.2062
  17. Çolak, M., & Sarıoğlu, M. (2025). The effect of corporate governance on the quality of integrated reporting and ESG risk ratings. Sustainability, 17(11), 1-29. https://doi. org/10.3390/su17114868
  18. Dah, M. A., & Jizi, M. I. (2018). Board independence and the efficacy of social reporting. Journal of International Accounting Research, 17(1), 25-45. https://doi.org/10.2308/ jiar-51952
  19. De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636-1663. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0149206311411506
  20. Ding, H., & Lee, W. (2024). ESG and financial performance of China firms: The mediating role of export share and moderating role of carbon intensity. Sustainability, 16(12), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125042
  21. Disli, M., Yılmaz, M. K., & Mohamed, F. F. M. (2022). Board characteristics and sustainability performance: empirical evidence from emerging markets. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(4), 929-952. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SAMPJ-09-2020-0313
  22. Endrikat, J., De Villiers, C., Guenther, T. W., & Guenther, E. M. (2021). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analytic investigation. Business & Society, 60(8), 2099-2135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320930638
  23. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/260866
  24. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
  25. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Press.
  26. Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889
  27. Govindan, K., Kilic, M., Uyar, A., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation. International Journal of Production Economics, 231, 107835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijpe.2020.107835
  28. Handayati, P., Tham, Y. H., Yuningsih, Y., Sun, Z., Nugroho, T. R., & Rochayatun, S. (2025). ESG performance and corporate governance-the moderating role of the big four auditors. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(1), 1-19. https://doi. org/10.3390/jrfm18010031
  29. Harun, M. S., Hussainey, K., Mohd Kharuddin, K. A., & Farooque, O. A. (2020). CSR disclosure, corporate governance and firm value: A study on GCC Islamic banks. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 28(4), 607-638. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-08-2019-0103
  30. Ismail, A. M., & Latiff, I. H. M. (2019). Board diversity and corporate sustainability practices: Evidence on environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(3), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr. v10n3p31
  31. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
  32. 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. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  33. Karakulle, İ. (2025). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlarında ESG (çevresel, sosyal, yönetişim) faktörlerinin içerik analizi: İSO 500 şirketleri üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 72, 247-256. https://doi. org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1798562
  34. Khan, M. K., Zahid, R. A., Saleem, A., & Sági, J. (2021). Board composition and social & environmental accountability: A dynamic model analysis of Chinese firms. Sustainability, 13(19), 10662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910662
  35. Köse, E. (2022). Kurumsal yönetim özelliklerinin çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim (ESG) açıklamalarına etkisi. Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi, 5(Prof. Dr. Fikret OTLU Özel Sayısı), 463-474. https://doi.org/10.29228/ijbemp.52011
  36. Kulalı, G. (2022). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ESG) performansının piyasa değeri üzerindeki etkisi: Firma büyüklüğünün rolü. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 17(3), 787-809. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.1098419
  37. Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.153
  38. Kuzey, C., Fritz, M. M., Uyar, A., & Karaman, A. S. (2022). Board gender diversity, CSR strategy, and eco-friendly initiatives in the transportation and logistics sector. International Journal of Production Economics, 247, 108436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijpe.2022.108436
  39. Lewellyn, K. B., & Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2020). The corporate board glass ceiling: The role of empowerment and culture in shaping board gender diversity. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(2), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04116-9
  40. Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409 424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
  41. London Stock Exchange Group Data & Analytics (October 2024). Environmental, Social and Governance scores from LSEG.
  42. Ludwig, P., & Sassen, R. (2022). Which internal corporate governance mechanisms drive corporate sustainability? Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113780. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113780
  43. Mallin, C., Michelon, G., & Raggi, D. (2013). Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’ orientation: How does governance affect social and environmental disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1324-4
  44. Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2022). Board diversity and ESG performance: Evidence from the Italian banking sector. Sustainability, 14(20), 13447. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142013447
  45. Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2026). Board characteristics and ESG performance: Evidence from the European utilities sector. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 20(3), 786-813. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-03-2025-0002
  46. Minciullo, M., Zaccone, M. C., & Pedrini, M. (2022). The antecedents of corporate sustainability performance: A study on generic and sustainability-related corporate governance mechanisms. Sustainability, 14(15), 9761. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14159761
  47. Miranda, B., Delgado, C., & Branco, M. C. (2023). Board characteristics, social trust and ESG performance in the European banking sector. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(4), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16040244
  48. Mititean, P. (2023). Board attributes and social and environmental performance: Evidence from the energy sector. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 22(1), 130-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2023.01007
  49. Özçelik, M. (2025). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının zorunlu güvence denetimi: Bağımsız denetçilerden görüşler. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17(2), 1773-1793. https://doi. org/10.20491/isarder.2025.2064
  50. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
  51. Piñeiro-Chousa, J., López-Pérez, M. L., López-Cabarcos, M. Á., & Šević, A. (2025). Busy boards and environmental, social and governance performance: A gender perspective on NASDAQ-100 firms. Review of Managerial Science, 19, 3663-3686. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11846-025-00863-4
  52. Popov, K., & Makeeva, E. (2022). Relationship between board characteristics, ESG and corporate performance: A systematic review. Journal of Corporate Finance Research, 16(4), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.16.4.2022
  53. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135-158.
  54. Sebastianelli, R., Tamimi, N., Isil, O., & Rocco, V. (2025). Insights from analyzing corporate environmental and social disclosure. Management Decision, 63(3), 803-823. https:// doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2023-1767
  55. Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu (2014). Kurumsal Yönetim Tebliği (II-17.1). Resmî Gazete Tarihi: 03.01.2014, Sayı: 28871.
  56. Setiani, E. P. (2023). The impact of ESG scores on corporate financial performance: Moderating role of gender diversity. Nominal: Barometer Riset Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 12(1), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.21831/nominal.v12i1.59778
  57. Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9
  58. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937-967. https://doi.org/ 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
  59. Şeker, Y., & Şengür, E. (2022). Çevresel, sosyal ve kurumsal yönetim (ESG) performansı: Uluslararası bir araştırma. Journal of Accounting and Taxation Studies, 15(2), 349-387. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1066216
  60. Temiz, H., & Özdemir, F. S. (2023). Finansal olmayan bilgilerin kamuya açıklanmasında yönetim kurulu yapısının rolü: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler örneği. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 23(69), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1170341
  61. Toker, M., & Celayir, D. (2025). Kurumsal yönetimin sürdürülebilirlik raporları üzerindeki etkisine yönelik bir analiz. Eurasian Business & Economics Journal, 42, 121-149.
  62. Uslu, M. (2022). Kurumsal yönetimin kurumsal sürdürülebilirliğe etkisinde denetim komitesinin düzenleyici rolü. İşletme ve Girişimcilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, (1), 1-12.
  63. Ünal, İ. H., Temiz, H., & Özdemir, F. S. (2024). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde cinsiyet ve kültürel çeşitliliğin etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 16(31), 413-428.
  64. Yadav, P., & Jain, A. (2023). Sustainability disclosures and corporate boards: A stakeholder approach to decision-making. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 24(5), 1027 1047. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2022-0279
  65. Zubeltzu‐Jaka, E., Álvarez‐Etxeberria, I., & Ortas, E. (2020). The effect of the size of the board of directors on corporate social performance: A meta‐analytic approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1361-1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1889
  66. Wedajo, A. D., Salah, A. A., Bhat, M. A., Iqbal, R., & Khan, S. T. (2024). Analyzing the dynamic relationship between ESG scores and firm value in Chinese listed companies: Insights from generalized cross-lagged panel model. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00546-2
  67. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeconom.2004.02.005