IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i10p429-d1249889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Capital Expenditure Matter for ESG Disclosure? A UK Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed Saber Moussa

    (Customs Authority, Ministry of Finance Egypt, Nasr City 11635, Cairo, Egypt)

  • Mahmoud Elmarzouky

    (Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK)

Abstract

This study examines how capital expenditure (capex) affects Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting and how corporate governance moderates this effect. We use data from non-financial firms in the FTSE All Share index from 2012 to 2021 and measure ESG disclosure with the Bloomberg ESG Disclosure Score, capex with logarithm of the ratio of capital expenditure to total assets, and corporate governance with a composite index based on Board Size, Independent Board, Board Diversity, and Audit Committee Non-Executives. We also examine the non-linear and threshold effects of capex on ESG disclosure with spline regression models. We find that capex is positively linked to ESG disclosure and that this association is robust for firms with better corporate governance. Our findings imply that capex improves ESG performance and impact and that corporate governance enables ESG communication to stakeholders. Our research advances the existing literature by revealing the link between capex, governance, and ESG reporting in a dynamic and uncertain environment. Our study holds practical significance for companies, investors, and regulators who want to incorporate ESG factors into capex decisions and reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed Saber Moussa & Mahmoud Elmarzouky, 2023. "Does Capital Expenditure Matter for ESG Disclosure? A UK Perspective," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:429-:d:1249889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/10/429/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/10/429/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Mallin & Giovanna Michelon & Davide Raggi, 2013. "Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does Governance Affect Social and Environmental Disclosure?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 29-43, April.
    2. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Kwok, Chuck C.Y. & Mishra, Dev R., 2011. "Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 2388-2406, September.
    3. Claudia Arena & Saverio Bozzolan & Giovanna Michelon, 2015. "Environmental Reporting: Transparency to Stakeholders or Stakeholder Manipulation? An Analysis of Disclosure Tone and the Role of the Board of Directors," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 346-361, November.
    4. Frank, Murray Z. & Shen, Tao, 2016. "Investment and the weighted average cost of capital," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 300-315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maheshika Senanayake & Iman Harymawan & Gregor Dorfleitner & Seungsoo Lee & Jay Hyuk Rhee & Yong Sik Ok, 2024. "Toward More Nature-Positive Outcomes: A Review of Corporate Disclosure and Decision Making on Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Ahmed Saber Moussa & Mahmoud Elmarzouky & Doaa Shohaieb, 2024. "Green Governance: How ESG Initiatives Drive Financial Performance in UK Firms?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Maha Abu Hussain & Maha Faisal Alsayegh & Helmi A. Boshnak, 2024. "The Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance Disclosure on the Performance of Saudi Arabian Companies: Evidence from the Top 100 Non-Financial Companies Listed on Tadawul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Xuemei Zhang & Haodong Zheng & Tao Hang & Qiang Meng, 2024. "How to Choose Recycling Mode between Monopoly and Competition by Considering Blockchain Technology?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-29, July.
    5. Asad Abbas & Feng Lu & Muhammad Yaseen & Muhhamad Ameen, 2024. "Exploring the Impact of Foreign Aid, Agricultural Production, and Corporate Social Responsibility on Poverty Reduction in Pakistan," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Eid M Alotaibi & Ashraf Khallaf & Abed Al-Nasser Abdallah & Taisier Zoubi & Awwad Alnesafi, 2024. "Blockchain-Driven Carbon Accountability in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-30, December.
    7. Ahmed Saber Moussa & Mahmoud Elmarzouky, 2024. "Sustainability Reporting and Market Uncertainty: The Moderating Effect of Carbon Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-18, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nurlan Orazalin & Mady Baydauletov, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1664-1676, July.
    2. Nurlan Orazalin, 2020. "Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 140-153, January.
    3. Charles H. Cho & Matias Laine & Robin W. Roberts & Michelle Rodrigue, 2018. "The Frontstage and Backstage of Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 865-886, October.
    4. Zabihollah Rezaee & Ling Tuo, 2019. "Are the Quantity and Quality of Sustainability Disclosures Associated with the Innate and Discretionary Earnings Quality?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 763-786, March.
    5. Giuliana Birindelli & Stefano Dell’Atti & Antonia Patrizia Iannuzzi & Marco Savioli, 2018. "Composition and Activity of the Board of Directors: Impact on ESG Performance in the Banking System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Akrum Helfaya & Tantawy Moussa, 2017. "Do Board's Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Orientation Influence Environmental Sustainability Disclosure? UK Evidence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1061-1077, December.
    7. Jonathan Taglialatela & Ivan Miroshnychenko & Roberto Barontini & Francesco Testa, 2024. "Talk or walk? The board of directors and firm environmental strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 2890-2910, May.
    8. Renata Konadu & Gabriel Sam Ahinful & Samuel Owusu-Agyei, 2021. "Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: does stakeholder engagement matter?," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(3), pages 269-289, September.
    9. Zhang, Ran & Li, Yanru & Liu, Yingzhu, 2021. "Green bond issuance and corporate cost of capital," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    10. Eugenio Zubeltzu‐Jaka & Igor Álvarez‐Etxeberria & Eduardo Ortas, 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, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1361-1374, May.
    11. Eduardo Ortas & Igor Álvarez & Eugenio Zubeltzu, 2017. "Firms’ Board Independence and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    12. Haque, Faizul, 2017. "The effects of board characteristics and sustainable compensation policy on carbon performance of UK firms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 347-364.
    13. María Consuelo Pucheta‐Martínez & Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez, 2019. "An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 612-627, May.
    14. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    15. Prasad, Krishna & Kumar, Satish & Devji, Shridev & Lim, Weng Marc & Prabhu, Nandan & Moodbidri, Sudhir, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility and cost of capital: The moderating role of policy intervention," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Berger, Allen N. & El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Roman, Raluca A., 2022. "Geographic deregulation and banks’ cost of equity capital," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Samuel Benjamin & Mansi Mansi & Rakesh Pandey, 2020. "Board gender composition, board independence and sustainable supply chain responsibility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3305-3339, December.
    18. Chaoyuan She & Giovanna Michelon, 2023. "A governance approach to stakeholder engagement in sustainable enterprises—Evidence from B Corps," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5487-5505, December.
    19. Yasir Shahab & Ammar Ali Gull & Asad Ali Rind & Aitzaz Ahsan Alias Sarang & Tanveer Ahsan, 2022. "Do corporate governance mechanisms curb the anti-environmental behavior of firms worldwide? An illustration through waste management," Post-Print hal-03602986, HAL.
    20. David J. Moore & David McMillan, 2016. "A look at the actual cost of capital of US firms," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1233628-123, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:429-:d:1249889. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.