Does Water, Waste, and Energy Consumption Influence Firm Performance? Panel Data Evidence from S&P 500 Information Technology Sector

Abstract

This paper aimed to investigate the impact of water, waste, and energy consumption on firm performance for a sample of enterprises that belong to the S&P 500 Information Technology sector over the period of 2009–2020. The quantitative framework covered both accounting (e.g., return on assets—ROA; return on common equity—ROE; return on capital—ROC; return on invested capital—ROIC) and market-based measures of performance (e.g., price-to-book value—PB), alongside firm and corporate governance specific variables. By estimating multivariate panel data regression models, the empirical results provided support for a negative impact of total water use on PB but a positive effect on ROA. With reference to the total waste, the econometric outcomes revealed a negative influence on the entire selected performance measures, whereas total energy consumption did not reveal any statistically significant influence.

Impact of energy management systems, pro-environmental energy consumption, and awareness on performance outcomes: a serial mediated-moderated modeling with PLS-SEM

“…Fourth, we also observed a positive and significant effect of PECP on firm performance, which suggest that an increase in PECP results to an increase in firm performance. This finding is inline with past findings which denote that efficient energy usage in guise of eco-friendly energy consumption can result in eco-friendly energy consumption performance; and eco-friendly energy consumption is a determinant for greater business performance (Bunse et al [14]; Hassan [33]; Makridou et al [50]; Schulze et al [57]; Simionescu et al [59]; Zhang et al [70]). The present finding extends this line of research by providing additional evidence from a Turkish context using primary first-hand data.…”

“…Efficient energy usage by OECD firms has been revealed to increase the performance of firms based on panel data (Hassan [33]). Simionescu et al ( [59]) found that energy performance does not have any influence on firm performance. Schulze et al ( [57]) revealed that PECP is an important KPI for firms, and research have examined the association between EMS and PECP but have ignored the economic outcomes with few exceptions (Makridou et al [50]).…”

Corporate social responsibility performance evaluation from the perspective of stakeholder heterogeneity based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy process integrated TOPSIS

“…Interest repayment ability (C34) Earnings before interest and tax/interest expense (Agbeko et al, 2017) Shareholders C4 Profitability (C41) Net profit/net assets (Elias, 2004) Asset utilization efficiency (C42) Net operating income/average total assets (Simionescu et al, 2020) Growth of firm (C43) Net profit growth rate (Akram et al, 2020) Enterprise market value level (C44) Tobin Q = market value/total assets (Taylor et al, 2018) Capital accumulation rate (C45) Owners' equity at the end of the period/owners' equity at the beginning of the period (Alvarez, 2010) Governments C5 Tax payment level (C51) Tax paid minus tax refund (Lin, 2020) Absorb the employed population (C52) Number of employees (Sarfraz et al, 2020) Compliance with regulations (C53) Whether the company violates laws or regulations (No 1/Yes 0) (Reis & Molento, 2019) Publics C6 Participate in public welfare activities (C61) Enterprise donation amount/main business income (Chun, 2021) Governance of pollution tax (C62) Ln (Operating income/enterprise sewage charge) (Xue et al, 2015) Environmental protection investment level (C63)…”

Does firms' carbon disclosure increase consumers' recycling willingness and firms' recycling performance?

“…However, business strategies involving sustainable product disposal focused on the perspectives of policymakers and firms (Gonenc & Scholtens, 2017; Simionescu et al, 2020). For example.…”