The Effect of Corporate ESG Management on Tax Benefits and Corporate Performance—Findings from South Korea-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

The Effect of Corporate ESG Management on Tax Benefits and Corporate Performance—Findings from South Korea

The Effect of Corporate ESG Management on Tax Benefits and Corporate Performance—Findings from South Korea

ES评分 0 浏览量：156 下载量：0

DOI	10.20900/jsr20250063
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2025, 7(4)
作者	Eunmi Lee,Boyoung Kim*,
作者单位	Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul 03767, Korea ;
摘要	As Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles become increasingly integrated into corporate strategy and operations, many countries have implemented tax benefits to encourage companies to engage in ESG-oriented initiatives. Therefore, it is essential to manage tax benefits in parallel with ESG practices. This study aims to empirically assess the effect of corporate ESG management on tax benefits, and both financial and non-financial corporate performance through the mediating factor of tax benefits. ESG management is divided into three components—ESG—which are set as independent variables. Tax benefits are treated as a mediating variable, while financial and non-financial performance are used as dependent variables. The research model was constructed and hypotheses were formulated for structural equation analysis. A total of 262 questionnaires were collected and analyzed from tax leaders in large South Korean companies. The analysis showed that ESG components—environmental, social contribution, and governance—had a positive effect not only tax benefits but also both financial and non-financial corporate performance. The governance factor had the most significant impact on tax benefits, which were shown to have a stronger positive effect on non-financial performance than financial performance. These results confirm that companies implementing ESG strategies to enhance corporate performance should prioritize reinforcing ESG related tax benefit initiatives within their finance and tax teams.
Abstract	As Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles become increasingly integrated into corporate strategy and operations, many countries have implemented tax benefits to encourage companies to engage in ESG-oriented initiatives. Therefore, it is essential to manage tax benefits in parallel with ESG practices. This study aims to empirically assess the effect of corporate ESG management on tax benefits, and both financial and non-financial corporate performance through the mediating factor of tax benefits. ESG management is divided into three components—ESG—which are set as independent variables. Tax benefits are treated as a mediating variable, while financial and non-financial performance are used as dependent variables. The research model was constructed and hypotheses were formulated for structural equation analysis. A total of 262 questionnaires were collected and analyzed from tax leaders in large South Korean companies. The analysis showed that ESG components—environmental, social contribution, and governance—had a positive effect not only tax benefits but also both financial and non-financial corporate performance. The governance factor had the most significant impact on tax benefits, which were shown to have a stronger positive effect on non-financial performance than financial performance. These results confirm that companies implementing ESG strategies to enhance corporate performance should prioritize reinforcing ESG related tax benefit initiatives within their finance and tax teams.
关键词	ESG management; tax benefit; corporate performance; corporate sustainability
KeyWord	ESG management; tax benefit; corporate performance; corporate sustainability
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Amel-Zadeh A, Serafeim G. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financ Anal J. 2018;74(3):87-103.
2.Prasetyo WF, Arif A. Pengaruh profitabilitas, corporate social responsibility, leverage, dan capital intensity terhadap penghindaran pajak. J Ekonomi Trisakti. 2022;2(2):375-90.
3.Angelaki E, Garefalakis A, Kourgiantakis M, Sitzimis I, Passas I. ESG integration and green computing: A 20-year bibliometric analysis. Sustainability. 2025;17(7):3266. doi: 10.3390/su17073266.
4.Petelos E, Antonaki D, Angelaki E, Lemonakis C, Garefalakis A. Enhancing public health and SDG3 through sustainable agriculture and tourism initiatives. Sustainability. 2025;17(14):6253. doi: 10.3390/su17146253.
5.Tarmuji I, Maelah R, Tarmuji NH. The impact of environmental, social and governance practices (ESG) on economic performance: evidence from ESG score. Int J Trade Econ Financ. 2016;7(3):67-74.
6.Abd Halim S. ESG in focus: UK, France, Germany, China and Malaysia evidence. PhD Thesis. London (UK): University of East London; 2014.
7.Garefalakis A, Dimitras A. Looking back and forging ahead: The weighting of ESG factors. Ann Oper Res. 2020;294(1):151-89.
8.Abdi Y, Li X, Càmara-Turull X. Exploring the impact of sustainability (ESG) disclosure on firm value and financial performance (FP) in airline industry: the moderating role of size and age. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;24(4):5052-79.
9.Aydoğmuş M, Gülay G, Ergun K. Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Rev. 2022;22:S119-27.
10.Dkhili H. Does environmental, social and governance (ESG) affect market performance? The moderating role of competitive advantage. Competit Rev. 2023;34(2):327-52.
11.Fatemi A, Glaum M, Kaiser S. ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Financ J. 2018;38:45-64.
12.Gerged AM, Matthews L, Elheddad M. Mandatory disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of equity capital: UK evidence of a U-shaped relationship. Bus Strateg Environ. 2021;30(2):908-30.
13.Zhou G, Liu L, Luo S. Sustainable development, ESG performance and company market value: Mediating effect of financial performance. Bus Strateg Environ. 2022;31(7):3371-87.
14.Kumar P, Firoz M. Does accounting-based financial performance value environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures? A detailed note on a corporate sustainability perspective. Aust Account Bus Financ J. 2022;16(1):41-72. doi: 10.4453/aabfj.v16i1.4.
15.Jia J, Ma G. Do R&D tax incentives work? Firm-level evidence from China. China Econ Rev. 2017;46:50-66.
16.Lee HR, Paik HW. The effect of corporate governance on the relationship between tax benefit and firm’s performance. J Soc Sci. 2021;28(2):33-57. doi: 10.46415/jss.2021.06.28.2.33.
17.Zhu N, Zhou Y, Zhang S, Yan J. Tax incentives and environmental, social, and governance performance: Empirical evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30(19):54899-913.
18.McGuire ST, Neuman SS, Omer TC. Sustainable tax strategies and earnings persistence. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1950378; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1950378. Accessed on 22 Oct 2013.
19.Davis AK, Guenther DA, Krull LK, Williams BM. Do socially responsible firms pay more taxes? Account Rev. 2016;91(1):47-68.
20.Sadjiarto A, Ringoman JA, Angela L. The effects of earning management and environmental, social, governance (ESG) on tax avoidance with leverage as a moderating variable. Int J Organ Behav Policy. 2024;3(1):63-74.
21.Bressan S. ESG, taxes, and profitability of insurers. Sustain. 2023;15:13937. doi: 10.3390/su151813937.
22.Mitroulia M, Chytis E, Kitsantas T, Skordoulis M, Kalantonis P. ESG strategy and tax avoidance: insights from a meta-regression analysis. J Risk Financ Manag. 2025;18(9):503-15.
23.Lanis R, Richardson G. Outside directors, corporate social responsibility performance, and corporate tax aggressiveness: An empirical analysis. J Account Audit Financ. 2018;33(2):228-51.
24.Ma HY, Park SJ. Relationship between corporate sustainability management and sustainable tax strategies. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7429. doi: 10.3390/su13137429.
25.Atanassov J, Xiaoding L. Can corporate income tax cuts stimulate innovation? J Financ Quant Anal. 2020;55(5):1415-65.
26.Allen A, Francis BB, Wu Q, Zhao YJ. Analyst coverage and corporate tax aggressiveness. J Bank Financ. 2016;73:84-98.
27.Chen T, Lin C. Does information asymmetry affect corporate tax aggressiveness? J Financ Quant Anal. 2017;52(5):2053-81.
28.Garcia-Bernando J, Jansky P, Torslov T. Multinational corporations and tax havens: Evidence from country-by-country reporting. Int Tax Public Financ. 2021;16(4):23-45.
29.Zhang J, Li Y, Xu H, Ding Y. Can ESG ratings mitigate managerial myopia? Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Int Rev Financ Anal. 2023;90:102878. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102878.
30.Bronzini R, Piselli P. The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Res Policy. 2016;45(2):442-57.
31.Koukoulioti V. T for taxation: The fourth pillar in the ESG framework. eJ Tax Res. 2024;22(3):420-43.
32.Shin KY. The development of welfare regime in South Korea. In: International Symposium on Globalization and the Future of East Asian Welfare Capitalism; 2008 Aug 20-21; Taiwan.
33.Jordan B. The low road to basic income? Tax-benefit integration in the UK. J Soc Policy. 2012;41(1):1-17.
34.Khan MA. ESG disclosure and firm performance: A bibliometric and meta analysis. Res Int Bus Financ. 2022;61:101668.
35.Milne JE. Environmental taxation and ESG: Silent partners. In: Sustainable finances and the law: Between public and private solutions. Cham (Switzerland): Springer Nature; 2024. p. 253-79.
36.Wahyunita T, Pambudi JE, Febrianto HG. The urgency of tax avoidance moderated by the utilization of tax havens country. J Akuntansi Bisnis. 2024;17(1):53-69.
37.Prieto-Sandoval V, Ormazabal M, Jaca C, Viles E. Key elements in assessing circular economy implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Bus Strateg Environ. 2018;227(8):1524-34.
38.Zwick E, Mahon J. Tax policy and heterogeneous investment behavior. Am Econ Rev. 2017;107(1):217-48.
39.Eichfelder S, Jacob M, Kalbitz N, Wentland K. Tax-induced earnings management and book-tax conformity: International evidence from unconsolidated accounts. Working Paper. 2020. Available from: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/213855. Accessed on 12 Mar 2025.
40.Blaylock B, Gaertner F, Shevlin T. The association between book-tax conformity and earnings management. Rev Account Stud. 2015;20(1):141-72.
41.Fan Z, Liu Y. Tax compliance and investment incentives: Firm responses to accelerated depreciation in China. J Econ Behav Organ. 2020;176:1-17.
42.Wang J, Fan W, Wang Z. Tax incentives and earnings management: A study based on accelerated depreciation policy in China. Econ Anal Policy. 2024;81:281-96.
43.Ekholm K, Torstensson J. High-technology subsidies in general equilibrium: A sector-specific approach. Can J Econ. 1997;30(4):1184-203.
44.Bøler EA, Moxnes A, Ulltveit-Moe KH. R&D, international sourcing, and the joint impact on firm performance. Am Econ Rev. 2015;105(12):3704-39.
45.Dada SA, Igbekoyi OE, Dagunduro ME. Effects of forensic accounting techniques and corporate governance on financial performance of listed deposit money banks in Nigeria. Int J Prof Bus Rev. 2023;8(10):1-26. doi: 10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i10.3547.
46.Euler I, Harst S, Schanz D, Sureth-Sloane C, Voget J. Tax complexity and foreign direct investment. TRR 266 Account for Transparency Working Paper Ser No 160; WU Int Taxat Res Paper Ser No 2024-10. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4990616. Accessed on 1 Feb 2025.
47.Loorbach D. Transforming climate governance? Why climate governance is failing and what to do about it. In: Hölscher K, Frantzeskaki N, editors. Transformative climate governance. Palgrave Stud Environ Transform Transition Accountabil. Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave Macmillan; 2020. p. 431-45. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49040-9_13.
48.Huyghebaert N, Kang S, Wang L, Wu W. Multiple large shareholders, identity, and corporate tax avoidance. Manag Organ Rev. 2024;20(2):235-64. doi: 10.1017/mor.2024.11.
49.Bissoondoyal-Bheenick E, Treepongkaruna S. An analysis of the determinants of bank ratings: Comparison across ratings agencies. Aust J Manag. 2011;36(3):405-24.
50.Koh HK, Burnasheva R, Suh YG. Perceived ESG (environmental, social, governance) and consumers’ responses: The mediating role of brand credibility, brand image, and perceived quality. Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4515. doi: 10.3390/su14084515.
51.Guan J, Yam RC. Effects of government financial incentives on firms’ innovation performance in China: Evidences from Beijing in the 1990s. Res Policy. 2015;44(1):273-82.
52.Song M, Wang S, Zhang H. Could environmental regulation and R&D tax incentives affect green product innovation? J Clean Prod. 2020;258:120849.
53.Ivus O, Jose M, Sharma R. R&D tax credit and innovation: Evidence from private firms in India. Res Policy. 2021;50(1):104128.
54.Das TK, Teng BS. Partner analysis and alliance performance. Scand J Manag. 2023;19(3):279-308.
55.Hubbard G. Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Bus Strateg Environ. 2009;18(3):177-91.
56.Awotomilusi NS, Dagunduro ME, Dada SA, Oluwagbade OI. An assessment of operational risk disclosure and financial performance of listed financial institutions in Nigeria. Migration Lett. 2023b;20(10):299-322. doi: 10.59670/ml.v20iS10.5137.
57.Phillips PA. Hotel performance and competitive advantage: A contingency approach. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 1999;11(7):359-65.
58.McWilliams A, Siegel DS. Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. J Manag. 2011;37(5):1480-95.
59.Faith H. Tax: The Silent T in ESG. In: Speech for the 15th International Tax Administration Conference; 2023 Apr 5; Sydney, Australia.
60.Šulentić T, Rakić E, Kavran KMZ. ESG management—the main factors of sustainable business in the postal logistics sector. In: First International Conference on Advances in Traffic and Communication Technologies; 2022 May 26-7; Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; p. 9.
61.Sarwar H, Ishaq MI, Amin A, Ahmed R. Ethical leadership, work engagement, employees’ wellbeing, and performance: A cross-cultural comparison. J Sustain Tour. 2020;28(12):2008-26.
62.Chelawat H, Trivedi IV. The business value of ESG performance: The Indian context. Asian J Bus Ethics. 2016;5(1):195-210.
63.Mamman A, Bawole J, Agbebi M, Alhassan AR. SME policy formulation and implementation in Africa: Unpacking assumptions as opportunity for research direction. J Bus Res. 2019;97:304-15.
64.Dhaliwal DS, Li OZ, Tsang A, Yang YG. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev. 2011;86(1):59-100.
65.Park J, Choi W, Jung SU. Exploring trends in environmental, social, and governance themes and their sentimental value over time. Front Psychol. 2022;13:890435.
66.Clément A, Robinot É, Trespeuch L. Improving ESG scores with sustainability concepts. Sustainability. 2022;14(20):13154.
67.Giese G, Nagy Z, Lee LE. Deconstructing ESG ratings performance: Risk and return for E, S, and G by time horizon, sector, and weighting. J Portf Manag. 2021;47(3):94-111.

引用本文

Eunmi Lee,Boyoung Kim*. The Effect of Corporate ESG Management on Tax Benefits and Corporate Performance—Findings from South Korea [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2025; 7; (4). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构