Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance and Dividend Payout: Evidence from Thai Listed Firms
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
This study investigates the impact of environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) performance on dividend payout among Thai listed companies
during 2014–2024. Using a sample of 1,573 firm-year observations across three
industry groups, including Agro, Industrial and Resources (Industry 1), Consumer,
Service and Technology (Industry 2), and Financial, Property and Construction
(Industry 3), the study applies a fixed-effects panel regression corrected for
heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation through Weighted Least Squares (WLS)
and AR(2) specifications. Consistent with international evidence, ESG performance
is positively associated with dividend payouts across all industries, with the
strongest effect observed in financial and property firms. When ESG is decomposed,
environmental performance significantly increases dividends in Industry 2 and
3, while the social pillar shows no significant influence. Governance scores
reduce dividend payouts only in Industry 1. Additional findings reveal that
profitability and leverage reduce dividends, firm age negatively affects payouts
in Industry 2, and Thai firms exhibit strong dividend smoothing behavior.
These results highlight the growing importance of sustainability signals in shaping
financial policy in an emerging-market context where ESG practices and investor
expectations are still evolving.
Article Details
เนื้อหาและข้อมูลในบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารสภาวิชาชีพบัญชี ถือเป็นข้อคิดเห็นและความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียนบทความโดยตรงซึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสารไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วยหรือร่วมรับผิดชอบใด ๆ
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารสภาวิชาชีพบัญชี ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารสภาวิชาชีพบัญชี หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำข้อมูลทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใดๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจากวารสารสภาวิชาชีพบัญชี ก่อนเท่านั้น
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Promises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006
Almulhim, A. A., Aljughaiman, A. A., Al Barrak, T., Chebbi, K., & Amin, N. (2024). The power of ESG in shaping dividend policy: Illuminating the role of financial sustainability in an emerging market. PlOS ONE, 19(12), e0312290. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0312290
Alvarez, J., & Arellano, M. (2003). The time series and cross‐section asymptotics of dynamic panel data estimators. Econometrica, 71(4), 1121–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00441
Ananzeh, H., Khalifeh, A., Alqudah, H., Al‐Ababneh, H. A., & Al Amosh, H. (2025). ESG rating, corporate dividends policy, and the moderating role of corporate life cycle: cross country study. International Studies of Economics, 20(3), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/ise3.104
Bilyay-Erdogan, S., Danisman, G. O., & Demir, E. (2023). ESG performance and dividend payout: A channel analysis. Finance Research Letters, 55, 103827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103827
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131
Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
Chudik, A., & Pesaran, H. (2015). Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: A survey. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of panel data (pp. 3–45). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199940042.013.0001
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4-5), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Delmas, M., & Blass, V. D. (2010). Measuring corporate environmental performance: The trade‐offs of sustainability ratings. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.676
Ellili, N. O. D. (2022). Impact of environmental, social and governance disclosure on dividend policy: What is the role of corporate governance? Evidence from an emerging market. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1396–1413. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2277
Gill, J., & Leemann, L. (2001). Generalized linear models: A unified approach. SAGE Publications.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on the triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2012.04.014
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Jain, P., & Malhotra, P. (2025). Exploring the connection between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure and dividend policy: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Managerial Science, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00927-5
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
Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.09.008
Kumar, S., & Ghalke, A. (2025). ESG Performance and Dividend Payout: The Moderating Role of ESG Controversies and Legal Systems. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4355
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Lee, S., & Heo, C. Y. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction among U.S. publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 635–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.02.007
Liu, Y. Y., & Lee, P. S. (2025). The impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on the duration of dividend sustainability: A survival analysis. Managerial Finance, 51(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-06-2024-0462
Mahajan, R., Lim, W. M., Sareen, M., Kumar, S., & Panwar, R. (2023). Stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Research, 166, 114104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2023.114104
Maquieira, C. P., Espinosa-Méndez, C., & Arias, J. T. (2024). The impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score on dividend payment of large family firms: What is the role of financial constraints? International evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3), 2311–2332. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2696
Salvi, A., Nirino, N., Battisti, E., & Gianfrancesco, I. (2024). Payout policy and ESG: A European investigation. Research in International Business and Finance, 68, 102189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.102189
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Strange, R., Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). Corporate governance and international business. Management International Review, 49(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-009-0001-z
Verga Matos, P., Barros, V., & Miranda Sarmento, J. (2020). Does ESG affect the stability of dividend policies in Europe? Sustainability, 12(21), 8804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218804
Zahid, R. A., Taran, A., Khan, M. K., & Chersan, I. C. (2023). ESG, dividend payout policy and the moderating role of audit quality: Empirical evidence from Western Europe. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.012
