A Structural Equation Model of Leadership, Technology Acceptance Model, Organizational Policies, and ESG Score Improvement Affecting the Performance of Listed Companies in Thailand Stock Exchange
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to study the factors that contribute to the development of a structural equation model affecting ESG and impacting the efficiency of companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand. The structural equation modeling process will be utilized as a tool for analysis and hypothesis testing. The population for this study comprises managerial personnel or those involved in the management and monitoring of organizational operations, representing each company in the stock market. Data will be collected using questionnaires, with a total sample size of 400 individuals.
The research found that A Structural Equation Model congruent with the observational data, as evidenced by the following fit indices: CMIN/df = 3.189, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.934, RFI = 0.914, IFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.939, CFI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.074. The hypothesis testing results indicate that the leadership variable, technology acceptance variable, and organizational policy variable have a statistically significant positive direct influence on the development and enhancement of ESG scores and the organizational performance of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand at a significance level of 0.01.
Article Details
References
Chen, C., & Wang, D. (2020). The Role of Technology in Promoting Social Responsibility and Transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4), 517-543.
Huang, D. Z. (2021). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: a review and consolidation. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), 335-360.
Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks L. T. (2021). Firms and Social Responsibility: A Review of ESG and CSR Research in Corporate. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66(3), 1-14.
Grewal, R., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Market Reaction to Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure. Management Science, 64(1), 208-233.
Jin, Zhu., Fei-Hsin, Huang. (2023). Transformational Leadership, Organizational Innovation, and ESG Performance: Evidence from SMEs in China. Sustainability, 15(7), 1-23. doi: 10.3390/su15075756
Jones, T., & Felps, W. (2020). The Impact of Organizational Policies on ESG Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 807-824.
Liu, Y., & Chen, C. (2020). The Influence of Environmental Policies on Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 112, 1-10.
Mannix, E., & Neilsen, C. (2020). Adapting to change with flexible technology. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(5), 885-900.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2019). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 118-140.
Muhammed, K. et al. (2022). Organizational effectiveness: Educational leadership and its impact on organizational effectiveness. Journal of Humanities and Education Development, 4(6), 53-66. doi: 10.22161/jhed.4.6.5
Qingju, Z. (2023). Ethical Leadership as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Finance, and ESG Reporting. Sustainable finance and finance crime, 107-126. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-28752-7_6
SiJian Niu, Byung Il Park & Jin Sup Jung. (2022). The Effects of Digital Leadership and ESG Management on Organizational Innovation and Sustainability. Sustainability, 14(23), 15639.
Smith, A., & Jones, B. (2020). The Impact of Technology Adoption on Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 265, 109876.
Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2018). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 47(2), 97-105.