Search

We investigated the impact of Economic Sustainability (ES) practices of digitally oriented industrial companies in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in various horizons. The relevance is underpinned by numerous controversies in the literature on the topic. The sample included 257 industrial companies from BRICS in 2017-2021. Economic profit in the long-term and short-term was measured by Total Shareholder Return (TSR) and Economic Value Added (EVA), respectively. We found that the improvements in resource use, enhancements in the workforce and responsible product development had a positive and significant influence on the TSR of BRICS companies. Conversely, we discovered the negative impact of social practices on companies' EVA. Firms from Brazil and India with stronger ESG practices provided higher returns for shareholders, while there was a significant and negative linkage between ES and EVA for Chinese firms. Crossindustry analysis showed that ESG practices had an additional positive and significant impact on the TSR of firms in the basic materials and technology sectors. However, there was an additional negative and significant impact of ES practices on EVA in consumer cyclical and energy sectors. The novelty is driven by (1) exploring the impact of ESG practices on companies' value at BRICS; (2) considering previously overlooked metrics of TSR and EVA; and (3) applying granular ES metrics instead of aggregated ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sustainable growth is the key global priority, and environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives have become the main point of attention in companies' digital transformation strategies. ESG and digital transformation reinforce each other as they aim to improve efficiency and meet stakeholders inside and outside the company. This is true for telecommunication companies, where disruptive technologies such as artificial intelligence, big data or cloud computing are reshaping the industry. Assessment of the impact of sustainability disclosures on companies' value is a task of high interest for academics and practitioners from telecommunication companies. ESG disclosure serves as a key channel to inform investors about the efficiency of ESG risk management and control practices of the firm and thus can impact the firm's financial performance and market value. However, there are numerous controversies in the academic literature on this topic and a lack of research specifically for the telecommunication industry. We closed the research gaps and investigated the impact of ESG disclosure on Tobin-Q of 93 US-listed telecommunication service companies between 2011-2021. We found that aggregated ESG disclosure score positively impacted telecoms' Tobin-Q. Among individual ESG disclosure pillars, only corporate governance positively influenced Tobin-Q, while the impact of environmental and social pillars was statistically insignificant. We also found that CEO duality significantly and negatively impacted Tobin-Q. The presence of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee, greater gender diversity and a higher percentage of independent directors on the board positively affected the value of the telecoms. The result of the study can be applied in developing ESG rating methodologies for telecommunication companies. They can also assist telecom companies' managers and stakeholders to identify key value drivers of the ESG agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, many large established companies which perform digital transformation use corporate venturing. It is the practice of directly investing corporate funds into external start-up companies. One of the strategies of such venture companies is the "buy and build" approach or using a platform company that makes sequential add-on acquisitions of smaller companies. However, there is controversial evidence that such a strategy can underperform conventional leveraged buyout (LBO) strategy and even can destroy the value of the company. Unlike LBO, a buy-and-build strategy requires careful execution and deployment of large financial and non-financial resources. There is few research that provides a comparative analysis between the mentioned strategies. Thus, the goal of this paper is to compare the performance of the buy-and-build strategy with that of LBO. Our sample included 2206 venture capital firms from nine countries in 1997-2020. Our findings indicated that the buy-and-build strategy in a cross-industrial setting outperforms LBO in terms of sales but underperforms in return of assets (ROA). Nevertheless, PE firms with an above-average reputation can count on higher sales, return on assets, and return on sales in buy and build rather than in LBO. The results of the study can be used by managers of industrial companies pursuing a corporate venturing approach to predict the performance of buy-and-build compared to that of conventional LBO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Companies that are performing innovation-focused strategies or experiencing digital transformation are exposed to significant long-term risks. The untimely and inefficient management of these risks leads to the destruction of the company's value and calls into question its survival. This is often underpinned by companies following strategic management with a short-term horizon. Such "strategic myopia" prevents timely identification and treatment of strategic risks and destroys value due to physical and intellectual capital investment restrictions. However, the existing mechanisms of setting up risk management architecture neither addresses the lengths of the horizon and the alignment of the horizon with the strategic objectives, state of the environment and stakeholder expectations nor provides the tools for evaluating the horizon of the firm's strategy. Moreover, existing systems of evaluating short-termism rely only on financial and governance metrics and do not address environmental and social factors. We closed these gaps and developed a strategic risk-controlling mechanisms to set up the risk management architecture that expanded "conventional" risk management analysis and addressed the "strategic myopia". We also worked out the critical tool of the mechanism—the system of key risk metrics (SKRI) aimed at assessing the degree of a company's following of long-term strategic orientation. Finally, we tested it on a sample of Russian non-financial companies. Testing results revealed a strong and positive correlation between the management's decision to follow a long-term strategic focus and the growth of companies' long-term value (measured by economic value added (EVA)). SKRI can be utilized in strategic risk controlling to assess the company's propensity to follow a short-term horizon, evaluate its ability to maintain sustainable value creation, and develop recommendations to stakeholders to expand its strategic focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]