ESG Ratings and Financial Performance in the Global Hospitality Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research critically examines the influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings on corporate financial performance (CFP), with outcomes varying considerably. This study employs a dataset of publicly traded firms across 16 countries within the hospitality sector from 2005 to 2022 to examine the ESG-CFP relationship. Fixed effects regression results demonstrate a positive linkage between ESG ratings and CFP, utilizing both comprehensive ESG ratings and discrete pillar ratings. These findings remain robust across various performance measures including return on assets, return on equity, and Tobin’s Q. Heteroscedasticity and endogeneity concerns are mitigated through generalized least squares and two-stage least squares methods, respectively. Moreover, the positive impact of ESG on CFP exhibits greater potency in the United States relative to other countries and was more pronounced during the COVID-19 era. These findings offer valuable insights for business executives, investors, and policymakers in supporting ESG initiatives, guiding investment decisions, and formulating effective policy directives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".