Herding Behavior, ESG Disclosure, and Financial Performance: Rethinking Sustainability Reporting to Address Climate-Related Risks in ASEAN Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the intersection of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure (operationalized through sustainability reporting), corporate financial performance, and the behavioral dynamics of herding in capital structure decisions among non-financial firms in five ASEAN countries. As ESG and sustainability finance gain prominence in addressing climate change and climate risk, understanding the behavioral factors that relate to ESG adoption is crucial. Employing a quantitative approach, this research utilizes a purposive sample of 125 non-financial firms from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, gathered from the Bloomberg Terminal spanning 2018–2023. Managerial Herding Ratio (MHR) is used to assess herding behavior, while Sustainability Report Disclosure Index (SRDI) measures ESG disclosure. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Multigroup Analysis (MGA) were applied for data analysis. This research finds that while sustainability reporting enhances return on assets (ROA) and Tobin’s Q, it does not significantly relate to net profit margin (NPM). The findings also confirm that herding behavior—where companies mimic the financial structures of peers—moderates the relationship between sustainability reporting and performance outcomes, with leader firms gaining more from transparency efforts. This highlights the double-edged nature of herding: while it can accelerate ESG adoption, it may dilute the strategic depth of climate action if firms merely follow rather than lead. The study provides actionable insights for regulators and corporate strategists seeking to strengthen ESG finance as a driver for climate resilience and long-term stakeholder value.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".