Unveiling The ESG Paradox: When Sustainability ‎Meets Financial Reality

  • Authors

    • Indra Satria Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Pancasila, Jakarta, Indonesia
    • eka sudarmaji Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Pancasila, Jakarta, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6074-5114
    https://doi.org/10.14419/fmn25f16

    Received date: September 30, 2025

    Accepted date: November 17, 2025

    Published date: November 23, 2025

  • ESG Performance; Financial Performance; Sustainability; Corporate Social Responsibility; Sector Analysis; Investment Strategy

  • Abstract

    This study examines the complex interplay between Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes ‎across diverse sectors, addressing the conflicting evidence in the current literature regarding the relationship between sustainability-driven ‎profitability and sustainability. While approximately 90% of contemporary studies demonstrate positive correlations between ESG and ‎financial performance, significant heterogeneity remains across industries and methodological frameworks, resulting in uncertainty ‎concerning the actual financial impact of ESG. We analyse ESG risk scores, controversy levels, and year-to-date returns using descriptive ‎statistics, correlation analysis, sectoral comparisons, and k-means clustering with PCA visualisation, utilising extensive statistical methods ‎while omitting regression techniques. We contend that ESG performance exhibits tenuous correlations with short-term returns, uncovers ‎sector-specific risk patterns, and establishes counterintuitive company clusters that challenge traditional assumptions about sustainability. ‎The findings indicate a weak correlation (ranging from 0.08 to 0.17) between ESG metrics and financial performance, suggesting that short-term returns are largely unaffected by ESG profiles. There are significant differences between sectors. Energy and Utilities, for example, ‎have median ESG risks of 35–37, while Technology and Real Estate have median ESG risks of less than 20. There are three types of people ‎based on clustering analysis: ESG Leaders, who have high scores but low returns; Balanced Performers, who exhibit moderate risks and ‎good outcomes; and High-Risk Generators, who remain profitable despite high ESG risks‎.

  • References

    1. A. S. García, W. Mendes-Da-Silva, and R. J. Orsato, “Sensitive industries produce better {ESG} performance: Evidence from emerging markets,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 150, pp. 135–147, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180.
    2. S. Chen, Y. Song, and P. Gao, “Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 345, p. 118829, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829.
    3. G. Friede, T. Busch, and A. Bassen, “ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies,” J. Sustain. Financ. Invest., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 210–233, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917.
    4. L.-S. Zhang, “The impact of ESG performance on the financial performance of companies: evidence from China’s Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed companies,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. Volume 13-2025, 2025, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1507151.
    5. B. Cornell, “ESG Preferences, Risk and Return,” Eur. Financ. Manag., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12295.
    6. A. S. Garcia, A. S. Garcia, W. Mendes‐Da‐Silva, W. Mendes-Da-Silva, R. J. Orsato, and R. J. Orsato, “Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets,” J. Clean. Prod., 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180.
    7. K. K. Dalal and N. Thaker, “ESG and Corporate Financial Performance : A Panel Study of Indian Companies,” vol. XVIII, no. 1, 2019.
    8. M. Fang, H. Nie, and X. Shen, “Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance?” Econ. Model., vol. 118, p. 106101, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106101.
    9. J. Xu and J. Yin, “Digital transformation and ESG performance: The chain mediating role of technological innovation and financing constraints,” Financ. Res. Lett., vol. 71, p. 106387, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106387.
    10. T. Fu and J. Li, “An empirical analysis of the impact of ESG on financial performance: the moderating role of digital transformation,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. Volume 11-2023, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1256052.
    11. W. Schramade, “Integrating ESG into Valuation Models and Investment Decisions: The Value-Driver Adjustment Approach,” J. Sustain. Financ. Invest., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 95–111, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2016.1176425.
    12. B. R. Auer, “Do socially (ir)responsible investments pay? New evidence from international {ESG} data,” Q. Rev. Econ. Financ., vol. 59, pp. 51–62, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2015.07.002.
    13. S. Kotsantonis, C. Pinney, and G. Serafeim, “ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities,” J. Appl. Corp. Financ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 10–16, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12169.
    14. E. Saygili, S. Arslan, and A. O. Birkan, “ESG practices and corporate financial performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul,” Borsa Istanbul Rev., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 525–533, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.07.001.
    15. Y. Lian, Y. Li, and H. Cao, “How Does Corporate ESG Performance Affect Sustainable Development: A Green Innovation Perspective,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 11, pp. 1–16, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1170582.
    16. Í. G. F. da Cunha, R. V. S. Policarpo, P. C. S. de Oliveira, E. C. Abdala, and D. A. do Nascimento Rebelatto, “A systematic review of ESG indicators and corporate performance: proposal for a conceptual framework,” Futur. Bus. J., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 106, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-025-00539-1.
    17. M. Aydoğmuş, G. Gülay, and K. Ergun, “Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability,” Borsa Istanbul Rev., vol. 22, pp. S119–S127, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.11.006.
    18. E. Menicucci and G. Paolucci, “ESG dimensions and bank performance: an empirical investigation in Italy,” Corp. Gov., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 563–586, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2022-0094.
    19. T. T. Li, K. Wang, T. Sueyoshi, and D. D. Wang, “Esg: Research Progress and Future Prospects,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111663.
    20. P. Busch and D. Richards, “Innovation knowledge acquisition: The tacit knowledge of novices,” IFIP Int. Fed. Inf. Process., vol. 228, pp. 259–268, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-44641-7_27.
    21. F. Berg, J. F. Kölbel, and R. Rigobon, “Aggregate confusion: The divergence of {ESG} ratings,” Rev. Financ., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1315–1344, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfac033.
    22. S. Huang, A. S. L. Lindawati, A. Purnomo, M. Fahlevi, and G. Salim, “Corporate Energy Management Disclosure : Empirical Evidence from Indonesia Stock Exchange,” vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 516–525, 2023. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14059.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Satria, I., & sudarmaji, eka. (2025). Unveiling The ESG Paradox: When Sustainability ‎Meets Financial Reality. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(7), 647-654. https://doi.org/10.14419/fmn25f16