Table 2

Prior empirical research on the relationship between ESG and EQ

StudyCountry/PeriodESG measureEarnings quality proxyMain findingsNotes/Gap
Scholtens and Kang (2013) Korea and Japan (2003–2009)KLD/ASI ESG indexEarnings persistenceMixed; governance significant, E and S notInstitutional variation evident
Krüger (2015) US (1991–2009)KLD ESG ratingAbnormal accrualsMixed results; negative events more influentialFocus on market reaction rather than accounting quality
Hossain et al. (2015) Australia (2008–2014)ESG indexEarnings smoothnessPositive; social disclosure improves EQDeveloped-market evidence
García-Sánchez et al. (2020) India (2008–2015)CSR indexEarnings persistence, EMCSR improves reporting qualityEmerging-market evidence; limited ESG disaggregation
Martínez-Ferrero and García-Sánchez (2018) Multi-country (OECD, 2006–2014)Thomson Reuters ESG scoreDiscretionary accrualsPositive link; stronger in countries with robust institutionsCross-country context; limited focus on Southern Europe
Velte (2019) Germany (2010–2016)Thomson Reuters ESG scoreReal EM and accrual-based EMESG, especially governance, reduces EMStrong ESG–quality nexus in stakeholder model
This studyItaly (2021–2022)LSEG (Refinitiv) ESG and pillarsBeneish M-ScoreExpected positive relation; governance most influential sub-pillarFills gap for Italian listed firms under EU NFRD/CSRD

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal