An exploration of operational efficiency, market efficiency, and sustainable development in the banking industry

Abstract

Sustainable development is the primary goal of the current global economic transformation. The banking industry, as an intermediary institution within the financial system, not only serves as a crucial foundation for national economic development but also plays a key role in the global transition to sustainability and a low‐carbon economy. Banks can leverage the influence of financing to direct funds towards sustainable ventures and simultaneously develop green financial products, guiding ordinary consumers to make more environmentally friendly choices. How the banking industry can effectively improve operational efficiency while considering sustainable development is one of the key focuses of ongoing development in the banking sector. The main aim of this study is to incorporate the aspect of sustainable development into the evaluation of operational efficiency, aligning with the goals of corporate sustainable development. It allows for an analysis of how decision‐makers in the banking industry can adjust resources to maintain stable and sustainable profitability while promoting sustainable development. This study selected 13 financial holding banks and 19 non‐financial holding banks in Taiwan as research subjects, covering the period from 2016 to 2021. Utilizing a meta assurance regions (AR) parallel dynamic two‐stage slacks‐based measure model with “operational stage” and “market and sustainability parallel stage,” the research explores the efficiency performance of banks considering sustainable development. It examines the differences in efficiency performance at various stages among different types of banks. The research findings are as follows: (1) among the banking industry in Taiwan, operational stage efficiency ranks the highest, followed by sustainable stage efficiency, while market stage performance lags behind. (2) Financial holding banks outperform non‐financial holding banks on average in operational stage, market stage, and sustainable stage efficiency. (3) Fubon Financial, TFH, CATHAY HOLDINGS, and SKFH are benchmark performers among financial holding banks. (4) Non‐financial holding banks exhibit a higher average technical gap ratio compared to financial holding banks, indicating that non‐financial holding banks have fewer inefficient areas to improve. However, the technical efficiency of both groups of banks approaches each other over the years. (5) In the sustainable stage, financial holding banks demonstrate superior environmental indicators and corporate treatment efficiency compared to non‐financial holding banks.