Search results

This study aims to establish the effect of environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices on Australian energy and utility investment performance.

Conventional and ESG-rated portfolios are constructed using monthly returns and ESG scores of S&P/ASX 300 listed energy and utility firms from 2014 to 2022. Portfolio performance is estimated using a four-factor regression model, controlling for any economic shocks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The findings show that the lower the ESG score associated with the overall ESG and environmental portfolios, the greater the performance compared to the market (but not the conventional and other ESG portfolios). High ESG scores do not appear to influence the performance of the energy and utility portfolios, which contrasts expectations that the uptake of ESG should deliver superior risk-return outcomes for investors. The findings also indicate that a contrarian investment approach may be a reasonable performance indicator for high-rated ESG portfolios. ESG practices did not impact portfolio performance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This research has contributed to the literature by offering ESG investment insights for policymakers, regulators, fund managers and investors. Consistent with the agency perspective on ESG practices and efficient market hypothesis, the evidence implies that, regardless of ESG scores (either high or low), investors should consider investing passively in diversified energy and utility portfolios or low-cost index fund equivalents.

The purpose of this paper is to test if building reputation capital through environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing can mitigate the negative effect of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on firms’ valuation.

This study uses an unbalanced panel of 591 financial firms between 2005 and 2021 from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom (UK) and the USA. Ordinary least square method is used in the empirical tests. To alleviate a potential endogeneity problem, robustness tests are performed using the two-stage least square approach with instrumental variables.

The results of this paper show that sustainable reporting can offset the negative effect of EPU on the valuation of financial firms. Consistent with the stakeholder-based reputation-building hypothesis, sustainability performance may have an insurance-like impact on firms’ valuation during periods of high uncertainty.

According to the findings, during high policy uncertainty periods, investors accept to pay a premium for the stocks of the firms which built social capital through environmental and social investments. Accordingly, it is suggested that regulatory bodies and governments motivate firms to increase their stakeholder orientation to attain higher reputation capital.

Managers can mitigate the negative impact of policy uncertainty on the value of their firms via building social capital, which will increase financial market stability in return, and portfolio investors may use such firms for portfolio optimization decisions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to examine the mitigating role of ESG investing on EPU and firm valuation relationships for financial firms. Thus, this study provides new insights related to the impact of ESG performance on valuation during uncertain times.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of firm environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating scores on market perception and stock behavior from 2017 to 2021 while controlling for COVID-19 severity score.

The authors used panel regression models with robust standard errors based on cross-country and cross-industry sample of 1,324 ESG firms from 25 emerging countries across four regions. Four separate regression analyses are used. Hausman test is used to determine whether fixed-effect (FE) or random-effect approaches should be used in regression models. Lagrange multiplier test is used to test for time FEs, and F-test for individual effects to choose between pooled ordinary least squares model and FE. Two-unit root tests are conducted to check stationarity. Heteroskedasticity and serial correlation were controlled through a robust covariance matrix estimation.

The authors provide evidence that the stakeholder theory persists in emerging countries. Overall, the results suggest that firms’ stock behavior is positively associated with the level of environmental and social performance in the region. However, the results do not provide empirical evidence to support the link between ESG performance and stock market perception proxied by the price-to-sales ratio. The results suggest that Refinitiv and Bloomberg ESG rating scores have a positive impact on stock performance in emerging markets, albeit the Bloomberg rating score is insignificant.

Favorable impact of environmental and social performance on stock performance suggests that policymakers should take initiatives to raise awareness toward investments in ESG projects. Evidence shows that ESG stock performance in emerging markets does not insulate firms from the COVID-19 severity. Furthermore, this study highlights the inconsistency in calculating the ESG ratings, therefore, a more standardized approach is recommended to support investors seeking sustainable investments.

The findings have social implications for investors with proenvironmental preferences and nonpecuniary motives for ethical investments. Asset fund managers should develop ESG investment strategies to promote investor preferences that are linked to the proenvironmental and prosocial attitudes by increasing their investments in stocks of firms that behave ethically and support the environment. Furthermore, the findings show that investors pay a price for ethical and socially responsible investments as they are evaluating the environmental and social activities, hence, the firm ESG profile influences equity valuation and risk assessment.

The study extends the literature and provides evidence from the unique setting of emerging markets by analyzing the relationship between ESG rating scores and the COVID-19 severity scores on one hand, and stock behavior and market perception on the other.

Over the past two decades, the topics of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have attracted an increasing amount of interest, reflecting a growing sensitivity of investors and corporations towards environmental, social and governance issues.

This survey offers an overview of the academic literature on ESG/CSR through the lens of investors, institutions and firms. We first discuss the definitions of ESG and CSR and their relationship to each other.

We next describe how ESG is measured and note problems with the measurement of and quality of ESG data and discrepancies between different measures of ESG. We then turn our attention to investors, examining what types of investors invest in ESG and the role of institutional investors in ESG. From the firm's perspective, we discuss why firms themselves conduct ESG. We also summarize the literature on the impact of ESG on firms: how ESG affects firms' financing, disclosure and reporting activities and firm performance. Finally, we describe other consequences of the focus of ESG and CSR on firms and investors.

This survey offers an overview of the academic literature on ESG/CSR through the lens of investors, institutions and firms.

This study aims to examine the effect of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) scores on stock markets for the period from February 2018 to December 2022 for G7 countries. Even though ESG is an established area of investigation, prior research has paid inadequate attention to the nexus of ESG scores and stock markets in G7 (Germany, USA, UK, Italy, France, Japan and Canada) countries.

This study covers G7 countries and uses a data set, which includes ESG scores and stock market returns from reporting channels including financial websites, and international indexes, between February 2018 and December 2022. Cross-section dependency and homogeneity tests were used with Konya (2006) panel causality test to investigate the relations of ESG scores and stock markets, and the research also conducted a separate analysis for each sub-dimension. Homogeneity/heterogeneity tests were also carried out in the research.

The findings suggest that causality from ESG scores to stock market (DAX) was determined only for Germany. Accordingly, it is understood that German companies have started to implement corporate social responsibility and ESG practices in their management strategies and reporting. These findings offer important implications for those who are considering investing in G7 countries, whether or not to consider ESG scores.

In this context, the research contributes to the existing literature on the relationships between ESG scores and stock markets, which are seen as a vital tool to meet the expectations of stakeholders.

This study aims to provide a precise understanding of how corporate sustainability information is used in socially responsible investing (SRI). The study is motivated by the lack of a recognised body of knowledge on this issue. This study, therefore, collates and reviews relevant studies (67 studies) to provide guidance to investors interested in SRI and identify a research agenda for academics desiring to contribute to this area.

This study conducts a systemic literature review employing recognised key words and searching the Web of Science. HistCite is utilised to ensure important cited studies are not missed from the collection. The review was conducted from two perspectives: (1) sources of sustainability information and (2) how the information is used in SRI.

The review identifies five major sources of sustainability information, including corporate reports, ESG ratings, industry affiliation, news and private communication with firms. These sources of information play different roles in the cross section of SRI strategies (i.e. negative and positive screening, active ownership and integration). This study provides guidance on how to use this information in SRI and provides recommendations for future research on how analysts interact with the information, how different informational characteristics impact implementation, ways to improve data quality, improvements to analysis methods and where data use needs to be extended into new strategies.

This review contributes to the SRI literature by inventorying studies of an important, yet omitted aspect, namely, sustainability information. This work also enriches the literature on corporate sustainability information by investigating how this information can be used for a specific purpose, namely, SRI. Given the increasing interest in SRI, this review will provide much-needed guidance for a range of practitioners, including investors and regulators.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of mutual funds during the COVID-19 pandemic with environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. The main research question is whether mutual fund performance differs with respect to the level of the mutual fund’s ESG score.

The data set contains global fund data, and mutual fund performance is analyzed using two types of data envelopment analysis (DEA) models: the DEA portfolio index (DPEI) and the range direction measure (RDM) DEA. Propensity score matching and logistic regression are also applied.

The results reveal that: nonequity mutual funds present significantly higher performance compared to the performance of equity mutual funds; mutual funds with high ESG scores are associated with significantly higher performance compared to those with low to medium ESG scores; funds with high ESG scores experience higher performance irrespective of their type; and efficiency scores derived from the RDM DEA are significantly higher than those derived from the DPEI model.

Investors, fund managers and market participants can benefit from the findings of this study and improve their investment decision-making process, including more sustainable funds in their portfolios. Regulators and policymakers should further promote or even require the inclusion of more sustainable investments in the financial products offered by institutional investors. The main limitation of the study is related to data availability regarding the ESG score of mutual funds.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that provides robust evidence in support of a positive association between ESG scores and mutual fund performance during the pandemic-induced crisis applying a DEA methodology.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between corporate environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings and leverage manipulation and the moderating effects of internal and external supervision.

The authors draw on a sample of Chinese non-financial A-share-listed firms from 2013 to 2020 to explore the effect of ESG ratings on leverage manipulation. Robustness and endogeneity tests confirm the validity of the regression results.

ESG ratings inhibit leverage manipulation by improving social reputation, information transparency and financing constraints. This effect is weakened by internal supervision, captured by the ratio of institutional investor ownership, and strengthened by external supervision, captured by the level of marketization. The effect is stronger in non-state-owned firms and firms in non-polluting industries. The governance dimension of ESG exhibits the strongest effect, with comprehensive environmental governance ratings and social governance ratings also suppressing leverage manipulation.

Firms should strive to cultivate environmental awareness, fulfil their social responsibilities and enhance internal governance, which may help to strengthen the firm’s sustainability orientation, mitigate opportunistic behaviours and ultimately contribute to high-quality firm development. The top managers of firms should exercise self-restraint and take the initiative to reduce leverage manipulation by establishing an appropriate governance structure and sustainable business operation system that incorporate environmental and social governance in addition to general governance.

Policymakers and regulators should formulate unified guidelines with comprehensive criteria to improve the scope and quality of ESG information disclosure and provide specific guidance on ESG practice for firms. Investors should incorporate ESG ratings into their investment decision framework to lower their portfolio risk.

This study contributes to the literature in four ways. Firstly, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is among the first to show that high ESG ratings may mitigate firms’ opportunistic behaviours. Secondly, it identifies the governance factor of leverage manipulation from the perspective of firms’ subjective sustainability orientation. Thirdly, it demonstrates that the relationship between ESG ratings and leverage manipulation varies with the level of internal and external supervision. Finally, it highlights the importance of governance in guaranteeing the other two dimensions’ roles by decomposing overall ESG.

In this paper, the authors tested if promoting the workforce's happiness (through high performance work policies or HPWP) and well-being in European Public companies relates to their profitability (return on equity, ROE), market risk (beta) and stock price return. Also, the authors tested if investors have a performance benefit if they buy a portfolio screened with companies with HPWP.

The authors proxied the quality of the HPWP efforts in the first method with the Refinitiv workforce score. They used this data in an unbalanced panel of eastern, western, northern and southern Europe companies from 2011 to 2022. The panel data also included the ROE, the market risk (beta) and the stock price return of these companies. The authors estimated the corresponding regressions with the panel data and tested the relationship between the workforce score and these three variables. In a second method, they simulated the weekly performance of a portfolio that invested only in European companies with high standards in their HPWP and compared its performance against a conventional market portfolio (with no HPWP screening).

In the first method, the authors found no significant relationship between the workforce score and the ROE, beta, or stock price return in the panel regression, controlling for random effects. In the second one, they found no over or underperformance in the HPWP portfolio against the European market one in the second method.

The results suggest that there is no risk or cost for European Public companies and investors alike if they promote, with better HPWP, the happiness and well-being of their workforce. The findings suggest that if European companies promote HPWP, there will be no adverse impact on their profits, market risk, or stock price performance. Also, investors will not lose performance (against a conventional market portfolio) if they screen their portfolios with this type of workforce-friendly companies.

Increase the scarce literature on the test of the workforce score with company profitability (ROE), stock market price variation and stock market risk level.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance and systemic risk sensitivity of Chinese listed companies. From the consumer loyalty and investor structure perspectives, the relationship between ESG performance and systemic risk sensitivity is analyzed.

Since Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) ESG officially began to analyze and track China A-shares from 2018, 275 listed companies in the SynTao Green ESG testing list for 2015–2021 are selected as the initial model. To measure the systematic risk sensitivity, this study uses the beta coefficient, from capital asset pricing model (CPAM), employing statistics and data (STATA) software.

The study reveals that high ESG rating companies have high corresponding consumer loyalty and healthy trading structure of institutional investors, thereby the systemic risk sensitivity is lower. This paper reveals that companies with high ESG rating are significantly less sensitive to systemic risk than those with low ESG rating. At the same time, ESG has a weaker impact on the systemic risk of high-cap companies than low-cap companies.

The study helps the companies understand the influence of market value on the relationship between ESG performance and systemic risk sensitivity. Moreover, this paper explains explicitly why ESG performance insulates a firm’s stock from market downturns with the lens of consumer loyalty theory and investor structure theory.

The paper provides new insights on the company’s ESG performance that significantly affects the company’s systemic risk sensitivity.