Search results

This study aims to provide further insights into the connection between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and companies’ credit ratings, while also exploring the role of corporate governance as a moderating factor. The hypotheses for this relationship are rooted in both legitimacy and stakeholder theories.

Using a sample of French non-financial listed firms from 2007 to 2020, this paper uses the ordered probit model introduced by Greene (2000). The issue of endogeneity has also been addressed.

The study reveals that CSR practices positively impact companies’ credit ratings by enhancing solvency and financial performance. Specifically, firms that prioritize CSR, particularly in the social and environmental dimensions (such as community relations, diversity, employee relations, environmental performance and product characteristics), tend to have higher credit ratings and a reduced risk of default. This suggests that credit rating agencies likely incorporate CSR performance when assigning credit ratings. Furthermore, the quality of corporate governance acts as a moderator, strengthening the relationship between CSR and credit ratings. The findings remain robust even after accounting for key firm attributes and addressing potential endogeneity between CSR and credit ratings.

This research provides valuable guidance for policymakers, corporate managers, investors and other stakeholders, as it offers insights into the influence of CSR activities on risk premiums and financing costs. For financial institutions, expanding credit decisions to encompass non-financial factors such as CSR can result in more accurate predictions of firm credit quality compared to relying solely on financial indicators.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study stands out as the first to systematically examine the relationship between CSR and credit ratings within the French context. Moreover, it distinguishes itself by investigating the moderating influence of corporate governance on this relationship, setting it apart from prior research.

This chapter is a study of the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues on credit rating in India. It will help issuers, investors, and other market participants understand rating agencies' approach to incorporating the sustainability-related factors in its analysis. This will provide an overall perspective on the considerations that are usually the most important. Under environment considerations, climate change, waste recycling, air pollutants, and natural capital sustainability can be important factors. Social considerations are becoming more and more important among investors and consumers and are raising awareness about prosperous and failing communities. Moreover, COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for redirecting capital flows toward sustainable activities, making our economy and society more resilient against shocks. Governance factors primarily involve the corporate governance practices prevalent in the entity reflecting the different rights and responsibilities among its different stakeholders management, board of directors, employees, lenders, shareholders, customers, and suppliers. It also encompasses the corporate's business conduct and practices related to transparency and disclosure. This chapter will focus on the contemporary issues of including ESG in credit rating and what are the probable impacts of doing the same.

With favorable rating, companies can access international debt market easily. Moreover a favorable sovereign rating is beneficial for the overall economy of a country as better rating enables the government of the country to access the international debt market. Even capital allocation by foreign institutional investors increases which is beneficial for the equity market too.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of CEO social media celebrity status on credit ratings and to determine whether potential threats on the CEO celebrity status negatively moderate the above association.

The authors collected tweets for 874 CEOs from 513 unique S&P 1500 firms. A panel data analysis was conducted on a panel with 4,235 observations from 2009 to 2020. We then tested the hypothesis with the ordinal logit model.

The empirical findings confirmed that CEO social media celebrity status is positively associated with corporate credit rating outcomes. Our path analyses revealed that CEOs with higher social media celebrity status have less incentive to conduct risk-taking behaviors and thus benefit credit ratings. When the rating agencies perceive potential threats to CEO celebrity status, including CEO myopia and CEO overconfidence, the association between CEO social media celebrity status and credit rating is weakened.

This study provides an in-depth understanding of CEO social media perception on credit ratings for firms' managers and capital market participants. Findings can help managers and firms improve their strategies for leveraging social media to release credit constraints. The debt market participants could adopt the CEO social media celebrity status and its concerned threats to setting debt contracts with an adequate price.

This is likely to be the first study that examines the effect of CEO social media celebrity status on credit ratings. The findings of this study also reveal that social media certificated celebrity CEOs tend to be capable of enhancing firm revenue and have lower risk-taking incentives, unlike mass media certificated celebrity CEOs.

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.

This paper aims to examine the consistency between firms’ stakeholder-friendly responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings. Consistent firms are those with high prior ESG ratings that actively support stakeholders during the COVID-19 crisis.

The authors use data from JUST Capital, which tracks Russell 1000 firms’ actions in response to the pandemic, to examine the relationship between pre-pandemic ESG ratings and their COVID responses towards employees, customers and communities. The authors also analyse the impact of firms’ consistency between pre-pandemic ESG ratings and stakeholder-friendly COVID responses on ESG ratings and stock returns.

This study finds that firms with higher pre-pandemic ESG ratings are more likely to support their stakeholders during the pandemic. The authors also find that firms with high ESG ratings before the pandemic experience a decline in their ESG ratings if they do not actively support their communities during the COVID-19 crisis, although insufficient employee/customer support does not impact their ESG ratings. Finally, the authors find that firms with higher pre-pandemic ESG ratings that continue to uphold their ESG commitments through community assistance during the pandemic achieve higher stock returns compared to inconsistent firms.

The results reveal gaps in how comprehensively ESG agencies assess firms’ crisis responses, highlighting areas for rating improvements. The findings contribute to sustainable development by revealing the importance of firms upholding their ESG commitments during crises to maintain stakeholder trust and drive long-term value creation.

The findings underscore the need for responsive, transparent ESG rating processes to support the integration of sustainability considerations into corporate practices and investment decisions, particularly during evolving societal expectations during crises.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate how pre-pandemic ESG ratings explain firms’ stakeholder-friendly responses during the COVID-19 pandemic and analyse the integration of these responses and pandemic risks into ESG ratings during the crisis.

The authors examine the role of CEO political ideology in the credit rating process.

This study adopts a quantitative method with panel data regressions using a sample of 5,211 observations from S&P 500 firms from 2001 to 2012.

The authors find that firms run by Republican-leaning CEOs, who tend to have conservative political ideologies, enjoy more favorable credit ratings than firms run by Democratic-leaning CEOs. In addition, the association between CEO political ideology and credit ratings is more pronounced for firms with high operating uncertainty, low capital intensity, high growth potential, weak corporate governance and low financial reporting quality. Finally, the authors find that CEO political ideology affects a firm's cost of debt incremental to credit ratings, consistent with debt investors incorporating CEO political ideology in their pricing decisions.

Leveraging CEO political ideology, the authors document that credit rating agencies incorporate managerial conservatism in their credit rating decisions. This finding suggests that CEO political ideology serves as a meaningful signal for managerial conservatism.

The study suggests that credit rating agencies incorporate CEO political ideology in their credit rating process. Other capital market participants such as auditors and retail investors can also use CEO political ideology as a proxy for managerial conservatism when evaluating firms.

The paper carries practical implications for practitioners, firm executives and regulators. The results on the association between CEO political ideology and credit ratings suggest that other financial institutions could also incorporate CEO political ideology in their evaluation in their evaluation of firms. For example, when evaluating audit risk and determining audit pricing, auditors may add CEO political ideology as a risk factor. For firms, especially those that have Democratic-leaning CEOs, the authors suggest that they could reduce the unfavorable effect of CEO political ideology on credit ratings by improving their corporate governance and financial reporting quality, as demonstrated in the cross-sectional analyses. Finally, this study shows that CEO political ideology, as measured by CEOs' political contributions, is closely related to a firm's credit ratings. This finding may inform regulators that greater transparency for CEOs' political contributions is needed as information on contributions could help capital market participants perform risk analyses for firms.

Credit rating agencies release their research methodologies for determining corporate credit ratings and identify managerial conservatism as an important factor that affects their risk assessments. The extant literature, however, has not empirically investigated the relation between credit ratings and managerial conservatism, which, according to behavioral consistency theory, can be proxied by CEO political ideology. This study provides novel empirical evidence that identifies CEO political ideology as an important input factor in the credit rating process.

With the continuous deepening of China's mixed-ownership reform, the participants in the reform have gradually expanded from state-owned enterprises to private enterprises. Whether state-owned equity participation in private enterprises can facilitate the development of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance in private enterprises is a question that needs urgent examination. This study aims to investigate the impact of state-owned equity participation on the ESG performance of private enterprises.

Using Chinese listed companies as the research sample, this study uses econometric methods such as multiple regression to analyze the relationship between state-owned equity and the ESG performance of private enterprises. Additionally, it explores the underlying mechanisms and influencing factors of this relationship.

There is a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between state-owned equity and the ESG performance of private enterprises. Mechanism analysis reveals that resource effects and governance effects play a mediating role in this nonlinear relationship. Furthermore, the authors find that environmental regulation and managers' attention to the environment positively moderate the relationship between state-owned equity participation and ESG performance.

A reasonable equity structure is crucial for enhancing corporate ESG performance. Moderate state-owned equity participation helps to leverage resource integration and governance advantages, which will assist private enterprises in maximizing ESG performance and achieving sustainable development.

In advancing the process of mixed-ownership reform, the government should maintain an appropriate proportion of state-owned equity to avoid excessive intervention in enterprise decision-making. At the same time, it should ensure that enterprises can genuinely undertake their social and environmental responsibilities while pursuing economic benefits. This is of great significance for promoting sustainable economic and social development.

This study integrates state-owned equity, ESG and nonlinear relationships into a single research framework. It explores the internal mechanisms and influencing factors of their relationship, overcoming the limitations of previous studies and provides a new perspective for understanding the impact of state-owned equity on corporate ESG performance.

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.

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.

This paper aims to investigate how a US firm’s political landscape affects the integration of environmental, social and governance (hereafter ESG) measures in CEO compensation contracts, thereby affecting the firm’s ESG performance and credit rating.

Based on the results of state senatorial and presidential elections and the location of a US firm’s headquarters, the authors categorize whether a firm has a political environment that is predominantly Democratic (blue) or Republican (red). The empirical analyses are based on a sample of US firms in the period 2014–2021.

The authors find that firms in blue states are more likely to link CEO compensation to ESG performance measures. Further, the results show that firms in blue states with ESG-linked compensation contracts have better ESG performance. Lastly, the authors find evidence that a firm’s ESG performance has a positive impact on its credit rating, but the impact is weakened if firms in red states link ESG performance to executive compensation.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that explores how a firm’s political environment affects the use of ESG performance measures in CEO compensation contracts. Furthermore, the authors contribute to the literature by showing evidence that the political environment interacts with the impact of ESG-linked compensation incentives on the firm’s ESG performance and, thus, its credit rating.