Search results

The authors examine the effect of split environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings on information asymmetry, corporate value and trading behavior. The authors test the risk-based hypothesis and the optimism-bias hypothesis on the relationship between diverging opinions and future stock prices. The authors results show that split ESG ratings is positively related to idiosyncratic volatility, an alternative measure for information asymmetry. Further, the negative effect of split ESG ratings on cumulative abnormal return under short-selling constraints is consistent with the optimism bias hypothesis. The authors find a negative relationship between split ESG ratings and the net purchase ratio (NPR) of pension funds. Considering that the NPR is a direct measure of net demand, ESG disagreement may hinder socially responsible investing (SRI) in a firm. This study directly demonstrates the negative effect of ESG disagreement on firm value and investment by Korea's National Pension Service (NPS). The results offer valuable insights into policymakers, as the wide divergence in ESG ratings requires urgent attention to expand SRI.

This study investigates the relation between ESG-driven investment strategies and the performance of infrastructure funds. More specifically, this study examines the impact of the different dimensions – environmental (E), social (S) and governance (G) – of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds on their performance.

To study the risk-return properties of infrastructure funds and the relationship with their ESG profiles, an econometric analysis is conducted, based on a sample of 180 listed, ESG-oriented infrastructure funds identified through Refinitiv Eikon.

The results show that infrastructure funds with more solid environmental investment policies experience a lower performance, while those with a stronger social orientation yield a superior performance. Governance-related investment policies seem trivial in determining the performance of these funds. Further analysis shows that ESG controversies have a negative impact on infrastructure funds' performance, whereas Emissions and Resource Use scores, both proxying for different elements under the environmental pillar, have opposite signs. Finally, the Community score has a positive impact on funds' performance consistent with the positive impact of the social pillar score. The study also provides a number of sub-sample analyses to shed light on the conditions under which each pillar has significant impact on funds’ performance.

First, infrastructure funds should choose the composition of their portfolio holdings in a way that the total return is not penalized by the prevalence of the tricky E aspects (compliance with environmental regulations) over the main benefits of the S dimension. Second, fund managers need to bet on infrastructures with an expected impact on the social pillar dimension such as those aimed at promoting the wealth of the local communities (e.g. hospitals, schools). Third, to strengthen the fund's social dimension, fund managers must increase the dollar amount of the assets under management to count on a higher firepower.

This study makes three contributions to literature. First, the ESG profiles of the infrastructure funds operating both at local and global level and their relationship with annual performance are studied. Second, the different dimensions of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds are investigated by measuring their impact on performance. Third, the study sheds light on some detailed but relevant aspects of this phenomenon by analyzing the breakdown of the ESG profile of infrastructure funds into four sustainability sub-scores capturing their efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, the use of polluting materials and to influence local communities as well their exposure to the risk of litigation due to the occurrence of ESG controversies. This study addresses the extent to which the adoption of ESG investment policies by the infrastructure funds have an impact on their performances.

Existing empirical evidence on the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) integration on momentum portfolios is limited. The combination of the two is relevant given the risk-mitigating effect of ESG criteria, as well as the existence of momentum crashes. As such, ESG might lend itself to reduce crash risk for momentum investors.

In this paper, the authors provide insight into the impact of an ESG-constrained investment universe on momentum returns. The overall investment universe is split into high and low ESG-rated segments to anylse the characteristics of momentum portfolios conditional on the ESG rating.

The authors document the existence of a momentum premium across European stocks and for a subset of high and lows ESG-rated stocks. However, absolute returns of momentum strategies are significantly lower if momentum strategies are pursued on a subset of high ESG stocks. Additionally, findings document a risk-mitigation effect of ESG for momentum portfolios with significantly lower returns for momentum portfolios based on low ESG stocks during periods of momentum crashes.

Research on momentum investing and the momentum premium is large and well established, yet many questions remain. A recent study by Daniel and Moskowitz (2016) has analyzed crash risk for momentum investors and identified periods of strong momentum crashes. On the other hand, the literature on ESG integration in standing investment approaches is still limited, but as demand for sustainable products is increasing, so is the demand for a better understanding of the impact of ESG integration. Consequently, the authors provide evidence on the benefits of ESG integration for momentum investors to reduce their exposure to momentum crash risk.

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 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.

This paper aims to investigate whether environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices influence stock returns in the US stock market, looking at the period from 2002 to 2020.

The authors quasi-replicate two reference articles that found that socially responsible funds used to underperform, but that this underperformance tendency has disappeared in more recent periods.

Using US data, the authors show that independent of the ESG database used, portfolios of neutral stocks present consistently higher systematic risk (beta) than ESG portfolios, although this difference decreases over time. This may be due to the significant increase in demand for ESG portfolios in the past decade, and their consequent price inflation and increase in volatility. However, concerning risk-adjusted returns and contrary to the authors’ reference literature, the results are highly dependent on the rating provider used, and neither support underperformance nor indicate a tendency over time. These inconsistent results suggest that the “ESG label” is not a determinant of portfolio performance.

If ESG ratings are a legitim benchmark for sustainability, then the costs of going sustainable in stock portfolios might be marginal for fund managers.

Two different ESG-rating agencies, Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) and Thomson Reuters, are used to identify sustainable stocks. Different from the literature, the authors selected stocks for their portfolios stochastically following a uniform probability distribution, thus avoiding fund manager bias.

The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of environment, social and governance (ESG) disclosure on credit ratings of companies in India.

Firms under study are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) 500 and represent almost 93 per cent of the total market capitalization on BSE. This study considers a sample of 122 firms from a population of 500 to examine the relationship between ESG scores and Credit Rating. The scope of this study is confined to those firms listed on the S&P BSE 500 which have made ESG disclosures and were rated by various credit rating agencies like Crisil, ICRA and CARE. Data were sourced from Bloomberg. Ratings were given in ascending order. In the first model, credit rating was used as predicted variable; ESG score as predictor variable and market capitalization, net debt to equity, and total debt to asset as control considering the ordered nature of dependent variable in the study, ordered logistic regression was applied. It was repeated taking individual scores on environment rating, social rating and governance rating as predictors. The authors further segregated the 122 selected firms into large, medium and low capital firms and assessed separate logistic regression models taking credit rating as the predicted variable and overall ESG score as the predictor.

It was found that overall ESG performance and performance of individual components (environment, social and financial variables such as market capitalization, and debt to equity ratio) had significant positive indicators of creditworthiness as measured through credit rating. Governance score had a positive and insignificant relation with credit rating. Market capitalization was observed to have significant direct relationship with credit worthiness. On the other hand, number of independent directors in companies showed significant inverse relationship with creditworthiness. ESG significantly impacted credit rating in the desired direction only for small- and middle-level firms; for large firms which already had higher credit rating, ESG showed no effect. It was also found that credit rating itself determined significantly the extent of overall ESG reporting and disclosure of its components.

This is unique study that covers the aspects of ESG reports and its impact on credit rating.

There is growing recognition that numerous business drivers contribute to financial performance and investment returns but they are not included in a company's profit and loss statements. In the investment industry, these wider sets of value drivers are known as environment-social- governance (ESG) factors. A small number of specialized ESG rating agencies provide information to investors about the extent to which firms' behaviors are socially responsible. However, a major criticism of these rating agencies is the lack of transparency in their methods. This paper aims to examine the issues of subjectivity, transparency and uniformity of ESG ratings by exploring the methods used to assess ethics performance by an Australian rating agency.

A case study was conducted on an Australian ESG rating provider, Regnan. The data for the analysis were sourced from internal Regnan documents.

The paper found that a level of subjectivity is inevitable in ESG ratings and the call for uniformity may inhibit innovation, but these issues can be addressed by increased transparency of the rating methods.

Further research is required to understand what level and, combination of, uniformity and transparency is sufficient to satisfy stakeholder requirements for ESG information.

The discussion of the factors underlying the ethics performance rating may prompt more open and transparent debate on how to assess ethical performance of companies, and increase investor confidence in ESG ratings. It may also provide more direction to companies on how to strengthen their ethical performance.

There is growing recognition that numerous business drivers contribute to financial performance and investment returns but they are not included in a company's profit and loss statements. These “ESG” factors can account for up to 66 percent of the market value of globally listed companies. In response to calls for more transparency on how ESG factors are assessed, and how ethical performance is appraised, this paper attempts to lift the veil on ESG rating methods.

The authors investigate the implications of environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices of firms for the pricing of their credit default swaps (CDS). In doing so, the authors compare European and US firms and consider nonlinear and indirect effects. This complements the previous literature focusing on linear and direct effects using bond yields and credit ratings of US firms.

For this purpose, the authors apply fixed effects regressions on a comprehensive panel data set of US and European firms. Further, nonlinear and indirect effects are investigated utilizing quantile regressions and a path analysis.

The evidence indicates that higher ESG ratings mitigate credit risks of US and European firms from 2007 to 2019. The risk mitigation effect is U-shaped across ESG quantiles, which is consistent with opposing effects of growing stakeholder influence capacity and diminishing marginal returns on ESG investments. The authors further reveal a mediating indirect volatility channel that substantially amplifies the direct effect of ESG on credit risk. A one-standard-deviation improvement in ESG ratings is estimated to reduce CDS spreads of low, medium and high ESG firms by approximately 4%, 8% and 3%, respectively.

This is the first study to examine whether credit markets reflect regional differences between Europe and the US with regard to the ESG-CDS-relationship. In addition, this paper contributes to the existing literature by investigating differences in the response of CDS spreads across ESG quantiles and to study potential indirect channels connecting ESG and CDS spreads using structural credit risk variables.