I examine how mandatory ESG disclosure regulations transmit to unregulated firms through ESG rating agencies’ peer benchmarking. Using the United Kingdom’s 2017 gender pay gap (GPG) disclosure mandate with its expected positive rating consequences for regulated U.K. firms, I show that unregulated firms with similar Refinitiv ESG ratings are significantly more likely to voluntarily disclose GPG information after the mandate. The effect is more pronounced when peers are defined by ESG rating similarity rather than market capitalization and is not driven by industry affiliation alone. Consistent with ESG ratings creating competitive pressures, spillovers are strongest when U.K. peers were initially lower ranked and when unregulated firms can report relatively better GPG performance. Further analyses show that these spillovers extend to other social disclosures and generalize to the European Union’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive. Overall, the paper highlights how ESG rating structures extend the reach of disclosure regulations beyond their formal scope. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

This paper examines the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm investment. The analysis characterizes the optimal precision of ESG disclosure that channels investors’ tastes for ESG into firm investment. Although it is tempting to think that the optimal ESG disclosure becomes more precise when investors care more about ESG, I show this intuition is incomplete because it overlooks the fact that stronger tastes for ESG change how investors use information. Applying the analysis to a large economy, I show that mandating more precise climate disclosure than would be voluntarily provided motivates self-interested firms to act on common interests in reducing emissions. That is, a regulator can leverage market forces and a disclosure mandate to achieve a similar result as a Pigovian tax in motivating firms to internalize the externalities created by their climate-related investments

Despite the rising use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings, there is substantial disagreement across rating agencies regarding what rating to give to individual firms. As what drives this disagreement is unclear, we examine whether a firm's ESG disclosure helps explain some of this disagreement. We predict and find that greater ESG disclosure actually leads to greater ESG rating disagreement. These findings hold using firm fixed effects and using a difference-in-differences design with mandatory ESG disclosure shocks. We also find that raters disagree more about ESG outcome metrics than input metrics (policies), and that disclosure appears to amplify disagreement more for outcomes. Last, we examine consequences of ESG disagreement and find that greater ESG disagreement is associated with higher return volatility, larger absolute price movements, and a lower likelihood of issuing external financing. Overall, our findings highlight that ESG disclosure generally exacerbates ESG rating disagreement rather than resolves it. Data Availability: The data used in this study are publicly available from the sources cited in the text

This study examines the determinants and consequences of broker in-house ESG research. Using manually collected brokerage ESG research data, we find that the provision of in-house ESG research is positively related to both demand-side factors (client demand, internal demand, and local ESG awareness) and supply-side factors (broker size and coverage of sustainable industries). Regarding the consequences of such research, we find that in-house ESG research is associated with improved earnings forecast accuracy in industries where ESG is more salient. Further, the market reaction to earnings forecast revisions is stronger when equity analysts have access to in-house ESG research. Finally, we observe a consistent pattern suggesting that ESG analysts support equity analysts beyond forecast accuracy, as equity analysts with access to in-house ESG research issue more accurate target prices, more informative recommendation upgrades for ESG-heavy industries, and discuss ESG issues more extensively in their analyst reports. Data Availability Statement: The data used in this study are obtained from publicly available sources identified in the paper, as well as job posting data licensed from Lightcast. Sample construction procedures are described in the paper. Researchers interested in the job posting data should contact Lightcast directly, as access is subject to licensing restrictions

We compare the ESG ratings of MSCI, a global rater, with those of SINO, a local Chinese rater, to evaluate their effectiveness in capturing ESG risks within the Chinese context. Using ESG issues revealed in negative incidents as a proxy for ESG risk, we find that the ratings from the two raters often diverge, with SINO generally outperforming MSCI in predicting ESG risks in China. This divergence is more pronounced for firms with extensive ESG disclosures and when there are significant differences in how the raters define and measure ESG issues. Distance-based information asymmetry does not appear to play a significant role in explaining the performance gap. The advantage of local raters likely stems from their flexibility in tailoring methodologies to reflect country-specific nuances. In contrast, global raters adopt consistent methodologies to meet investor demand for comparability, but this approach may inadvertently reduce their relevance for capturing localized ESG risks. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the text

Using SASB’s materiality framework, prior research finds alpha for the portfolio of firms with improving ratings on material ESG issues. We replicate this finding and provide a fundamentals-based perspective on why the materiality portfolio outperforms. Our basic premise is that changes in material ESG issues reflect fundamental firm characteristics. More financially established firms—firms with larger size, lower growth, and higher profitability relative to their sector—are more likely to not only create material strengths but also resolve material weaknesses in their ESG scoring. This fundamental link dictates that one should comprehensively control for fundamental determinants of stock returns before attributing portfolio outperformance to improving material ESG scores. Indeed, we find that the materiality portfolio does not generate alpha after we account for its exposure to profitability and growth factors. Our evidence underscores the issue of correlated omitted fundamental factors in the debate of ESG alpha. Data Availability: Data are available from the sources cited in the text

I first distinguish the terms economic growth, economic development, and sustainable development. I then discuss the term ESG and why this term is used with respect to the corporation. I follow with a discussion of the shareholder primacy perspective and how this perspective plays a defining role in corporate law, corporate governance, and asset management. I argue that the shareholder primacy perspective is not appropriate for sustainability reporting because when a firm pollutes the environment, reduces biodiversity, or has inequitable social policies, it does not bear the full cost of its action; society and the planet does. Therefore, providing sustainability disclosures that are relevant to investors misses the point that sustainability disclosures are motivated by the desire of other stakeholders to learn about externalities. I discuss the different standard setters in the sustainability space and how accounting and measurement play key roles. I close with a discussion of research opportunities. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources indicated in the text

We describe the development of public company auditing in the U.S. in the early 20th century to gain perspective on current developments in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) assurance. Using a broad sample of historical annual reports spanning four decades, we document three facts: first, the spread of public company auditing occurred steadily over the span of several decades. Second, audit services were initially heterogeneous but became standardized through the audit profession’s efforts and interactions with private and public actors. Third, the role of regulation in those early developments was seemingly limited to codifying existing practices, as the first federal audit regulation was introduced only late in the development of the profession and did not significantly impact capital markets. Our historical evidence helps us understand how we arrived at today’s widely accepted and highly regulated financial audits. It uncovers parallels to and offers lessons for current developments in ESG assurance. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

The world of capital markets is constantly evolving, driven by technological advancements and changing global economies, presenting challenges for accounting practitioners. Amid current dynamic capital markets, this paper proposes a pathway for generating innovative accounting research that addresses practitioners’ needs by focusing on three critical financial reporting areas: contingent claim securities, sustainability/ESG metrics, and cryptocurrencies/digital assets. Secondly, to address the complex research challenges before us, I propose that we, as accounting scholars, embrace educational changes that may enhance the early research career success of our doctoral students and junior scholars, given that the accounting industry is on the brink of a profound technological transformation. Finally, I urge us to foster academic change by leveraging our strengths within and across disciplines to meet the accounting challenges and opportunities ahead