We provide the first large-sample evidence on third-party verification of firms’ environmental and social metrics in ESG reports (ESG assurance) in the United States. Focusing on the S&P 500 from 2010–2020, we document a striking increase in not only the number of firms with ESG assurance—in 2020 (2010), 76% (38%) of the S&P 500 had an ESG report and 46% (16%) involved assurance—but also the number of metrics assured. Unlike financial audits, ESG assurance varies widely in form and substance, including the choice of metrics assured, the level of assurance, and assuror identity. We show that firms’ decision to obtain ESG assurance is primarily driven by their adoption of ESG reporting frameworks and peer effects, with firm characteristics documented in prior literature playing only a minor role. Assurance is associated with improvements in ESG disclosure, ESG ratings, and the number of institutional investors holding the firm’s stock

Firms increasingly borrow via sustainability-linked loans (SLLs), contractually tying spreads to their ESG performance. SLLs vary widely in transparency of disclosure regarding sustainability-related contract details and tend to be issued to borrowers with superior ESG profiles. While high-transparency SLL borrowers maintain this performance, low-transparency SLL borrowers exhibit significantly deteriorating ESG performance after issuance. Both high- and low-transparency borrowers pay substantial fees to obtain SLLs. The results are consistent with high-transparency borrowers using SLLs to “certify” their preexisting ESG commitments, but low-transparency borrowers “greenwashing” with empty SLL labels. Evidence on drawdowns, renegotiations, and stock market reactions further supports these interpretations

This study investigates the imbalance of ESG investing across its environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) pillars. We find that E plays a more significant role in influencing the imbalance level, and mutual funds prioritize mitigating E risks over S and G risks, which is more pronounced in funds with higher sustainability ratings. Moreover, our findings indicate that investors respond to ESG imbalance, with the level of imbalance showing a negative impact on fund flows, especially for funds with higher sustainability ratings. However, this negative relationship is mitigated as climate change concerns increase. Furthermore, we find that political ideology plays a role in the ESG imbalance, with the imbalance of funds in blue states being more driven by lower environmental considerations compared to those in red states. Additionally, we observe that the ESG imbalance is positively associated with various fund risks. Our study offers implications for policymakers and stakeholders in the asset management industry regarding ESG investing practices

This paper examines how increased competition among environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating agencies relates to ESG rating quality. We exploit the entry of Sustainalytics as a new ESG rating agency in 2010. We conduct a difference‐in‐differences analysis and provide three main findings. First, we find that higher competition decreases incumbents' ESG rating disagreements of the same scope. The negative relation between competition and ESG rating disagreement persists for same‐scope rating metrics not covered by Sustainalytics, suggesting that neither learning nor herding drive the results. The relationship between competition and rating disagreement strengthens for firms with more ESG disclosures, which generally require more effort to analyze. Second, we find that incumbents' ratings of ESG concerns are more strongly associated with future negative ESG news for firms additionally covered by Sustainalytics. This finding is consistent with competition improving ratings' ability to predict future negative ESG incidents. Third, we find that incumbents evaluate more difficult‐to‐measure outcome metrics for firms covered by Sustainalytics, consistent with competition inducing more effort. Overall, our findings suggest that competition serves as an implicit disciplining mechanism of ESG rating agencies' quality

This study examines the effects of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on bond return volatility. After controlling for bond characteristics and firm fundamentals, we find a robust positive relationship between ESG performance and bond return volatility. The empirical results demonstrate that the impact on bond return volatility is primarily driven by ESG strengths rather than concerns. The results are robust to alternative measures, sample periods, and endogeneity controls. Furthermore, the effect of ESG performance is more pronounced for firms with opportunistic managers and poor information environments

Financial analysts closely follow a firm’s operations and assess the risks that it faces. In this paper, we examine whether analysts incorporate ESG risks into their stock recommendations and target prices. Specifically, we use a unique firm-day level dataset on negative ESG risk incidents to proxy for unobservable risk assessments of analysts. We find that analyst outputs predict future ESG incidents, suggesting that analysts incorporate ESG risks into their models. Our results are robust to controlling for ESG incidents that firms experienced in the past, and are stronger in more transparent information environments, and in the presence of more guidance on ESG issues from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. Importantly, we find that analysts incorporate ESG risks through adjusting discount rates rather than cash flow estimates. Overall, our results highlight the ability of financial analysts to synthesize and integrate ESG risks into their research

This paper examines whether capital structure is irrelevant for enterprise value and investment when investors care about environmental, social, and governance issues, which we refer to as “ESG-Modigliani-Miller” (ESG-MM). Theoretically, we show that ESG-MM holds with linear pricing and additive ESG. ESG-MM means that issuing low-yielding green bonds does not lower the overall cost of capital because it makes the issuer’s other securities browner. Hence, a firm’s incentive to make a green investment does not depend on its financing choice. We provide suggestive evidence of failure of ESG-MM, implying that firms and governments can exploit inconsistent ESG attribution or segmented markets

In this study, we examine whether environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds' investment decisions are sensitive to the existence and extent of firms' voluntary environmental disclosures. We create our measures of voluntary environmental disclosure using bigrams extracted from the Global Reporting Initiative standards. We provide robust evidence that voluntary environmental disclosure in conference calls is associated with greater ESG fund ownership in the subsequent period, incremental to firms' ESG ratings. We also provide evidence that fund managers' reliance on environmental disclosure is concentrated in water, waste, emissions, and compliance disclosures. ESG fund ownership increases with environmental disclosure that is more positive and specific. Our primary finding persists both when we rely on the sustainability report as an alternative proxy for environmental disclosure and when we use fund‐level tests. Overall, our evidence is consistent with ESG funds relying on firms' disclosures when making investing decisions and inconsistent with recent regulatory concerns that ESG fund managers are not following through on their stated investing strategies

We study the equilibrium effects of the “S” dimension of ESG under imperfect competition. ESG policies are pledges made by firms that constrain managers to treat their stakeholders better than market conditions alone dictate. Moderate policies limit market power and prompt managers to be more competitive; aggressive polices backfire, both for adopting firms and intended beneficiaries. In contrast to the “shareholder primacy” paradigm, competition in ESG policies under the “stakeholder capitalism” paradigm is a panacea for market power, delivering the first-best outcome in equilibrium. We discuss drivers behind the recent rise in ESG, ESG-linked compensation, and disclosure practices

Using a novel measure that captures negative ESG incidents at both listed and private suppliers, we provide large-scale evidence on the value implications of supply chain ESG. We find that firms with fewer supply chain ESG incidents exhibit higher future accounting performance and that this effect is stronger in the presence of more conscious customers and vulnerable supply chains. We also find that firms with robust supply chain ESG exhibit higher future stock returns and that this effect is more pronounced when information frictions are higher, which suggests that it takes time for the market to understand the value implications of supply chain ESG. Overall, we highlight the benefits of managing supply chain ESG and the decision usefulness of the related information