Abstract We show that US firms increase their sustainability performance when their directors acquire expertise through their exposure to sustainability reforms in foreign countries where they serve as directors. Our results suggest that a board that gains sustainability expertise increases a firm’s overall sustainability performance by 7.1%. The increase in sustainability comes both from improvements in environmental and social practices. Directors also consider the tradeoffs between sustainability improvements and firm characteristics, with boards having a stronger impact on sustainability in firms from clean industries and firms that face fewer operational and financial constraints.

Using a sample of non-U.S. firms from 43 countries, we investigate whether laws and regulations as well as votes cast by U.S. institutional investors are consistent with an effective shareholder voting process. We find that laws and regulations allow for meaningful votes to be cast, as shareholder voting is both mandatory and binding for important elections. For votes cast, we find there is greater dissent voting when investors fear expropriation. Further, greater dissent voting is associated with higher director turnover and more M&A withdrawals. Our results suggest that shareholder voting is an effective mechanism for exercising governance around the world.

We study the transfer of governance across countries through overlapping international boards. Companies converge to the governance characteristics and board practices of foreign firms through their directors' foreign board experiences. Learning from foreign firms' governance practices is as important as learning from connected domestic firms, and increases with the number of directors with foreign board appointments. This learning channel is stronger for firms domiciled in less-developed governance markets, suggesting a potential mechanism through which better governance practices are propagated. Our results are obtained in the time series and do not exist in placebo samples.

ABSTRACT We study the economic consequences of a recent Securities and Exchange Commission securities regulation change that grants foreign firms trading on the U.S. over‐the‐counter (OTC) market an automatic exemption from the reporting requirements of the 1934 Securities Act. We document that the number of voluntary (sponsored) OTC cross‐listings did not increase following the regulation change, suggesting that it did not achieve its intended purpose of increasing voluntary OTC cross‐listings through a reduction in compliance costs. We do find that the design of the regulation allowed financial intermediaries to create an unprecedented number of involuntary (unsponsored) OTC ADRs: 1,700 unsponsored ADR programs for 920 firms were created for companies that had previously chosen not to cross‐list in the United States. Our difference‐in‐differences analysis based on a matched sample approach documents that foreign firms forced into the U.S. capital markets experience a significant decrease in firm value, and we further show that the decrease in firm value is related to an increase in U.S. litigation risk. We also find that depositary banks’ propensity to involuntarily cross‐list firms is positively related to banks’ expected fee revenue, and that banks chose firms that incur high costs when involuntarily cross‐listed. Our results provide evidence that securities regulation can be exploited for private gain and result in costly unintended consequences.

We examine the impact of country-level political rights on the cost of debt for corporate bonds issued by firms incorporated in 39 countries. Similar to, but separate from, the relation for creditor rights, greater political rights are associated with lower yield spreads. A one standard deviation increase in political rights is associated with an 18.6% decline in bond spreads. We find evidence that political and legal institutions are substitutes; marginal improvements in political rights produce greater reductions in the cost of debt for firms from countries with weaker creditor rights. We examine potential factors through which political rights may affect the cost of debt and find that greater freedom of the press provides an important channel for reducing bond risks. Moreover, debt of firms with cross-listed equity trades at a premium in U.S. markets, but this relation appears to be more consistent with improved visibility than with bonding effects.

Using a sample of non-U.S. firms from 43 countries, we investigate whether laws and regulations as well as votes cast by U.S. institutional investors are consistent with an effective shareholder voting process. We find that laws and regulations allow for meaningful votes to be cast, as shareholder voting is both mandatory and binding for important elections. For votes cast, we find there is greater dissent voting when investors fear expropriation. Further, greater dissent voting is associated with higher director turnover and more M&A withdrawals. Our results suggest that shareholder voting is an effective mechanism for exercising governance around the world.

ABSTRACT During the revelation of the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the reemergence of the #MeToo movement, firms with a nonsexist corporate culture, proxied by having women among the five highest‐paid executives, earn excess returns of 1.3% relative to firms without female top executives. These returns are driven by changes in investor preferences toward firms with a nonsexist culture. Institutional ownership increases in firms with a nonsexist culture after the Weinstein/#MeToo events, particularly for investors with larger holdings and investors with a lower ESG focus ex ante. Firms without female top executives improve gender diversity after these events, particularly in more sexist states and in industries with few women executives. Our evidence attests to the value of having a nonsexist corporate culture and indicates that changes in societal norms toward women are permeating into capital markets and corporations.

This paper assesses whether shareholders drive the environmental and social (E&S) performance of firms worldwide. Across 41 countries, institutional ownership is positively associated with E&S performance with additional tests suggesting this relation is causal. Institutions are motivated by both financial and social returns. Investors increase firms’ E&S performance following shocks that reveal financial benefits to E&S improvements. In cross section, investors increase firms’ E&S performance when they come from countries with a strong community belief in the importance of E&S issues, but not otherwise. As such, these institutional investors transplant their social norms regarding E&S issues around the world.

ABSTRACT We conjecture that board renewal mechanisms—those substantive enough to renew the thinking of the board—are required before investors can address the mismatch between their preferences regarding environmental sustainability and what insiders at firms are actually doing. We identify the adoption of majority voting for directors and the introduction of a female director as two corporate governance mechanisms potentially strong enough to renew a board's thinking on sustainability. Using a sample of 3,293 firms from 41 countries, along with quasi‐exogenous shocks to board renewal mechanisms in Canada and France, we find that both board renewal mechanisms are associated with significantly higher future environmental performance. Further tests provide suggestive evidence that board renewal is more strongly associated with environmental performance in settings with better institutions and more motivated institutional investors. These results suggest the importance of board renewal for alignment of firm policies with investor preferences around the world.