We propose a theory in which each stock's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score plays two roles: (1) providing information about firm fundamentals and (2) affecting investor preferences. The solution to the investor's portfolio problem is characterized by an ESG-efficient frontier, showing the highest attainable Sharpe ratio for each ESG level. The corresponding portfolios satisfy four-fund separation. Equilibrium asset prices are determined by an ESG-adjusted capital asset pricing model, showing when ESG raises or lowers the required return. Combining several large data sets, we compute the empirical ESG-efficient frontier and show the costs and benefits of responsible investing. Finally, we test our theory's predictions using proxies for E (carbon emissions), S, G, and overall ESG

We study the association between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) government risk management and firm-level IPO underpricing between 2008 and 2018. Examining 7446 IPOs issued in 36 countries, we find that IPO underpricing tends to be lower in countries with higher ESG Government Ratings. When we uniquely examine the environmental, social, and governance pillars, we find that underpricing tends to be lower in countries with stronger risk management practices in each of these areas. Additional analysis indicates that the negative impact of ESG ratings on IPO underpricing is more pronounced in countries with more transparent financial disclosures, higher liability standards, and stronger shareholder protections

We consider a network of equity mutual funds characterized by different levels of compliance with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) aspects. We measure the impact of portfolio liquidation in a stress scenario on funds with different ESG ratings. Fire-sales spillover from portfolio liquidation propagates from one fund to another through indirect contagion mediated by common asset holdings. The analysis is conducted quarterly from March 2016 through June 2018 using daily data from different sources at the fund and firm levels. Our estimation strategy relies on a network analysis where funds are not taken as stand-alone entities but are interconnected components of a unified system. We find evidence that the relative market value loss of the High ESG ranked funds is lower than the loss experienced by the Low ESG ranked counterparts in the time span with lower volatility. In the higher-volatility period there is not always a clear dominance of one class over another. Results are robust when controlling for size and for feedback effects, and for different model specifications. Our analysis offers new insights to both asset managers and policymakers to exploit the aggregate effect of portfolio diversification related to the system as a whole

We review the financial economics-based research on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with an emphasis on corporate finance. In doing so we focus on the most debated and researched issues. Although a firm's ESG/CSR profile and activities are shown to be strongly related to the firm's market, leadership and owner characteristics as well its risk, performance and value, there still exist conflicting hypotheses and results that we show are not resolved, leading to continued questions and a need for more research

We model investing that considers environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. In equilibrium, green assets have low expected returns because investors enjoy holding them and because green assets hedge climate risk. Green assets nevertheless outperform when positive shocks hit the ESG factor, which captures shifts in customers’ tastes for green products and investors’ tastes for green holdings. The ESG factor and the market portfolio price assets in a two-factor model. The ESG investment industry is largest when investors’ ESG preferences differ most. Sustainable investing produces positive social impact by making firms greener and by shifting real investment toward green firms

This paper contributes to the literature by examining the impact of different forms of state ownership on corporate innovation and the moderating effects of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices, economic policy uncertainty (EPU), and corruption in this ownership–innovation nexus. Building on both agency theory and institutional theory, we identify and divide the ultimate controlling shareholders into three types: central government, local government, and private shareholders. This study draws on data from 2629 listed firms in China between 2007 and 2015. Our results suggest that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) controlled by the central government show the strongest innovation performance in all scenarios. In addition, private firms outperform local SOEs in terms of patent quantity in both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing sectors and in high-economic-development regions, whereas local SOEs outperform their private peers with respect to patent quality, mainly in the manufacturing sector and high-economic-development regions. Such an ownership–innovation nexus is then found to be more pronounced for firms engaging in more ESG practices, during periods of higher EPU, and when less corruption is present. These findings demonstrate the value of diversity in state capitalism in guiding SOEs' heterogeneous innovation activities in emerging economies

Institutional investors expect infrastructure to deliver long-term stable returns but gain exposure to infrastructure predominantly through finite-horizon closed private funds. The cash flows delivered by infrastructure funds display similar volatility and cyclicality as other private equity investments, and their performance similarly depends on quick deal exits. Despite weak risk-adjusted performance and failure to match the supposed characteristics of infrastructure assets, closed funds have received more commitments over time, particularly from public investors. Public institutional investors perform worse than private institutional investors. ESG preferences and regulations explain 25%–40% of their increased allocation to infrastructure and 30% of their underperformance

This paper examines the role of the “Big Three” (i.e., BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors) on the reduction of corporate carbon emissions around the world. Using novel data on engagements of the Big Three with individual firms, we find evidence that the Big Three focus their engagement effort on large firms with high CO2 emissions in which these investors hold a significant stake. Consistent with this engagement influence being effective, we observe a strong and robust negative association between Big Three ownership and subsequent carbon emissions among MSCI index constituents, a pattern that becomes stronger in the later years of the sample period as the three institutions publicly commit to tackle Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues