In recent years, firms have increasingly come under scrutiny from environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating agencies which systematically assess and publicize ESG-related information to diverse stakeholders. This study aims to investigate whether firms exhibit a heightened incentive to avoid ESG-related regulatory violations once they come under the coverage of ESG rating agencies. Analyzing data spanning from 2000 to 2018 and considering the coverage provided by four prominent ESG rating agencies to U.S. firms, we leverage the staggered initiation and intensity of this coverage. Our findings reveal a negative correlation between ESG violations and the commencement and extent of coverage by ESG rating agencies. This relationship is particularly pronounced for firms characterized by lower levels of corporate monitoring as indicated by fewer analysts providing coverage, limited media attention, weaker ESG commitments, and less disparate ESG ratings. Taken together, our study sheds light on the monitoring role of ESG rating agencies, illustrating their significance in incentivizing managers to mitigate ESG violations.

This paper investigates whether investors can earn higher profits by holding cryptocurrencies with higher downside risk. Both portfolio-level analyses and cryptocurrency-level cross-sectional regressions suggest a positive cross-sectional relation between downside risk and future returns in the cryptocurrency market. In addition to the risk-return tradeoff theory, the limits-to-arbitrage theory also has some explanatory power for these results. Moreover, we examine the source of downside risk premium, the existence of upside risk premium, as well as the intertemporal relation between downside risk and future returns. Collectively, our findings highlight the important role of downside risk in determining cryptocurrency prices.