We provide the most comprehensive analysis to date of the relation between ESG ratings and stock returns, using 16,000+ stocks in 48 countries and seven different ESG rating providers. We find very little evidence that ESG ratings are related to global stock returns between 2001 and 2020. This finding obtains across different regions, time periods, ESG (sub)ratings, ESG momentum, ESG downgrades and upgrades, and best-in-class strategies. We further find little empirical support for prominent hypotheses from the literature on the role of ESG uncertainty and of country-level ESG social norms, ESG disclosure standards, and ESG regulations in shaping the relation between ESG and global stock returns. Overall, our results suggest that ESG investing did not systematically affect investment performance during the past two decades

We examine how sovereign rating downgrades affect firms' environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, leveraging the sovereign “ceiling” rule as a quasi-natural experiment that generates exogenous variation in corporate credit ratings. Under this rule, firms originally rated at or above the sovereign rating (bound firms) face a higher likelihood of downgrade following a sovereign downgrade. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) setting, we find that bound firms experience a decline in ESG performance following a sovereign downgrade. This decline occurs only after the downgrade, not before, validating the parallel trends assumption. Our analysis further indicates that this effect is not driven by financing frictions and is concentrated in countries with a shareholder-centric orientation, and among firms with low institutional ownership from countries with strong social norms. Additional evidence suggests that affected firms experience an increase in ESG-related incidents, damaging their reputation post-downgrade. Overall, our findings underscore the crucial role of sovereign risk in shaping corporate sustainability practices

We investigate whether CEOs around the world are held accountable for stakeholder-related corporate misbehavior. The likelihood of CEO turnover increases significantly when the media coverage of the ESG incidents reaches extreme levels. CEO turnovers occur even in the cases where an incident does not lead to a stock price decline. In such cases, the board likely has a non-pecuniary motive for the turnover. This suggests that such non-pecuniary reputational concerns are an important determinant of CEO turnover decisions around the world, especially when the firm is facing intense public pressure due to stakeholder-related corporate misbehavior. This effect is more pronounced when firms are headquartered in stakeholder-oriented countries like many European countries

This paper examines the impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) rating on a firm’s debt structure. We find that optimal (market and book) leverage ratios and information asymmetry are reduced when firms become ESG rated. More importantly, ESG rated firms redistribute their financing sources from public debt (bonds issuing) to private debt (bank loans). These results are attributed to the incentive of ESG rated firms to avoid debt-overhang and underinvestment issues and to the fact that the ESG rating conveys valuable information to lenders leading to better access towards more internal sources of financing, such as bank loans over debt issuing. We further find that the substitution effect is more pronounced for firms with high financial pressure, low growth opportunities and specialized assets. Finally, these results remain valid under various robustness and endogeneity tests

This paper investigates whether and how business sustainability performance and disclosure factors affect stock price informativeness (SPI). We find that non-financial environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainability performance factors are positively associated with idiosyncratic volatility (our proxy for SPI) after controlling for financial-economic performance. We further show that the association between sustainability performance factors and SPI is stronger for firms with higher sustainability disclosure. We find that the association between ESG sustainability performance factors and SPI is stronger when economic performance is weaker, suggesting that investors tend to pay more attention to ESG performance factors when firms are financially underperforming. This study shows that investors pay attention to both firm economic performance (corporate profitability and growth prospect) and ESG sustainability performance and disclosure factors, which have implications for policymakers, regulators, investors, businesses, and researchers

Concerns about the sustainability of contemporary capitalism have inspired a search for organizational forms that are more concerned with solving environmental and social problems. We examine whether one such model – foundation ownership – where a non-profit foundation owns and controls business companies, is associated with better sustainability outcomes. We hypothesize that foundations prioritize environmental and social objectives over profit maximization, resulting in stronger ESG performance in the companies they own. Using data on listed foundation-owned companies over the period 2003–2020 matched with control groups by firm size and industry, we find that foundation-owned firms have higher environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, particularly in the environmental and social dimensions. They maintained ESG activities during the financial crisis and committed to more significant emission reductions in the post-Paris Agreement period. Collectively, our findings highlight the potential of purposeful ownership in promoting corporate sustainability

We show that political polarization among directors negatively affects corporate board effectiveness by reducing forced CEO turnover-performance sensitivity. Our results are more pronounced in presidential election years and for firms with more monitoring and advising needs. Polarization also increases the departure likelihood for directors who are ideologically distant from the rest of the board, making boards more politically homogeneous over time. Finally, we show that polarization in the boardroom lowers firms' investment- Q sensitivity and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance. Our findings highlight the real economic cost of political polarization

We examine disasters caused by individual firms with severe environmental impacts. These disasters trigger industry-wide demand for corporate social responsibility (CSR). We analyze whether affected firms respond by adopting substantive or symbolic CSR measures. We find that firms increase overall CSR performance through improvements in diversity and human rights rather than decreasing environmental concerns. This suggests firms prioritize symbolic CSR to legitimize their operations rather than substantive measures to mitigate environmental harm. We also document diverging costs and welfare effects. On average, substantive CSR actions are costlier and cause lower margins but avoid divestments by ESG-oriented funds while improving long-term credit ratings. Some of these benefits of substantive actions also accrue through symbolic actions at a lower cost

How do banks contribute to the green economy? Using a unique dataset detailing firms' revenue exposure to green business activities, we present new evidence that firms generating revenue from green products and services are associated with lower syndicated loan spreads. We find that the green revenue effects on loan spreads are attributable to firms' prospects tied to climate change-related opportunities and banks' environmental orientation. Foreign banks subject to mandatory environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure regulations reduce the loan spreads to green revenue firms. We also find suggestive evidence that firms with green revenue tend to file more green patents following loan origination. While banks typically perceive green innovation as riskier and demand higher loan spreads, this effect is offset if a firm also generates green revenue. Collectively, our results highlight the pivotal role that banks play in channeling financial resources toward green business practices

In this study, we explore the impact of the establishment of environmental courts, an environmental justice system, on the cost of equity capital. Based on a quasi-natural experiment of establishing environmental courts in China, we find that they have a deterrent effect and reduce the cost of equity capital for heavily polluting firms in localities. We also find that a low proportion of managerial ownership, a low level of analyst attention, and high environmental uncertainty induce this deterrent effect. Furthermore, mechanism tests indicate that environmental courts enhance corporate environmental engagement and corporate ESG ratings, increase long-term institutional investor ownership, and reduce urban environmental violations to achieve a deterrent effect. The findings are more pronounced for the trial court sample, firms in cities with lower public participation in environmental protection, and firms with lower environmental information transparency. We also suggest the impacts and underlying mechanisms of the environmental justice system on the equity capital market, which is conducive to long-term planning by firm managers