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

This paper explores the relationship between environmental, social and governance (ESG) information and systemic risk, an increasingly important issue for both regulators and investors. While ESG ratings are widely used to assess a company’s non-financial performance, the impact of these factors on financial stability and systemic risk is still under debate. By extending the Forecast Error Variance Decomposition (FEVD) method with a double regularization on both the underlying vector autoregressive (VAR) parameters and the covariance matrix of the VAR residuals, we are able to address the curse of dimensionality within each estimation. This allows us to examine how vulnerable a company is and how much systemic impact a company has given its specific ESG. Looking at a larger sample of European stocks over the period 2007-2022, we empirically show that both the best and worst ESG performers have the largest impact on the financial system in normal times. However, during a crisis, companies with the best ESG ratings generate significant spillovers throughout the system. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating ESG factors into systemic risk assessments and monitoring companies’ ESG performance to ensure financial stability. Policymakers can benefit from this research by supporting investment in high ESG companies to mitigate relevant spillovers during stressed market conditions, when such companies are more interconnected

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

By analyzing a sample of US and European listed banks over the years 2015–2022, we investigate the relationship between greenwashing behavior and systemic risk. We use a measure of greenwashing that considers the consistency of what banks disclose with what they actually do to address ESG-related issues. We find that engaging in greenwashing practices contributes to undermining financial stability, with a rise in systemic risk which is exacerbated for less efficient and larger banks. Market seems to acknowledge a superior informative value to banks’ actual ESG performance, giving less importance to what they disclose. Finally, a better performance in each of the environmental, social and governance dimensions reduces systemic risk, but only a bank’s commitment in addressing environment-related issues seems to moderate the contribution of greenwashing to financial system fragility

We find strong evidence that measures of social responsibility contribute to increasing the resilience of banks. This finding holds when social responsibility is measured by aggregated ESG scores provided by Thomson Reuters, both according to their older Asset 4 categorization and to the reformed ESG Refinitiv classification, and resilience is proxied by various measures of systemic and systematic risk. The results hold on the level of subcategories of the ESG pillars, where we find that, particularly, variables related to the long-term perspective enhance resilience. Moreover, in our international study, we find significant transatlantic differences

This study analyzes the evolution of climate-risk discourse in banking using 4,887 news articles (2008–2024) collected from ProQuest. We apply Natural Language Processing and add two novel layers: (i) an event-alignment analysis that links coverage dynamics to dated policy and supervisory milestones, and (ii) a discourse-network analysis connecting banks and regulators. We document a marked post-2020 shift, with ESG emerging as the dominant framing (7,860 mentions) alongside persistent geographic asymmetries (U.S.-led coverage) and uneven sectoral engagement (Risk Management highest salience; Fintech lowest). Sentiment skews positive (≈4,000 positive vs. ≈1,500 negative), and topic modeling identifies eight stable thematic clusters spanning operations, ratings, ESG assessment, disclosures, and market instruments. Event alignment shows media attention is typically anticipatory (median peak two months before an anchor), with COP26 producing a sustained level shift (+100% within a ±6-month window) and the Bank of England’s CBES results generating the largest single spike (210 articles), whereas some 2022 rule-making announcements (e.g., SEC climate-disclosure proposal) exhibit sharper but less durable attention. The discourse network centers on two regulatory hubs (the Federal Reserve and the ECB) with key banks (e.g., Citigroup, JPMorgan, UBS) bridging into supervisory narratives. Collectively, the findings show climate risk becoming embedded in core banking practice while revealing structural, regional, and functional asymmetries that matter for policy design and implementation. • Provides the first longitudinal NLP-based analysis of climate risk discourse in the banking sector • Reveals how climate risk integration in banking has evolved across regulatory, operational, and market dimensions • Identifies distinct thematic domains shaping climate risk narratives in banking over time • Shows that climate risk discourse is predominantly anticipatory around major policy and supervisory milestones • Maps the institutional structure of climate risk governance by linking banks and regulators within a discourse network

How do banks react to firms’ climate risks? Using almost 80,000 global syndicated loans originated from 2001 to 2021, we study bank lending to fossil fuel firms vis-à-vis other firms. We find that loans to fossil fuel firms are at least 7 % more costly compared to other firms, and even more so toward the end of our sample. However, loan amounts to fossil fuel firms are approximately 22 % larger, implying heavy financing of brown activities. We show that the pricing effects are even stronger for banks with higher reliance on ESG considerations, consistent with the shifts driven by the supply side (bank behaviour). Overall, our findings corroborate the view that banks price in climate risks but continue to heavily lend to polluting firms in the medium term (with an average maturity of four and one quarter years