I examine how mandatory ESG disclosure regulations transmit to unregulated firms through ESG rating agencies’ peer benchmarking. Using the United Kingdom’s 2017 gender pay gap (GPG) disclosure mandate with its expected positive rating consequences for regulated U.K. firms, I show that unregulated firms with similar Refinitiv ESG ratings are significantly more likely to voluntarily disclose GPG information after the mandate. The effect is more pronounced when peers are defined by ESG rating similarity rather than market capitalization and is not driven by industry affiliation alone. Consistent with ESG ratings creating competitive pressures, spillovers are strongest when U.K. peers were initially lower ranked and when unregulated firms can report relatively better GPG performance. Further analyses show that these spillovers extend to other social disclosures and generalize to the European Union’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive. Overall, the paper highlights how ESG rating structures extend the reach of disclosure regulations beyond their formal scope. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds have heterogeneous incentives to engage with portfolio firms. If funds view ESG as a value driver, then these incentives will affect funds’ behavior and thus their impact on firms. We compare ESG funds with similar levels of ESG investments but different incentives to engage. Funds with higher incentives to engage, that is, committed ESG funds, conduct more ESG-related information acquisition, pursue longer term investment strategies, engage more intensely on ESG issues, and have greater real impacts. Moreover, committed ESG funds have outperformed other ESG funds within subportfolios with higher and more effective ESG engagement

We examine whether and, if so, how retail consumers change their shopping in response to firm‐specific negative environmental, social, and governance (ESG) news. Using an event study methodology, we do not find significant changes in consumer foot traffic in response to negative ESG news, on average. However, the average consumer reacts negatively when such news is covered by national or global media outlets, which elevates consumer awareness. In addition, we provide evidence of the heterogeneity in responses to negative ESG news across consumer groups. Consumers in more ESG‐conscious counties, as measured by county ESG preferences, income, education, and political ideology, reduce store visits in response to negative ESG news. In contrast, consumers in the least ESG‐conscious counties increase their visits in response to negative ESG news. These opposing reactions explain the insignificant average consumer response to negative ESG news. Furthermore, the ESG‐conscious consumers' negative reaction is, at most, modest, dissipating within six weeks. Overall, our findings suggest that firms face divergent responses to ESG activities from different consumer groups, underscoring the divisive nature of ESG issues

We find that long‐term institutional investors tilt their portfolios toward firms with better Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) profiles, in the cross sections of both institutional investor portfolios and the ownership of firms. We test whether several theoretically motivated mechanisms can explain this relationship. Our results that long‐term investors exhibit patience with firms around poor earnings announcements, but quickly sell portfolio firms after negative ES incidents, support the view that long‐ and short‐term investors evaluate information differently. Our evidence shows that limits‐to‐arbitrage play a role, as we find that investors' ESG tilt weakens following regulatory shocks that shorten their horizon

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Growing discussions of impact investing and stakeholder capitalism have increased interest in measuring companies' social impact. We conceptualize corporate social impact as the welfare loss that would be caused by a firm's exit. To illustrate, we quantify the social impacts of 74 firms in 12 industries using a new survey measuring consumer and worker substitution patterns combined with models of product and labor markets. We find that consumer surplus is the primary component of social impact, suggesting that consumer impacts deserve more attention from impact investors. Existing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and social impact ratings are essentially unrelated to our economically grounded measures