Using a sample of 3083 firms from 62 countries over 18 years, we analyze how the structure and identity of firms' material owners influence their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance. We find that firms with founding families or other individual investors as owners underperform, unless family members serve as CEOs, when they outperform all others. Non-family management and government entities also perform significantly better in most analyses. These results are robust to multiple data and methodological stress tests. Our findings show that ownership matters for ESG performance and give us an indication of the preferences of different types of owners regarding ESG

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 compare the ESG ratings of MSCI, a global rater, with those of SINO, a local Chinese rater, to evaluate their effectiveness in capturing ESG risks within the Chinese context. Using ESG issues revealed in negative incidents as a proxy for ESG risk, we find that the ratings from the two raters often diverge, with SINO generally outperforming MSCI in predicting ESG risks in China. This divergence is more pronounced for firms with extensive ESG disclosures and when there are significant differences in how the raters define and measure ESG issues. Distance-based information asymmetry does not appear to play a significant role in explaining the performance gap. The advantage of local raters likely stems from their flexibility in tailoring methodologies to reflect country-specific nuances. In contrast, global raters adopt consistent methodologies to meet investor demand for comparability, but this approach may inadvertently reduce their relevance for capturing localized ESG risks. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the text

This paper examines the impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm investment. The analysis characterizes the optimal precision of ESG disclosure that channels investors’ tastes for ESG into firm investment. Although it is tempting to think that the optimal ESG disclosure becomes more precise when investors care more about ESG, I show this intuition is incomplete because it overlooks the fact that stronger tastes for ESG change how investors use information. Applying the analysis to a large economy, I show that mandating more precise climate disclosure than would be voluntarily provided motivates self-interested firms to act on common interests in reducing emissions. That is, a regulator can leverage market forces and a disclosure mandate to achieve a similar result as a Pigovian tax in motivating firms to internalize the externalities created by their climate-related investments

We investigate the expected consequences of negative environmental, social, and governance (ESG) news on firms' future profits. After learning about negative ESG news, analysts significantly downgrade their forecasts at short and longer horizons. Negative ESG news affects forecasts more strongly at longer horizons than other types of negative corporate news. The negative revisions of earnings forecasts following negative ESG news largely reflect expectations of lower future sales, rather than higher future costs. Quantitatively, forecast revisions can explain most of the negative impacts of ESG news on firm value. Analysts are correct to revise forecasts downward following negative ESG news

We collect a novel dataset on images in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports using deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI), to test hypotheses arising from experimental literature that visual impression management enhances audience perception. We further combine AI and manual methods to contrast images that lack information content (“generic images” evoking broad ESG themes) against images with information content (“specific images” depicting firm-specific ESG activities). We hypothesize and find that firms (1) operating in socially problematic industries (e.g., “sinful”, polluting, or controversial industries), (2) issuing less extensive textual ESG disclosures, and (3) experiencing poor ESG performance tend to use more images, especially generic images, consistent with strategic motivations. We then examine the impact of image usage on stakeholders, observing unduly enhanced perception in retail traders but seldom in institutional investors. We observe that ESG award committees reward specific images and penalize generic images. Our results show that ESG report visual impression management affects stakeholders in the real world, though its impact can be overcome by attention and expertise

We reexamine the impact of hedge fund activism on corporate social performance as measured by ESG ratings. Using a high-quality dataset on hedge fund activism, we find that the impact of hedge fund activism on ESG ratings is neither statistically nor economically significant. In our preferred model, relative to control firms, the ESG ratings of target firms increase by 0.033, about 1.6 % of the sample standard deviation, following activist interventions. In addition, we find no evidence that stock market reactions to the announcement of activist interventions are significantly higher for firms with high ESG ratings, inconsistent with the view that hedge fund activism harms corporate social performance to benefit shareholders

Consumers are increasingly conscientious of societal and environmental impacts of their purchases, prompting companies to make environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims and engage in voluntary ESG assurance. However, prior literature lacks insight into whether consumers consider negative accounting news events (e.g., error/irregularity restatements) and their effects on purchasing intentions. Using real world consumers of sustainable goods, we investigate how varying levels of negative accounting news events (i.e., error or irregularity restatements), the presence of ESG product-quality assurance (e.g., cage free egg certification), and the type of assurance provider (e.g., an accounting firm that also audits the financial statements, an accounting firm that does not audit the financial statements, government agency) influence purchasing intentions and organizational legitimacy perceptions. We find that consumers surrogate negative accounting news events as indicators of ESG claim reliability, negatively impacting purchasing intentions, especially for more severe events (e.g., irregularity). However, ESG product-quality assurance partially mitigates these negative effects. Moreover, we find that when an error restatement occurs, the mitigating effect is less pronounced when the same firm provides both financial statement and ESG product-quality assurance compared to a governmental agency or non-financial statement auditor. Finally, when irregularities occur, though product-quality assurance partially mitigates the detrimental effects, there is no difference between assurance providers, likely because management's willingness to deceive auditors decreases the perceived reliability of assurance in general. Our results suggest boards should obtain ESG product-quality assurance and carefully select their assurance providers

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 describe the development of public company auditing in the U.S. in the early 20th century to gain perspective on current developments in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) assurance. Using a broad sample of historical annual reports spanning four decades, we document three facts: first, the spread of public company auditing occurred steadily over the span of several decades. Second, audit services were initially heterogeneous but became standardized through the audit profession’s efforts and interactions with private and public actors. Third, the role of regulation in those early developments was seemingly limited to codifying existing practices, as the first federal audit regulation was introduced only late in the development of the profession and did not significantly impact capital markets. Our historical evidence helps us understand how we arrived at today’s widely accepted and highly regulated financial audits. It uncovers parallels to and offers lessons for current developments in ESG assurance. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text