Executive compensation is increasingly being linked to ESG outcomes. This paper examines whether ESG targets are consistent with shareholder welfare. Using granular information on compensation contracts of Swedish CEOs, we show that ESG and financial targets are competing. ESG-linked compensation is 5 percentage points more common in well-governed firms and 6.3 percentage points more likely for CEOs with broader skill sets (generalist CEOs). ESG scores of well-governed firms improve when generalist CEOs have ESG-linked pay, but there is no effect on profitability. These results suggest that boards set ESG contracts because shareholders derive utility from ESG in addition to wealth, and ESG may not be produced without these incentives

We provide the first large-sample evidence on third-party verification of firms’ environmental and social metrics in ESG reports (ESG assurance) in the United States. Focusing on the S&P 500 from 2010–2020, we document a striking increase in not only the number of firms with ESG assurance—in 2020 (2010), 76% (38%) of the S&P 500 had an ESG report and 46% (16%) involved assurance—but also the number of metrics assured. Unlike financial audits, ESG assurance varies widely in form and substance, including the choice of metrics assured, the level of assurance, and assuror identity. We show that firms’ decision to obtain ESG assurance is primarily driven by their adoption of ESG reporting frameworks and peer effects, with firm characteristics documented in prior literature playing only a minor role. Assurance is associated with improvements in ESG disclosure, ESG ratings, and the number of institutional investors holding the firm’s stock

Firms increasingly borrow via sustainability-linked loans (SLLs), contractually tying spreads to their ESG performance. SLLs vary widely in transparency of disclosure regarding sustainability-related contract details and tend to be issued to borrowers with superior ESG profiles. While high-transparency SLL borrowers maintain this performance, low-transparency SLL borrowers exhibit significantly deteriorating ESG performance after issuance. Both high- and low-transparency borrowers pay substantial fees to obtain SLLs. The results are consistent with high-transparency borrowers using SLLs to “certify” their preexisting ESG commitments, but low-transparency borrowers “greenwashing” with empty SLL labels. Evidence on drawdowns, renegotiations, and stock market reactions further supports these interpretations

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 study investigates the imbalance of ESG investing across its environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) pillars. We find that E plays a more significant role in influencing the imbalance level, and mutual funds prioritize mitigating E risks over S and G risks, which is more pronounced in funds with higher sustainability ratings. Moreover, our findings indicate that investors respond to ESG imbalance, with the level of imbalance showing a negative impact on fund flows, especially for funds with higher sustainability ratings. However, this negative relationship is mitigated as climate change concerns increase. Furthermore, we find that political ideology plays a role in the ESG imbalance, with the imbalance of funds in blue states being more driven by lower environmental considerations compared to those in red states. Additionally, we observe that the ESG imbalance is positively associated with various fund risks. Our study offers implications for policymakers and stakeholders in the asset management industry regarding ESG investing practices

This paper analyzes the asset pricing and portfolio implications of an important barrier to sustainable investing: uncertainty about the corporate ESG profile. In equilibrium, the market premium increases and demand for stocks declines under ESG uncertainty. In addition, the CAPM alpha and effective beta both rise with ESG uncertainty and the negative ESG-alpha relation weakens. Employing the standard deviation of ESG ratings from six major providers as a proxy for ESG uncertainty, we provide supporting evidence for the model predictions. Our findings help reconcile the mixed evidence on the cross-sectional ESG-alpha relation and suggest that ESG uncertainty affects the risk-return trade-off, social impact, and economic welfare

This paper examines how increased competition among environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating agencies relates to ESG rating quality. We exploit the entry of Sustainalytics as a new ESG rating agency in 2010. We conduct a difference‐in‐differences analysis and provide three main findings. First, we find that higher competition decreases incumbents' ESG rating disagreements of the same scope. The negative relation between competition and ESG rating disagreement persists for same‐scope rating metrics not covered by Sustainalytics, suggesting that neither learning nor herding drive the results. The relationship between competition and rating disagreement strengthens for firms with more ESG disclosures, which generally require more effort to analyze. Second, we find that incumbents' ratings of ESG concerns are more strongly associated with future negative ESG news for firms additionally covered by Sustainalytics. This finding is consistent with competition improving ratings' ability to predict future negative ESG incidents. Third, we find that incumbents evaluate more difficult‐to‐measure outcome metrics for firms covered by Sustainalytics, consistent with competition inducing more effort. Overall, our findings suggest that competition serves as an implicit disciplining mechanism of ESG rating agencies' quality

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

Investment funds that claim to focus on socially responsible stocks have proliferated in recent times. In this paper, we verify whether ESG mutual funds actually invest in firms that have stakeholder-friendly track records. Using a comprehensive sample of self-labelled ESG mutual funds (as identified by Morningstar) in the United States from 2010 to 2018, we find that these funds hold portfolio firms with worse track records for compliance with labor and environmental laws, relative to portfolio firms held by non-ESG funds managed by the same financial institutions in the same years. Relative to other funds offered by the same asset managers in the same years, ESG funds hold stocks that are more likely to voluntarily disclose carbon emissions performance but also stocks with higher carbon emissions per unit of revenue. Despite these findings, ESG funds hold portfolio firms with higher average ESG scores. We show that ESG scores are correlated with the quantity of voluntary ESG-related disclosures but not with firms’ compliance records or actual levels of carbon emissions. Finally, ESG funds appear to underperform financially relative to other funds within the same asset manager and year, and to charge higher fees. Our findings suggest that socially responsible funds do not appear to follow through on proclamations of concerns for stakeholders

Financial analysts closely follow a firm’s operations and assess the risks that it faces. In this paper, we examine whether analysts incorporate ESG risks into their stock recommendations and target prices. Specifically, we use a unique firm-day level dataset on negative ESG risk incidents to proxy for unobservable risk assessments of analysts. We find that analyst outputs predict future ESG incidents, suggesting that analysts incorporate ESG risks into their models. Our results are robust to controlling for ESG incidents that firms experienced in the past, and are stronger in more transparent information environments, and in the presence of more guidance on ESG issues from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. Importantly, we find that analysts incorporate ESG risks through adjusting discount rates rather than cash flow estimates. Overall, our results highlight the ability of financial analysts to synthesize and integrate ESG risks into their research