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

We develop a continuous-time model in which an ESG investor hires a manager to run a project and incentivizes the manager to fulfill ESG responsibilities. The manager’s private efforts and ESG investing determine the project’s cash flow and ESG performance subject to random shocks. We derive the optimal contract and its implementation after introducing carbon credits following the cap-and-trade program in practice. We provide comparative static analysis and empirical implications. The results demonstrate that ESG investing enhances contract efficiency. The more significant the carbon emission reduction, or the less the cost of ESG investing, the higher the contract efficiency, the average q, the marginal q, and the optimal investment–capital ratios, implying that ESG investing mitigates inefficiencies arising from information asymmetry and enhances investment values. Our model predictions are partially verified by empirical facts

This paper offers the first systematic evidence on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures provided by a large global sample of private equity (PE) firms. Using historical websites from 2000 to 2022, we develop and validate a novel dictionary‐based measure of voluntary PE firm ESG disclosures. Descriptive statistics reveal an increasing time trend in these disclosures, with social topics becoming as important as environmental topics recently. Multivariate analyses show that the demand for ESG information from fund investors is a significant determinant of PE firms’ ESG disclosures. Leveraging data on PE firms’ portfolio companies, we document that more PE firm ESG disclosures are associated with better ESG outcomes at the portfolio company level, suggesting that voluntary ESG disclosures align with real actions for the average PE firm

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 examine whether firms' ESG performance is influenced by bondholder preferences. We argue that insurance companies have unique incentives to monitor bond issuers' ESG performance because insurers face enhanced exposures to ESG shocks in their balance sheets and trading operations. Consistent with this argument, we find that firms with higher bond ownership by insurance companies are associated with higher future ESG ratings. To address potential identification concerns, we test changes in bond issuers' ESG ratings following the initial bond investment by insurance companies. We find that firms' ESG performance improves after insurance companies' initial bond investment. We also find that this improvement in ESG performance is concentrated in firms with greater reliance on bond financing and investment capital from insurance companies. Our study underscores the importance of bond ownership structure in influencing corporate ESG performance

This paper explores how banks’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) activities affect their lending during financial crises. We use a sample of European listed banks with available ESG scores from 2002 to 2020 and consider the global financial crisis of 2007–2009 and the European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–2012. We estimate a two-step system GMM dynamic panel data model and also address potential endogeneity with instrumental variable (IV) and difference-in-difference (DiD) estimations. We find that lending falls to a lesser extent for banks with higher ESG scores during crisis times. Our findings are robust to using alternative ESG rating providers. An investigation of the different potential channels shows that, during crises, banks more engaged in ESG activities are less affected in terms of credit risk, asset risk, and profitability. They also face a lower reduction in market funding, allowing them to downsize to a lesser extent during crises, and their deposit rates do not increase as much as in less ESG-engaged banks. A deeper investigation reveals that our findings mainly hold for banks focused on traditional lending and deposit activities and are essentially driven by the environmental pillar component of ESG scores and the global financial crisis of 2007–2009

An important debate exists around the extent to which retail investors make sustainable investments and, if they do, why. We contribute to this debate by investigating the aggregate trading patterns of retail investors around a comprehensive sample of key environmental, social, and governance (ESG) news events for U.S. firms. We show that ESG news events appear to be an important factor in retail investors’ portfolio allocation decisions. Yet, inconsistent with arguments about retail investors’ nonpecuniary preferences, our evidence shows that retail investors mainly trade on this information when they deem it financially material to a company’s stock performance. We also find their net trading demand predicts abnormal returns in the subsample of financially material events, consistent with retail traders benefiting from incorporating ESG-related information into their decision-making when it influences firm value. Overall we conclude that the average U.S. retail investor cares about firms’ ESG activities but primarily to the extent these activities matter for company financial performance

This study finds that credit default swap (CDS) trading positively affects a firm's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. This effect is more prominent in ESG strengths than ESG concerns. The proposed empirical connection remains valid across endogeneity-controlling methodologies, model specifications, and ESG performance measures. The effect is stronger for firms with stronger bank relationships, higher debt dependence, and more restrictive covenants. Furthermore, improvement in ESG performance is more pronounced for firms with more free cash flow, lower institutional ownership, and higher financial constraints. Our findings reveal the real effects of CDS trading on firm ESG performance

We compile a novel data set on mandatory environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure around the world to analyze the stock liquidity effects of such disclosure mandates. We document a positive effect of ESG disclosure mandates on firm‐level stock liquidity. The effects are strongest if the disclosure requirements are implemented by government institutions, not on a comply‐or‐explain basis, and coupled with strong enforcement by informal institutions. Firms with weaker information environments benefit more from ESG disclosure mandates. Our results support the view that ESG disclosure regulation improves the information environment and has beneficial capital market effects

We provide the first evidence that conflicts of interest arising from commercial ties lead to bias in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings. Using the acquisitions of Vigeo Eiris and RobecoSAM by Moody's and S&P as shocks to the commercial ties between ESG rating agencies and their rated firms, we show that, after their acquisitions by the credit rating agencies (CRAs), ESG rating agencies issue higher ratings to existing paying clients of the CRAs. This effect is greater for firms that have more intensive business relationships with the CRAs, but weaker for firms with more transparent ESG disclosures or higher long‐term institutional ownership. The upwardly biased ESG ratings help client firms issue more green bonds and enable the CRAs to maintain credit rating business. Finally, the upwardly biased ESG ratings are less informative of future ESG news. Overall, the business incentives of rating providers appear to engender ESG rating bias