In August 2019, the Business Roundtable, one of the most recognizable lobbyist groups of the business community, issued the “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.” Signatures, 181 in total and mostly from CEOs of Corporate America, backed the one-page declaration that concludes with the following: “Each of our stakeholders is essential. We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country” (Business Roundtable 2019). In his annual letter to shareholders in 2020, Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, reflects on the “fraying” of the “American dream” and on how banks and firms can work together to address an emerging economic scenario in which people and entire communities are being left behind. He argues that “successful businesses can literally and figuratively “drive by” our worst problems (think inner cities) and still thrive” (Dimon 2020). There is a strong argument to be made that firms and banks have a unique role to play in solving many of society’s challenges through skills training, community development, and infrastructure investments, among others. The above sentiments may sound reminiscent of “stakeholder capitalism,” the main criticism of which is that any corporate purpose other than maximizing shareholder value ends up producing lack of focus, agency conflicts and, possibly, corruption. CEOs may become self-appointed arbiters of social values leading to their own benefits disguised under some vague idea of corporate purpose. The countervailing argument made by Larry Fink (2019), CEO of BlackRock, is that “… in fact, profits and purpose are inextricably linked.” These were the themes and questions that the Editorial Board of the Review of Corporate Finance Studies discussed as we decided to make good on our commitment to continue with the idea of Registered Reports on a permanent, rather than ad hoc, basis. We started this initiative in 2021 on the theme of “Discrimination, Disparities, and Diversity in Finance.” We decided to continue this initiative with the theme of “Finance for the Greater Good” to reflect the wider debate taking place in society on the role of corporations and financial markets and whether, in fact, economic institutions are contributing to the problems or to the solutions. While we agree that these are big questions that go to the heart of the corporate finance and financial intermediation fields, we see a relative scarcity of papers on these important topics in finance journals. One reason could be that scholars think of this area as too risky a field to venture into. The topic may be politically charged or may not appeal to editors. With the choice of this theme for Registered Reports, we wanted to establish clearly that we believe that the topic is very important, and we were willing to contribute to inspire more research in this area. Through the Registered Reports initiative, we want to transfer some of the publication risk from authors to us as editors. The initiative is structured as a two-stage process. In the first stage, the editorial review team carefully reviews each proposal. Proposals that survive the first stage are then offered an in-principle acceptance for publication in the Review of Corporate Finance Studies before the final results are known, as long as authors work diligently on the comments made by the reviewers and write papers that meet high academic standards. We received thirty-three proposals that responded to our call on the theme of “Finance for the Greater Good.” We chose seven of them to continue to the second stage. The proposals were first presented and widely discussed during the 2022 RCFS Winter Conference. Over more than a year, each of these seven Reports morphed, after much work by the authors and the review team, into the impactful papers appearing in this volume. Our gratitude and appreciation go to the reviewers who worked so avidly and with deep commitment with the authors on this special issue. We hope that the success of this second initiative will encourage more academics to research such socially important themes. Human-induced climate change has become one of the most pressing concerns faced by humankind. The Biden Administration has listed climate change as a central issue for foreign policy, national security, and financial markets. The need to make significant economic changes to respond to and combat the devastating effects of climate change is fast becoming imperative, even though disagreement at the political level about the need for change persists. A less discussed theme strictly related to climate change is the challenge economies will face in transitioning to new energy sources as policies are introduced to reduce emissions and other harmful activities. For example, reaching the objective of “net zero” will entail significant costs, not only at the country level but also for firms and households. The natural question to ask is precisely regarding the costs and risks that will arise from the transition mechanisms put in place to change economic activities. The required transition is already generating real effects on economic mobility and access to financial services of affected communities, calling for policy interventions to minimize economic and social costs. Ding Du and Stephen A. Karolyi address this question, specifically how climate policies and technological innovation affect local communities, in the paper “Energy Transitions and Household Finance: Evidence from U.S. Coal Mining.” The authors focus on the coal mining industry, to investigate how local communities could be affected as energy sources move away from fossil fuels (Du and Karolyi 2022). This exercise could serve as a template to help us understand the impacts generated by energy transitions in the future. Several federal policies were introduced in 2011, when a nationwide shift in external factors affected coal production. The authors use these changes as the laboratory to investigate the economic outcomes in coal-producing communities. The paper finds evidence of economically significant and adverse effects of coal transition on households in communities that rely on coal mining as a major source of economic activity: employment, wages, migration, and mortgage applications in coal mining communities have been negatively affected by the shift away from coal. The authors find not only direct effects on coal industry employees but also spillover effects to other parts of communities outside the energy sector. These effects, beyond being important in and of themselves, help us understand the political challenge in obtaining citizens’ approval for environmentally conscious policies. An important headwind may be households’ lack of support given the heavy economic costs they may be burdened with. What can finance do to help find a solution? Access to finance should be one mechanism attenuating these negative effects; that is, financial resources will be required to lubricate the transition from coal mining to other activities, while minimizing social costs. The paper finds evidence confirming this hypothesis: employment and wage losses are found to be largest in those communities with low economic mobility and limited access to financial services. Finance providers, whether through equity or debt instruments, should be in a good position to scrutinize corporate investments with an eye on their environmental impact and nudge companies to change investment policies that are deleterious for the environment. There is no evidence so far that equity holders have any significant ability to change corporate policies through disinvestment. But what about banks that are the main source of debt financing for many firms? Banks should be in a stronger position than equity holders to affect firm policies, such as ESG investments, through their monitoring and ability to observe both soft and hard information. More specifically, to the extent that borrowers’ ESG-related risks have a spillover effect on firms’ credit standing, banks will have an incentive to monitor and thus influence firm decisions. The paper “Can Banks Save Mountains,” by David Haushalter, Joseph J. Henry, and Peter Iliev, investigates this question in the context of bank policies aimed at limiting, and sometimes eliminating, debt funding for so-called “mountaintop removal” (MTR) mining. MTR, that became widespread in the industry in the early 2000s, has attracted attention as an especially destructive form of mining with very significant, nefarious effects on the environment. Starting in 2008, banks lending to firms that carried out MTR mining began unilaterally adopting policies to curtail such lending. The authors use a difference-in-differences approach to examine the effect on lending to coal companies engaged in MTR activities, defined as those that control at least one MTR mine, arising from a bank decision to adopt policies to curtail such lending (Haushalter, Henry, and Iliev 2023). The main result is that there was no statistically significant change in banks’ lending behavior to MTR companies following the adoption of policies aimed at restricting such lending, whether one looks at bank loan counts, overall loan amounts, or MTR loans as a fraction of bank loans. The authors extend their analysis along several directions in terms of understanding which bank MTR policy may be the most effective to reduce lending. The authors find that, whether one looks at policies aimed at limiting loans to coal corporations with substantial MTR activity, policies that limit funding to specific MTR projects, or policies that should introduce enhanced diligence, the result is always the same: none of these policies leads to a reduction in lending to MTR borrowers. Overall, the evidence provided in this paper suggests a clear element of greenwashing in the case of banks unilaterally adopting policies that should limit lending to certain environmental-detrimental activities. One takeaway is that banks’ lending practices should be closely monitored to determine the true effectiveness of such policies. Central banks have been repeatedly brought into the debate mostly from the perspective of how climate change can influence financial stability. Perhaps the link between the two may be seen as tenuous. An often forgotten, but important dimension, is what central bankers can do to reach the goal of sustainable investing within the very large portfolios they hold. While the literature has looked at the potential impact of disinvestments from polluting sectors made by institutional investors, so far no research has been carried out on the effects of policy makers’ (in this case, central banks’) portfolio decisions. The importance of such a question is self-evident, considering the size of the equity holding in central banks’ portfolios and the message that can be sent to the investment community. If politicians want central bankers to intervene more with financial institutions to promote more climate-friendly lending policies, then citizens will also want to know what central bankers are doing in their own operational and portfolio decisions. From economic and policy points of views, this question presents interesting possibilities, as well as various challenges, given central bankers’ predicament in this field. Central bankers’ role as guardians of financial stability means that they will be held accountable if they do not internalize the citizens’ climate change concerns. This said, central banks do not (yet) have a climate- or ESG-centered mandate but rather monetary policy and financial stability mandates. Reconciling these two objectives is particularly difficult, especially when considering reputation risk. Rüdiger Fahlenbrach and Eric Jondeau address this question in the paper “Greening the Swiss National Bank's Portfolio.” The authors use the equity portfolio of the Swiss National Bank (SNB) as a laboratory to examine the various possibilities open to the SNB to reach a more climate-centered investment approach, and the limitations that central bankers face in carrying out this task (Fahlenbrach and Jondeau 2023). The paper, first, develops a framework for the different strategies that central bankers could follow to limit the exposure to activities that generate carbon emissions while maintaining existing policy mandates. The authors then proceed to quantify the impact of adopting a more carbon-conscious portfolio investment approach on the portfolio’s carbon footprint and performance. The paper shows that the best-in-class exclusion strategies are particularly suited for central banks to carry out environmental-friendly investment policies within the mandate given to central banks. The authors show that using a straightforward portfolio strategy would significantly decrease the SNB’s portfolio’s carbon footprint, without any significant impact on the portfolio’s performance, and with negligible costs. The strategy discussed and developed by the authors has several advantages, particularly it does not discriminate between economic sectors, keeps diversification in place, and limits the SNB to political pressure. One of financial technology’s (FinTech) promises is the “democratization” of the investment management industry, together with improvements in financial inclusion, and a more level playing field for investors. There is evidence that FinTech can reduce discrimination in mortgage markets, facilitate the calculation of credit scoring for opaque borrowers, and improve minority business owners’ access to financial products. This said, the ability of FinTech to deliver on the promise of a more level playing field also depends on investors’ degree of financial sophistication. Better data and more profitable trading strategies may arise from the abilities of more sophisticated investors using FinTech to its full extent but the same cannot be said for less sophisticated financial investors. In the paper “Fintech, Investor Sophistication and Financial Portfolio Choices,” Leonardo Gambacorta, Romina Gambacorta, and Roxana Mihet explore the question of how the interaction between advances in FinTech and investors’ sophistication levels are associated with the composition and performance of households’ financial portfolios. To do so, the authors use standard portfolio theory and test the hypotheses using novel micro-level Italian households’ data (the Bank of Italy’s Survey on Household Income and Wealth) over the period from 2004 to 2020 (Gambacorta, Gambacorta, and Mihet 2023). The heterogeneity across investors’ level of sophistication is proxied for by their financial literacy and access to FinTech. The paper’s empirical approach is to investigate realized rates of return and the portfolio composition of investors with different levels of financial literacy, while controlling for households’ risk aversion, age, gender, and access to remote banking, together with time and region fixed The main result the importance of investors’ financial sophistication for the full benefits of FinTech to be In fact, the between the portfolio composition of risky and the performance of sophisticated investors are found to with taking place in the FinTech sector. the advances we have over the two in FinTech could have and not portfolio return between sophisticated and less sophisticated investors. The takeaway from this result is that we need to think more about the in investors’ financial sophistication and address it through financial literacy, for FinTech to deliver on its the authors access to sources of financial and is not policy need to think about how households can access to financial technological advances and the of the households to they too can in the taking place in this field. The use of through and and away from given the many offered by This is the households for and especially in and monitoring costs associated with and the in financial markets and institutions by should help with the of entire economic in and, most a to financial these benefits are low financial literacy, financial and low levels of in financial institutions that significant challenges to the to help households move away from and into In the paper The of Financial in and contribute to our on the associated with the adoption of financial services across The paper a in decision by federal in to two of the largest in to investigate how a and to can affect households’ adoption of and 2023). The of the is important it to costs of without any change to the financial The authors find main important the and reduction in to a and on to after the policy the financial infrastructure is in households to move away from and into the sector. financial is the other a move away from thus confirming the importance of financial literacy in this These results can the policy debate taking place in many emerging regarding the use of the main policy for a of a strategy away from and a more widespread use of There are significant in households are more to in of and the or has about as much as the What can these and may have a role to But they can only go so far in these even within the same households are found to be as to in financial markets than are and households. One potential is the role of between financial and their local community. This idea is in to the about between and along the of gender, age, and found by the literature so and to follow financial For example, a Financial found that are to have an with of their own and In the paper in the for Financial and investigate the role of in the for financial and on The authors the challenge in this question and households are in the which are the households most to for investment and 2023). The authors use a data about of financial data on and at the local community The paper shows that the of and are significantly than their national across all confirming their in financial activities. and mostly exercise their in communities by and of with this the authors then investigate whether between local and the community they is with could generate and leading to This said, may to to negative The authors find no evidence that is associated with at the community thus that the results so far in the literature on gender, age, and and do not extend along the One reason for this result is that many minority households may not be to for a financial in the first The authors also find that is with the What are the policy especially those aimed at practices that are being introduced to minority in the financial to with The is the impact of on to be in to other factors community This is not to that to improve in the financial industry are not the regarding the impact of practices and be in place when considering the and that still that may have a much effect on minority households’ in markets. and have from being of importance to stage over the two whether ESG are management or and institutional investors to make firm management accountable has as The big question on how to firms’ ESG into One standard is to link with ESG in the same that is to other firm performance In fact, are in in leading to the following are or with This question is very much related to the debate on whether ESG investments contribute to firms maximizing profits well by doing or are of agency conflicts within the In the paper CEO and and investigate the between ESG and a between can improve financial and value ESG in to The authors use data on ESG in CEO not in the literature so by on in companies 2023). The evidence in the paper shows that still a of and ESG in firms are more in companies, with the that such are to be sources of agency concerns the of CEOs ESG in their is negatively associated with the financial in their The authors this evidence as that ESG with financial in with this the authors examine the interaction between and CEO and show that are more widely in the case of CEOs who have a In of the result that there is between ESG and financial the authors that may be in the case of CEOs who are more to reach such and less so the more the financial This result is by the authors to that ESG may not to but rather shareholders introduce ESG in to other than This result is important it us one to the question of what is to The is that ESG is a mechanism aimed at ESG even if such does not to financial performance. This is an interesting even though there are several challenges in such an to other the effect is on a of We in a in which in and financial markets is households are from social is and is the same we are business all over the their role in society and see potential in the ability of corporations and banks to contribute to the to the most pressing The papers in this of the Review of Corporate Finance Studies all to how corporations and banks can be a to improve and the limitations to their abilities as We hope that these papers help to new research on the important theme of “Finance for the Greater Good.”