Explore the vast range of titles available.

Companies are under increasing pressure to manage their reputation on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Auditors are a potential source of ESG risk management expertise and assurance due to a deep understanding of their client’s ESG-related reputation risk (“ESG risk”) and their assurance reporting expertise. However, provision of nonaudit services by the external auditor is controversial and public accountants are still defining their role in ESG risk control and reporting. We explore whether auditors help companies manage heightened ESG risk in times of reputation crisis, using abnormal negative ESG-related media coverage as a measure of “tainted reputation.” Findings show a positive association between tainted reputation and nonaudit services and between the interaction of tainted reputation and nonaudit services with future firm value. The positive interaction persists when we consider a proxy for other ESG risk management activities in our analyses and for other measures of ESG risk management effectiveness (future stock returns and future tainted reputation). Subsample analyses indicate that results are driven by companies audited by ESG industry specialist auditors, that the association between tainted reputation and nonaudit services is driven by companies owned by institutional shareholders, and that inferences from our results may not hold when ESG risk is dominated by its social component. Using restatements as a proxy, we find no evidence to suggest that the interaction of tainted reputation and nonaudit services is associated with impaired audit quality. Findings demonstrate an empirical linkage between tainted reputation and nonaudit services that is positively associated with future firm value measures.

Purpose Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores are becoming increasingly relevant in academic literature and the corporate world. This is partly because the themes covered by ESG scores are intended to resolve multiple major social and environmental issues. However, there is little consensus among academics about the definition of ESG scores and their measures. Many scholars have used ESG scores to represent various issues. The purpose of this study is to gather all definitions that were used by scholar when using ESG scores in their research. Design/methodology/approach This systematic literature review aims to identify how ESG scores are presented in the academic literature. A total of 4,145 articles were identified, of which 342 articles from influential peer-reviewed journals were retained. Findings In the articles, five different thematic definitions emerged in terms of how scholars have used ESG scores in their research: sustainability, corporate social responsibility, disclosure, finance and the analysis of ESG scores. Although some definitions are consistent with the methodologies of the agencies that produce ESG scores, others raise further questions. Caution is required when using ESG scores as a metric. They represent financial adjusted risk-return for some and are used to express business sustainability for others. Research limitations/implications Only top-ranked journals were analyzed. In addition, only the key terms “ESG Score” and “ESG Scores” were used to gather all research papers. Practical implications Researchers could improve the accuracy of their results by developing specific methodologies that are closely related to the issues intended to be measured. The underlying variables composing the ESG scores could be used instead of the final score for more accurate environmental or social issues measurements. Originality/value This research shows that scholars use ESG scores to represent multiple issues that are not always captured by ESG scores’ official methodologies. ESG scores can express the overall performance of environmental and social issues, but they cannot be used to track specific underlying issues.

The multidisciplinary nature of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee reflects the commitment as well as the expectations and demands of diverse stakeholders. So far, CSR committees have been mainly considered as variables of control in larger corporate governance models and independent variables that determine CSR or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure and its reporting quality. However, the effect on corporate performance has been biased to financial performance, so the potential of the analysis of the effect it may have on different facets of non-financial performance has not been exploited. Which it should, since it can be a fundamental tool to achieve sustainability. The objective of this contribution is to test whether companies with a CSR committee not only leads to higher economic scores, but also to higher ESG (environmental, social, governance) scores. To do this, we used regression panel data models in 197 listed firms in Spain, France, Germany, and the UK during the period 2005–2015 including the perspective of European organizations and completing the extant studies in US-based samples. Our results showed that 90% of companies in the sample had a CSR committee in 2014, and that those companies had significantly different ESG scores than those without a CSR committee. Having a CSR committee also triggered better non-financial performance when considering the four scores and the four countries independently (except for the economic scores in Spain). These results have great implications for practitioners, reflecting the importance of promoting these tools in an organization to enhance non-financial performance and sustainability.

Digital transformation (DT) is a long-term strategy for economic sustainability, particularly for manufacturing-oriented economies. This study proposes a digital ESG (DESG) theoretical framework to investigate how DT empowers ESG performance in the manufacturing industry. Using Python, we collected data from Chinese manufacturing firms from 2009 to 2020. This study used the ordinary least squares method to examine the relationships among DT, ESG performance, and manufacturing ESG heterogeneity. The results suggest that big companies and growing firms pay more attention to their ESG performance than others and that state-owned enterprises are keen on ESG performance but underperform. Additionally, DT may contribute to manufacturing ESG performance in general; labor-intensive and non-state-owned enterprises benefit more from DT than their counterparts; and manufacturers in economically developed regions show more significant ESG performance thanks to DT. These findings support the use of a DESG theoretical framework in the manufacturing industry whereby digital technologies facilitate business production and improve the business profits of manufacturing firms, so that manufacturers have sufficient profits to conduct ESG investments for sustainable development in a virtuous cycle. JEL Classification: O32, O44, Q56

We investigate whether environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings predict future ESG news and the associated market reactions. We find that the consensus rating predicts future news, but its predictive ability diminishes for firms with large disagreement between raters. The relation between news and market reaction is moderated by the consensus rating. In the presence of high disagreement between raters, the relation between news and market reactions weakens, while the rating with the most predictive power predicts future stock returns. Overall, while rating disagreement hinders the incorporation of value-relevant ESG news into prices, ratings predict future news and proxy for market expectations of future news.

Existing global ESG models are limited in terms of applicability and predictability, especially in countries with an unstable environment. On the other hand, utilizing internally made or privately sourced ESG models have caused issues relating to generalizability, comparability, and continuity. In our research, we present an ESG framework that is specific to South Korea, which has both global and country-specific factors in all three categories. The AHP model is used to determine how the three categories' materiality would be viewed by institutional investors as well as how country-specific factors rank against global factors. The results of this study show that institutional investors place more importance on environmental and governance factors compared to social factors. Factors including shareholders' rights, pollution and waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and risk and opportunity management are found to have greater influences on investors' investment decisions. In addition, it was confirmed that both of the country-specific variables for South Korea, partnership with subcontractor and CEO reputation, have a significant influence on investment decisions. By having the ESG model validated by institutional investors, who are the main users of ESG disclosures of corporations, our methodology of presenting a country-specific model can be benchmarked by studies on other emerging markets with a variety of country-level specificities.

One of the main controversial aspects of sustainability metrics relies on the accuracy, transparency, and reliability of the information at the basis of environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores. This paper investigates whether firms that have their ESG reporting audited by independent firms exhibit a higher quality of ESG scores. We performed an analysis investigating the change in ESG scores following the unveiling of a corporate misconduct. We documented that, overall, no significant ESG score adjustment occurs after the scandal becomes public, thus, implying that rating agencies provide an accurate interpretation of the firm’s sustainability. However, our results differed when we distinguished between audited and unaudited reports. Firms whose reports are audited by third parties did not exhibit significant changes in their scores after a scandal, whereas for companies whose reports are not audited, we detected a worsening of the ESG scores that are statistically significant. Our findings were also confirmed in a multivariate analysis. Overall, our results suggest that the reliability of ESG scores can benefit from the auditing of sustainability reporting by third parties, which has an assurance effect on the quality of the company’s ESG information.

The purpose of this article is to examine comprehensively the issues of information and methodological support for the ESG assessment of companies as a tool for responsible investment, to identify the prerequisites for the development of approaches to ESG assessment, and to identify areas for improving the quality of ESG assessment in order to make investment decisions that are comprehensively justified, ESG-conscious, and strategically valuable. The research examines the prerequisites for enhancing the quality of the ESG assessment, with a focus on the lack of information and methodological support for the analysis of sustainable development, and identifies the principal means for its enhancement. This article argues that the most important factor in guaranteeing the high quality of the ESG assessment is to increase the transparency, validity, and objectivity of methodological approaches to the ESG assessment, as well as the utilization of reliable tools for assessing uncertainty and sensitivity. The author proposes a method for a comprehensive evaluation of a company's sustainable development, utilizing modern digital technologies for the analytical processing of ESG data.

We investigate whether superior performance on corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies leads to better access to finance. We hypothesize that better access to finance can be attributed to (1) reduced agency costs due to enhanced stakeholder engagement and (2) reduced informational asymmetry due to increased transparency. Using a large cross-section of firms, we find that firms with better CSR performance face significantly lower capital constraints. We provide evidence that both better stakeholder engagement and transparency around CSR performance are important in reducing capital constraints. The results are further confirmed using several alternative measures of capital constraints, a paired analysis based on a ratings shock to CSR performance, an instrumental variables approach, and a simulataneous equations approach. Finally, we show that the relation is driven by both the social and environmental dimension of CSR.

There have been growing calls from capital market participants, regulators and other stakeholders around the globe for transparent measurement and disclosure of information about financially material environmental, social and governance (ESG) Risks. Diverse approaches to and objectives of sustainability standards and frameworks pose the threat of increasing greenwashing, a term which encompasses a wide range of actions which exaggerate and misrepresent 'green' credentials . Traditional financial reporting is regulated, mandatory, and required to meet the qualitative characteristics; relevance, reliability, comparability, materiality and understand ability. However, ESG reporting is problematic due to reporting quality which does not meet the above criteria. Apart from that ESG reporting is not regulated in most part of the world. A global framework is needed to prevent fragmentation, provide greater comparability, transparency and reduce the complexity of ESG disclosure which could mitigate the risk of greenwashing as the ESG is increasingly considered to be a fundamental part of effective and sustainable business performance.3