Explore the vast range of titles available.

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 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have created societal and political pressure for pension funds to address sustainable investing. We run two field surveys (n = 1,669, n = 3,186) with a pension fund that grants its members a real vote on its sustainable-investment policy. Two-thirds of participants are willing to expand the fund’s engagement with companies based on selected SDGs, even when they expect engagement to hurt financial performance. Support remains strong after the fund implements the choice. A key reason is participants’strong social preferences.

The concept of sustainable and responsible (SR) investments expresses that every investment should be based on the SR investor's code of ethics. To a large extent the allocation of SR investments to more sustainable companies and ethical practices is based on the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) scores provided by rating agencies. However, a thorough investigation of ESG scores is a neglected topic in the literature. This paper uses Thomson Reuters ASSET4 ESG ratings to analyze the influence of firm size, a company's available resources for providing ESG data, and the availability of a company's ESG data on the company's sustainability performance. We find a significant positive correlation between the stated variables, which can be explained by organizational legitimacy. The results raise the question of whether the way the ESG score measures corporate sustainability gives an advantage to larger firms with more resources while not providing SR investors with the information needed to make decisions based on their beliefs. Due to our results, SR investors and scholars should reopen the discussion about: what sustainability rating agencies measure with ESG scores, what exactly needs to be measured, and if the sustainable finance community can reach their self-imposed objectives with this measurement.

Research Summary: Research exploring investor reactions to sustainability has substantial empirical limitations, which we address with a large-scale longitudinal financial event study of the first global sustainability index, DJSI World. We examine investor reactions to firms from 27 countries over 17 years that are added, deleted, or continue on the index. We find that once relevant controls and comparisons to observationally equivalent firms beyond the index are included, DJSI events have only limited significance and/or materiality. Nonetheless, investors' valuation of sustainability around the world has evolved over time, involving diminishing reactions to U.S. firms and increasing benefits, particularly of continuation on the index, over time. The study highlights the importance of careful analysis and longitudinal global samples in making inferences about the financial effects of social performance. Managerial Summary: The debate about how investors perceive corporate social responsibility (CSR) predates Milton Friedman's famous statement that the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits. Although extensive research has studied whether sustainability contributes to financial performance, we have yet to understand whether investors believe it pays off. This financial event study of reactions to the addition, continuation, and deletion from DJSI World, the first global sustainability index, shows that investors care little about DJSI announcements. Nonetheless, there is some evidence that global assessments of sustainability are converging and that investors may increasingly be valuing continuation on the DJSI, suggesting that firms may gain at least limited benefits from reliable sustainability activities.

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.

To understand why investors hold socially responsible mutual funds, we link administrative data to survey responses and behavior in incentivized experiments. We find that both social preferences and social signaling explain socially responsible investment (SRI) decisions. Financial motives play less of a role. Socially responsible investors in our sample expect to earn lower returns on SRI funds than on conventional funds and pay higher management fees. This suggests that investors are willing to forgo financial performance in order to invest in accordance with their social preferences.

Using newly available materiality classifications of sustainability topics, we develop a novel dataset by hand-mapping sustainability investments classified as material for each industry into firm-specific sustainability ratings. This allows us to present new evidence on the value implications of sustainability investments. Using both calendar-time portfolio stock return regressions and firm-level panel regressions, we find that firms with good ratings on material sustainability issues significantly outperform firms with poor ratings on these issues. In contrast, firms with good ratings on immaterial sustainability issues do not significantly outperform firms with poor ratings on the same issues. These results are confirmed when we analyze future changes in accounting performance. The results have implications for asset managers who have committed to the integration of sustainability factors in their capital allocation decisions.

While a growing number of firms are being evaluated on environment, social and governance (ESG) criteria by sustainability rating agencies (SRAs), comparatively little is known about companies' responses. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with companies operating in Italy, the present paper seeks to narrow this gap in current understanding by examining how firms react to ESG ratings, and the factors influencing their response. Unique to the literature, we show that firms may react very differently to being rated, with our analysis yielding a fourfold typology of corporate responses. The typology captures conformity and resistance to ratings across two dimensions of firm behaviour. We furthermore show that corporate responses depend on managers' beliefs regarding the material benefits of adjusting to and scoring well on ESG ratings and their alignment with corporate strategy. In doing so, we challenge the idea that organisational ratings homogenise organisations and draw attention to the agency underlying corporate responses. Our findings also contribute to debates about the impact of ESG ratings, calling into question claims about their positive influence on companies' sustainability performance. We conclude by discussing the wider empirical, theoretical and ethical implications of our paper.

Using a sample of 21,030 US firm-year observations that represents more than 3000 individual firms over the 1998-2012 period, we investigate the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and investment efficiency. We provide strong and robust evidence that high CSR involvement decreases investment inefficiency and consequently increases investment efficiency. This result is consistent with our expectations that high CSR firms enjoy low information asymmetry and high stakeholder solidarity (stakeholder theory). Moreover, our findings suggest that CSR components that are directly related to firms' primary stakeholders (e.g. employee relations, product characteristics, environment, and diversity) are more relevant in reducing investment inefficiency compared with those related to secondary stakeholders (e.g. human rights and community involvement). Finally, additional results show that the effect of CSR on investment efficiency is more pronounced during the subprime crisis. Taken together, our results highlight the important role that CSR plays in shaping firms' investment behaviour and efficiency.

Environmental protection is widely perceived as a state responsibility, but market-based solutions such as green investing have emerged in the financial sector. Little research has addressed whether green investing can affect corporate environmental performance and how the state would moderate such an impact. Using an institutional logics perspective, we extend the literature on institutional complexity by exploring the factors leading to compatibility of logics and practices. We theorize that the success of green investing as a novel hybrid practice combining financial means and environmental goals depends on the legitimacy it achieves as an appropriate solution to the stated goal, and this legitimacy can be boosted or dampened by other hybrid practices in the field. Analyzing a panel dataset of 3,706 firms from 20 countries between 2002 and 2013, we find a positive relationship between the relative size of green investment in the economy and firm-level environmental performance in that country. This relationship is moderated by state policies: a strong environmental protection policy weakens the positive relationship between green investing and corporate environmental performance, and a strong shareholder protection policy strengthens the relationship. We contribute to research on institutional complexity, logic compatibility, and public–private cooperation in pursuing the common good.