Institutional Investors and ESG Preferences

IF 4.6 3区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Corporate Governance-An International Review Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1111/corg.12583

Florencio Lopez‐de‐Silanes, Joseph A. McCahery, Paul C. Pudschedl

{"title":"Institutional Investors and ESG Preferences","authors":"Florencio Lopez‐de‐Silanes, Joseph A. McCahery, Paul C. Pudschedl","doi":"10.1111/corg.12583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research Question/IssueWe examine the effect of multiple environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores on institutional investor ownership of firms and investor portfolio weightings. We are also the first to analyze the three individual components of ESG rankings to estimate the relative preferences of institutional investors.Research Findings/InsightsUsing a unique panel dataset covering US companies and institutional investor portfolios over the 2010–2019 period, we find that while investors are driven to add high‐quality ESG companies to their portfolios, there is a negative relationship with ESG when it comes to taking large ownership stakes. Furthermore, ESG scores are negatively related to the portfolio weightings of institutional investors, which raises concerns of greenwashing. Our analysis of individual ESG scores points to significantly larger effects of G scores in terms of holdings, and G is the only score with no negative impact on portfolio weightings. Finally, in support of systematic stewardship theory, top institutional investors allocate higher proportions of their portfolios to firms with high‐ESG ratings. Our results are robust to the use of a difference‐in‐differences analysis addressing endogeneity concerns.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThe findings in this paper offer important policy implications for institutional investors, managers, and policymakers. Given the ongoing debate on ESG scores, this paper shows the importance of examining greenwashing for investors who have a concern regarding the extent to which the valuation of assets might be influenced by unsupported sustainability claims. In addition, our study adds to the debate regarding ESG investing and stewardship theory.","PeriodicalId":48209,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12583","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Question/IssueWe examine the effect of multiple environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores on institutional investor ownership of firms and investor portfolio weightings. We are also the first to analyze the three individual components of ESG rankings to estimate the relative preferences of institutional investors.Research Findings/InsightsUsing a unique panel dataset covering US companies and institutional investor portfolios over the 2010–2019 period, we find that while investors are driven to add high‐quality ESG companies to their portfolios, there is a negative relationship with ESG when it comes to taking large ownership stakes. Furthermore, ESG scores are negatively related to the portfolio weightings of institutional investors, which raises concerns of greenwashing. Our analysis of individual ESG scores points to significantly larger effects of G scores in terms of holdings, and G is the only score with no negative impact on portfolio weightings. Finally, in support of systematic stewardship theory, top institutional investors allocate higher proportions of their portfolios to firms with high‐ESG ratings. Our results are robust to the use of a difference‐in‐differences analysis addressing endogeneity concerns.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsThe findings in this paper offer important policy implications for institutional investors, managers, and policymakers. Given the ongoing debate on ESG scores, this paper shows the importance of examining greenwashing for investors who have a concern regarding the extent to which the valuation of assets might be influenced by unsupported sustainability claims. In addition, our study adds to the debate regarding ESG investing and stewardship theory.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机构投资者和 ESG 偏好

研究问题/议题我们研究了环境、社会和治理（ESG）多项评分对机构投资者的公司所有权和投资者投资组合权重的影响。我们还首次分析了 ESG 排名的三个单独组成部分，以估算机构投资者的相对偏好。研究结果/见解利用 2010-2019 年期间涵盖美国公司和机构投资者投资组合的独特面板数据集，我们发现，虽然投资者会将高质量的 ESG 公司纳入其投资组合，但在持有大量所有权股份方面，ESG 与投资者存在负相关关系。此外，环境、社会和公司治理得分与机构投资者的投资组合权重呈负相关，这引发了对 "绿色清洗 "的担忧。我们对单个 ESG 分数的分析表明，G 分数对持股量的影响更大，而 G 分数是唯一对投资组合权重没有负面影响的分数。最后，为支持系统管理理论，顶级机构投资者将其投资组合的更高比例分配给了ESG评级高的公司。本文的研究结果为机构投资者、管理者和政策制定者提供了重要的政策启示。鉴于目前关于环境、社会和公司治理评分的争论，本文表明了研究 "洗绿 "对投资者的重要性，因为投资者担心资产估值可能会受到无据可持续发展声明的影响。此外，我们的研究还为有关 ESG 投资和管理理论的讨论增添了新的内容。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Corporate Governance-An International Review Multiple-

CiteScore

7.00

自引率

11.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The mission of Corporate Governance: An International Review is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of comparative corporate governance throughout the global economy. Our ultimate goal is a rigorous and relevant global theory of corporate governance. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization"s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm. Because of this broad conceptualization, a wide variety of academic disciplines can contribute to our understanding.