Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Joseph A. McCahery, Paul C. Pudschedl
{"title":"机构投资者和 ESG 偏好","authors":"Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Joseph A. McCahery, Paul C. Pudschedl","doi":"10.1111/corg.12583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Question/Issue</h3>\n \n <p>We 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Findings/Insights</h3>\n \n <p>Using 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Theoretical/Academic Implications</h3>\n \n <p>The 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48209,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","volume":"32 6","pages":"1060-1086"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Research Question/Issue</h3>\\n \\n <p>We 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Research Findings/Insights</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Theoretical/Academic Implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>The 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance-An International Review\",\"volume\":\"32 6\",\"pages\":\"1060-1086\"},\"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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance-An International Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/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}
We 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/Insights
Using 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 Implications
The 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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
