Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (5)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- Corporate Social Responsibility (3)
- Sustainable Finance (2)
- Sustainable Investments (2)
- Asset Allocation (1)
- Car Loans (1)
- Corporate Name Change (1)
- ESG Investing (1)
- ESG Rating Agencies (1)
- ESG rating agencies (1)
- ESG ratings (1)
We analyze the ESG rating criteria used by prominent agencies and show that there is a lack of a commonality in the definition of ESG (i) characteristics, (ii) attributes and (iii) standards in defining E, S and G components. We provide evidence that heterogeneity in rating criteria can lead agencies to have opposite opinions on the same evaluated companies and that agreement across those providers is substantially low. Those alternative definitions of ESG also affect sustainable investments leading to the identification of different investment universes and consequently to the creation of different benchmarks. This implies that in the asset management industry it is extremely difficult to measure the ability of a fund manager if financial performances are strongly conditioned by the chosen ESG benchmark. Finally, we find that the disagreement in the scores provided by the rating agencies disperses the effect of preferences of ESG investors on asset prices, to the point that even when there is agreement, it has no impact on financial performances.
We analyze the ESG rating criteria used by prominent agencies and show that there is a lack of a commonality in the definition of ESG (i) characteristics, (ii) attributes and (iii) standards in defining E, S and G components. We provide evidence that heterogeneity in rating criteria can lead agencies to have opposite opinions on the same evaluated companies and that agreement across those providers is substantially low. Those alternative definitions of ESG also a↵ect sustainable investments leading to the identification of di↵erent investment universes and consequently to the creation of di↵erent benchmarks. This implies that in the asset management industry it is extremely dicult to measure the ability of a fund manager if financial performances are strongly conditioned by the chosen ESG benchmark. Finally, we find that the disagreement in the scores provided by the rating agencies disperses the e↵ect of preferences of ESG investors on asset prices, to the point that even when there is agreement, it has no impact on financial performances.
The present paper proposes an overview of the existing literature covering several aspects related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Specifically, we consider studies describing and evaluating ESG methodologies and those studying the impact of ESG on credit risk, debt and equity costs, or sovereign bonds. We further expand the topic of ESG research by including the strand of the literature focusing on the impact of climate change on financial stability, thus allowing us to also consider the most recent research on the impact of climate change on portfolio management.
This literature survey explores the potential avenues for the design of a green auto asset-backed security by focusing on the European auto securitization market. In this context, we examine the entire value chain of the securitization process to understand the incentives and interests involved at various stages of the transaction. We review recent regulatory developments, feasibility concerns, and potential designs of a sustainable securitization framework. Our study suggests that a Green Auto ABS should be based on both a green use of proceeds and a green collateral-based methodology.
Wir untersuchen die regulatorischen Änderungen in der EU, die die Transparenz bei nachhaltigen Investitionen erhöhen sollen. Durch eine Untersuchung der Unterschiede zwischen ESG-Ratingagenturen bewerten wir Herausforderungen für Standardisierung und Konsens von Ratings. Unsere Analyse unterstreicht die Dringlichkeit klarerer ESG-Ratings für eine nachhaltige Invesitionslandschaft.
We delve into the EU's regulatory changes aimed at boosting transparency in sustainable investments. By examining disparities among ESG rating agencies, we assess how these differences challenge standardization and consensus. Our analysis underscores the critical need for clearer ESG assessments to guide the sustainable investment landscape.
This paper investigates stock market reaction to greenwashing by analyzing a new channel whereby companies change their names to green-related ones (i.e., names that evoke green and sustainable sentiments) to persuade the public that their activities are green. The findings reveal a striking positive stock price reaction to the announcement of corporate name changes to green-related names only for companies not involved in green activities at the time of the announcement. However, over an extended period of time, companies unrelated to green activities experience substantial negative abnormal returns if they fail to align their operational focus with the new name after the change.
In this study, we unpack the ESG ratings of four prominent agencies in Europe and find that (i) each single E, S, G pillar explains the overall ESG score differently,(ii) there is a low co-movement between the three E, S, G pillars and (iii) there are specific ESG Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are driving these ratings more than others. We argue that such discrepancies might mislead firms about their actual ESG status, potentially leading to cherry-picking areas for improvement, thus raising questions about the accuracy and effectiveness of ESG evaluations in both explaining sustainability and driving capital toward sustainable companies.