ESG disclosure benefits illustration from Pixabay by Gerd Altmann

14x new research on climate, water and ESG disclosure and litigation effects, World Bank greenwashing, pollution exports, green shows, ESG outperformance, emission credit risks, green bond and green fund benefits, low SDG alignments, financial LLMs, and degrowth theory problems by Heiko Bailer, Thorsten Hens, Stefan Ruenzi and many more (#shows number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Sept. 12^th, 2024)

Ecological and social research

Green disclosure meta-study (ESG disclosure benefits 1): The Economic Consequences of Climate Risk Disclosures by Meena Subedi and Emily Zoet as of June 7^th, 2024 (#56): “… this study provides stakeholders with a thorough analysis of the economic effects of climate risk disclosures, reveals emerging trends, and identifies future research opportunities in this area. … Prior studies find mixed results regarding the positive or negative effects of climate risk and suggest disclosure of climate action may mitigate the penalties associated with climate risk. … Additionally, we compare the theoretical frameworks used in prior studies. We identify the predominant theories and their distinct assumptions and focus, providing insight for future researchers to refer to in their climate disclosure studies” (p. 34).

Good water disclosure (ESG disclosure benefits 2): Self-regulation and self-presentation in sustainability reporting: Evidence from firms’ voluntary water disclosure by Siwen Liu and Hans van der Heijden as of June 6^th, 2024 (#68): “This study focuses on water disclosure, a key dimension of sustainability reporting, which, despite the importance of water, has received relatively little theoretical and empirical attention. … we document supportive evidence for the positive relations between voluntary water disclosure and several self-regulation mechanisms such as policies and actions on water efficiency and emission reductions. … We find that firms with high water efficiency are more likely to disclose water information in the global water survey to proactively showcase their good water performance to key stakeholders …“ (abstract).

Flight from ESG disclosures (ESG disclosure benefits 3): Behind the Corporate Veil: How Business Groups Arbitrage ESG Disclosure Mandates by Stefano Cascino and Maria Correia as of Sept. 9^th, 2024 (#32): “… we demonstrate that, while improving their own ESG performance at the headquarter-country level, business group parents actively shift irresponsible ESG activities down the corporate structure. Specifically, we document that subsidiaries of parents subject to disclosure mandates experience an increase in the occurrence and frequency of ESG incidents, particularly in countries where weaker institutions make stakeholder monitoring more challenging. Moreover, we find that, in response to the introduction of ESG disclosure mandates, parent companies streamline their group structures by tightening control over more integrated subsidiaries and divesting from those that are more peripheral“ (abstract).

ESG litigation opportunities: The Effect of Expected Shareholder Litigation on Corporate ESG Reporting: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment by Lijun (Gillian) Lei, Sydney Qing Shu, and Wayne Thomas as of June 19^th, 2024 (#112): “… the Morrison ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court … creates a plausibly exogenous shock (i.e., reduction) to expected shareholder litigation costs for U.S.-cross-listed foreign firms … Our primary result is that after Morrison, U.S.-cross-listed foreign firms increase their use of optimistic words in ESG reports. … We also find a decline in the relative likelihood of issuing an ESG report after Morrison … we also show that U.S.-cross-listed foreign firms are less likely to purchase external assurance or adopt GRI guidelines in preparation of their ESG reports in the post-Morrison period. … Overall, the results are consistent with a reduction in expected shareholder litigation costs decreasing the quality of ESG reporting“ (p. 35/36).

Greenwashing World Bank? How Has the World Bank’s Climate Finance Changed After the Paris Agreement? by Ayse Kaya and Asli Leblebicioglu as of Sept. 5^th, 2024 (#17): “Utilizing a novel dataset of more than 2700 projects spanning 2010-2021, this study investigates the shifts in the World Bank (WB)’s climate finance from pre- to post-Paris Agreement. … We show that although WB’s reported climate finance has quadrupled in this period, this increase primarily comes from “mixed projects” that combine mitigation or adaptation goals with other aims. For most projects, these other goals constitute projects’ larger share, and they also increasingly encompass general capacity strengthening as opposed to climate-adjacent aims. Conversely, projects solely dedicated to mitigation or adaptation have declined. … Overall, the spectacular quantitative increase in WB’s post-Paris climate finance may not be as qualitatively impressive“ (abstract). My comment: For my ESG ETF-Portfolios I will continue to use Multinational Development Bank Bonds instead of Government Bonds because I still think that the former have more positive potential impact than the latter

Pollution export: Exporting Carbon Emissions? Evidence from Space by Santanu Kundu and Stefan Ruenzi as of Sept. 5^th, 2024 (#32): “Our study based on the cement and steel industry shows that the price increase of carbon in the EU ETS (Sö: Emission Trading System) after 2017 is associated with emissions leakage to facilities in locations outside the EU. Not surprisingly, emissions are mainly leaked to pollution havens. … We find that mainly constrained firms, firms headquartered in countries with more developed financial markets as well as firms headquartered in civil law countries engage in carbon leakage. At the same time, our effects are stronger for private than for listed firms at the extensive margin. Firms affected by the EU-ETS not only leak more production to facilities outside the EU, they are also more likely to acquire more new facilities outside the EU“ (p. 31/32).

Green show beats impact: Impact, Inspiration, or Image: On the Trade-Offs in Pro-Environmental Behaviors by Raisa Sherif and Sven Arne Simon as of Sept. 4^th, 2024 (#96): “… We find that some individuals are willing to give up environmental impact for both social image concerns and role model aspirations, with the latter having a stronger effect. However, the crowding out is not perfect” (p. 25).

ESG and SDG investment research (in: ESG disclosure benefits)

ESG outperformance drivers: Charting New Frontiers: The S&P 500® ESG Index’s Outperformance of the S&P 500 by May Beyhan from S&P Dow Jones Indices as of Sept. 6^th, 2024: “Since its inception more than five years ago, the S&P 500 ESG Index had a tracking error of 1.33% and outperformed the S&P 500 by 1.62% on an annualized excess total return basis. … The performance of the S&P 500 ESG Index was … driven by an array of factors, such as seeking the best ESG-scoring constituents with medium ESG momentum scores, and selecting constituents with high Human Capital Development and Talent Attraction & Retention scores, while also avoiding the worst ESG-scoring constituents with high ESG momentum scores” (p. 12). My comment: My experience with ESG portfolios has been positive, too, although I exclude the “magnificient 7”, see Glorreiche 7: Sind sie unsozial? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

Lower emissions and credit risks: Linking Climate Risk to Credit Risk: Evidence from Sectorial Analysis by Mohamad H. Shahrour, Mohamed Arouri, and Sandeep Rao as of April 24^th, 2024 (#86): “Using yearly data on the S&P 500, we first document that an increase in firms’ commitment towards reducing environmental emissions is associated with a lower credit risk (measured by credit ratings, and alternatively, distance-to-default). … While the majority of sectors experience a negative relationship, we find a positive relationship in the Industrials sector. Furthermore, we examine the direction of causality between carbon emissions and credit risk. Our results establish that the direction of causality is from carbon emissions to credit risk“ (p. 16).

Green bond advantages: Green Bonds in Banking: Do They Improve Loan Portfolio Quality and Funding Costs? by Egidio Palmieri, Maurizio Polato, and Josanco Floreani  as of Sept. 9^th, 2024 (#8): “… banks issuing green bonds with high environmental performance exhibit an improvement in loan portfolio quality … Furthermore, the interaction with the governance pillar indicates that banks issuing green bonds experience a reduction in the cost of funding … showing that strong governance significantly contributes to lower funding costs” (p. 6).

Lower sustainability risks: Climate Risk Exposure: A Comparative Analysis of Sustainable and Conventional Funds by Camille Baily  and Jean-Yves Gnabo as of Sept. 6^th, 2024 (#12): “We … investigate climate risk exposure in the U.S. mutual fund industry … using a large dataset of 3,140 mutual funds from 2013 to 2021. Using a conditional Value-at-Risk approach—CoVaR, we measure individual fund exposure to climate risks. We find that, on average, fund VaR is affected by climate risks when we control for other risk factors, suggesting that climate risks are spreading to U.S. mutual funds. Yet, we show that sustainable funds, as identified by the Morningstar metric, are significantly less exposed to climate risks than their conventional peers, even when we control for other fund characteristics“ (abstract). “Our results indicate that climate risk exposure is almost 50% lower for an average sustainable fund, compared to its conventional counterpart” (p. 31). My comment: In my most recent report for the fund which I advise  I showed that “a traditional global small-cap ETF has a Weighted Average Carbon (Scope 1 + 2) Intensity of 313 instead of 32 for the fund” (see Monatsreport).

25% SDG-Alignment? PAB & CTB: Sustainability 2.0 by Heiko Bailer as of Sept. 6^th, 2024 (#27) “This paper investigates the MSCI World and Europe Paris-Aligned Benchmarks (PAB) and Climate Transition Benchmarks (CTB), focusing on refining these indices by incorporating additional sustainable constraints and tilting them towards better alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). … For instance, the sustainable revenue component of the indices was increased from a baseline of 13- 15% to 25%, while the temperature targets were reduced from approximately 2°C to 1.7°C. These enhancements were achieved with minimal negative impact on financial performance, and in some cases, such as the Europe CTB, even resulted in performance gains. … Further adjustments involved tilting the indices towards higher SDGs, which provided additional alignment with UN sustainability goals without negative performance trade-offs. The analysis revealed a substantial difference in SDG scores between the World and Europe indices, with Europe’s SDG alignment being more than double that of the World indices“ (p.11/12). My comment: In my most recent fund report I write: “The net SDG revenue alignment reported by the data provider for the fund is very high at 93%. … By way of comparison, a traditional global small-cap ETF has an SDG revenue alignment of 5 %” (see Monatsreport).

Other investment research (in: ESG disclosure benefits)

Financial LLM deficits: How good are LLMs in risk profiling? by Thorsten Hens and Trine Nordlie as of Aug. 25^th, 2024 (#113): “This study asked “How do ChatGPT and Bard categorize investor risk profiles compared to financial advisors?” For half of the clients the study revealed no statistically significant differences in the risk scores assigned by ChatGPT and Bard compared to those assigned by bankers. Moreover, on average, the differences had minor economic relevance. However … their reasoning … many times missed the specific characteristics of the clients“ (p. 9).

Degrowth deficits: Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis? by Ivan Savin and Jeroen van den Bergh as of August 2024: “In the last decade many publications have appeared on degrowth as a strategy to confront environmental and social problems. … Based on a sample of 561 studies we conclude that: (1) content covers 11 main topics; (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases; (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies; (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible; (7) various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline (in GDP terms) resulting from exogenous factors or public policies; (8) few studies adopt a system-wide perspective – instead most focus on small, local cases without a clear implication for the economy as a whole“ (abstract).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Werbehinweis

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (aktuell durchschnittlich 93% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).