Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of the Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings

Dane M. Christensen, George Serafeim, A. Sikochi
{"title":"Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of the Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings","authors":"Dane M. Christensen, George Serafeim, A. Sikochi","doi":"10.2308/TAR-2019-0506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the rising use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings, there is substantial disagreement across rating agencies regarding what rating to give to individual firms. As what drives this disagreement is unclear, we examine whether a firm's ESG disclosure helps explain some of this disagreement. We predict and find that greater ESG disclosure actually leads to greater ESG rating disagreement. These findings hold using firm fixed effects, and using a difference-in-differences design with mandatory ESG disclosure shocks. We also find that raters disagree more about ESG outcome metrics than input metrics (policies), and that disclosure appears to amplify disagreement more for outcomes. Lastly, we examine consequences of ESG disagreement and find that greater ESG disagreement is associated with higher return volatility, larger absolute price movements, and a lower likelihood of issuing external financing. Overall, our findings highlight that ESG disclosure generally exacerbates ESG rating disagreement rather than resolving it.","PeriodicalId":240153,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Corporate Reporting (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"208","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Corporate Reporting (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 208

Abstract

Despite the rising use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings, there is substantial disagreement across rating agencies regarding what rating to give to individual firms. As what drives this disagreement is unclear, we examine whether a firm's ESG disclosure helps explain some of this disagreement. We predict and find that greater ESG disclosure actually leads to greater ESG rating disagreement. These findings hold using firm fixed effects, and using a difference-in-differences design with mandatory ESG disclosure shocks. We also find that raters disagree more about ESG outcome metrics than input metrics (policies), and that disclosure appears to amplify disagreement more for outcomes. Lastly, we examine consequences of ESG disagreement and find that greater ESG disagreement is associated with higher return volatility, larger absolute price movements, and a lower likelihood of issuing external financing. Overall, our findings highlight that ESG disclosure generally exacerbates ESG rating disagreement rather than resolving it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么企业美德是由旁观者的眼光决定的?ESG评级案例
尽管越来越多地使用环境、社会和治理(ESG)评级,但评级机构之间在给个别公司评级方面存在实质性分歧。由于导致这种分歧的原因尚不清楚,我们研究了一家公司的ESG披露是否有助于解释这种分歧。我们预测并发现,更大的ESG披露实际上会导致更大的ESG评级分歧。这些发现适用于公司固定效应,以及使用带有强制性ESG披露冲击的差异中之差设计。我们还发现,与投入指标(政策)相比,评级者对ESG结果指标的分歧更大,而披露似乎更多地放大了对结果的分歧。最后,我们研究了ESG分歧的后果,发现ESG分歧越大,回报波动性越大,绝对价格波动越大,发行外部融资的可能性越低。总体而言,我们的研究结果强调,ESG披露通常会加剧而不是解决ESG评级分歧。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On Earnings and Cash Flows as Predictors of Future Cash Flows Constrained by Accounting: Examining How Current Accounting Practice is Constraining the Net Zero Transition Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of the Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Empirical Evidence From Ghana The Agency of Greenwashing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1