Innovation in Stock Exchanges: Driving ESG Disclosure and Performance

Stock exchanges are in a unique position to promote ESG transparency and leverage their institutional capacity to build more sustainable capital markets. To facilitate the quick uptake of material ESG disclosure and raise the quality and comparability of the data, the Athens Stock Exchange has created ESG guidelines for listed companies that will be published in the summer of 2019. One important feature of the guidelines is their degree of sectoral specificity and emphasis on materiality. The guidelines and supporting metrics they propose are based on reporting practices endorsed by international sustainability standards like the SASB's industry standards. This materiality‐oriented approach will help issuers focus on the sustainability value drivers inherent in their business, and so ensure that corporate ESG disclosures satisfy the demand of investors for comparable quantitative and accounting metrics that help companies communicate their commitment to long‐term value creation.     

Comparative analysis of environmental,social, and governance disclosures

We examine the level of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainability disclosure by firms between two regimes where disclosure is mandatory versus voluntary. We use the regulatory environment between the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to compare ESG disclosures. Firms in the US are currently under a voluntary disclosure regime. In contrast, EU members are under a mandatory disclosure regulatory regime that began in 2017. We find that EU firms outperform US firms under voluntary disclosure requirements (2007–2016), and the ESG disclosure of EU firms further improves relative to US firms after the implementation of the mandatory disclosure in Europe in 2017. Our results suggest that the 2017 adoption of disclosure guidelines in the EU is associated with improvements in EU firms' ESG disclosure. Our results regarding the value-relevance of ESG disclosure support a move toward mandatory ESG disclosures. Results support current initiatives that have been taken by global regulators and stock exchanges in recommending and requiring globally listed companies to disclose their ESG sustainability information to portray accurate and comprehensive corporate reporting. The results further our understanding of how firms from different institutional environment settings may have disclosed their ESG practices, thus providing opportunities for future research.     

Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data

As the ESG finance field and the use of ESG data in investment decision‐making continue to grow, the authors seek to shed light on several important aspects of ESG measurement and data. This article is intended to provide a useful guide for the rapidly rising number of people entering the field. The authors focus on the following:

1. The sheer variety, and inconsistency, of the data and measures, and of how companies report them. Listing more than 20 different ways companies report their employee health and safety data, the authors show how such inconsistencies lead to significantly different results when looking at the same group of companies.
2. ‘Benchmarking,’ or how data providers define companies' peer groups, can be crucial in determining the performance ranking of a company. The lack of transparency among data providers about peer group components and observed ranges for ESG metrics creates market‐wide inconsistencies and undermines their reliability.
3. The differences in the imputation methods used by ESG researchers and analysts to deal with vast ‘data gaps’ that span ranges of companies and time periods for different ESG metrics can cause large ‘disagreements’ among the providers, with different gap‐filling approaches leading to big discrepancies.
4. The disagreements among ESG data providers are not only large, but actually increase with the quantity of publicly available information. Citing a recent study showing that companies that provide more ESG disclosure tend to have more variation in their ESG ratings, the authors interpret this finding as clear evidence of the need for ‘a clearer understanding of what different ESG metrics might tell us and how they might best be institutionalized for assessing corporate performance.’

What can be done to address these problems with ESG data? Companies should ‘take control of the ESG data narrative’ by proactively shaping disclosure instead of being overwhelmed by survey requests. To that end, companies should ‘customize’ their metrics to some extent, while at the same time seeking to self‐regulate by reaching agreement with industry peers on a ‘reasonable baseline’ of standardized ESG metrics designed to achieve comparability. Investors are urged to push for more meaningful ESG disclosure by narrowing the demand for ESG data into somewhat more standardized, but still manageable metrics. Stock exchanges should consider issuing—and perhaps even mandating—guidelines for ESG disclosures designed in collaboration with companies, investors, and regulators. And data providers should come to agreement on best practices and become as transparent as possible about their methodologies and the reliability of their data.     

Embedding Sustainability Performance and Long‐Term Strategy in the Earnings Call

The practice of disclosing corporate Environmental, Social and Governance performance information continues to evolve, and the frequency of ESG disclosures in investor‐facing discussions, including Investor Day presentations and non‐deal roadshows, continues to grow. But even with these developments, the corporate‐investor dialogue about ESG and long‐term strategy, and their expected effects on long‐run profitability and value, has continued to lag. This seems particularly evident in the quarterly earnings call. In this article, the authors review the work of NYU's Center for Sustainable Business, in collaboration with Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose (CECP), in encouraging companies to work ESG themes and performance into their quarterly earnings calls. After discussing the reasons for the relatively slow progress in this important disclosure venue, including interviews with sell‐side analysts, the authors propose practical approaches that can guide companies, regardless of industry or market cap, in delivering this content in a way that is valuable to both buy‐side and sell‐side equity analysts.     

The SEC and Improving Sustainability Reporting

In this discussion that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, the former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission explores recent developments in corporate sustainability reporting with three Directors—two past and one current—of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance (or “CorpFin”). The consensus of the panelists was that investors want companies to provide more and better disclosure of their ESG exposures, particularly climate change, and their plans to manage those exposures. According to the current director of CorpFin, the most common demand expressed in the thousands of “comment letters” elicited by the SEC's recent concept release was for more and better sustainability information. And among the many issues cited by investors in those letters, including economic inequality, corruption, indigenous rights, and community relations, the subject of greatest interest by far was climate change. While none of the panelists claimed to see private‐sector demand for SEC action and a new set of mandatory requirements, all seemed to agree that many companies would welcome the establishment of voluntary guidelines and standards for providing ESG information—and that the guidelines recently developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are a promising model. For companies in each of 79 different industries, the SASB has identified a specific set of “material” concerns along with metrics or KPIs that can be used to evaluate corporate performance in responding to those concerns. Perhaps the most important advantage of this approach is that, by limiting such reporting to material exposures (and so adhering to a principle that has long informed SEC requirements), the SASB guidelines should significantly increase the relevance and value to investors—while possibly holding down the costs—of the sustainability reports that large companies in the U.S. and abroad have been producing for decades. But, as the former SEC Chair also notes in closing, the adoption of such guidelines by companies should be viewed as just a first step toward improving disclosure. To help companies develop the most useful and cost‐effective disclosure practices, investors themselves will have to become more active in communicating their own demands and preferences for information.     

Risk disclosures on the second tier markets of the London Stock Exchange

The identification, management and disclosure of risks have been the subject of recent legislation, directives and reporting standards issued across a number of international jurisdictions. To inform the disclosure debate, this paper provides a detailed analysis of the risk warning disclosures of initial public offering (IPO) companies and the factors that drive such disclosures. We find that risk disclosures of IPO companies contain a greater proportion of forward‐looking information but a lower proportion of information on internal controls and risk management than the disclosures of listed companies. We find evidence that such disclosure has increased across time but that larger directors’ shareholdings are associated with a reduction in risk disclosure.     

Regulatory impact on voluntary climate change–related reporting by Australian government‐owned corporations

This paper concerns voluntary climate change–related reporting of government‐owned corporations (GOCs). We investigate whether the Australian National Gresenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS), a regulation stipulating the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions to government, subsequently made publicly available on a Website, has a positive impact on the voluntary disclosure of climate change–related information not required by the regulation. We find that implementation of NGERS has a positive effect on voluntary climate change‐related disclosures by GOCs. Hence, mandating disclosure of organisations’ negative environmental performance, such as greenhouse gas emissions, can influence voluntary disclosures of a broad range of related information particularly in organisations that are not subject to capital markets incentives. However, upon later but concurrent implementation of a Carbon Tax after a highly partisan and divisive political debate, climate change–related disclosures by GOCs reduce, consistent with the de Villiers and van Staden (2006) argument that when disclosures might increase awareness of sensitive issues, avoidance of attention to the issue might be the best strategy to retain legitimacy.     

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sustainability Disclosure: Findings from a Recent SASB Study

Early research into the relationship between corporate sustainability programs and financial performance suggests a positive relationship between strong sustainability performance and a lower cost of capital. As investors increasingly incorporate sustainability information into financial decisionmaking, the importance of high‐quality sustainability disclosure is growing. Just as investors have relied on financial disclosures based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to assess corporate risk, a market standard is needed to help companies disclose comparable sustainability information. To address this issue, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) conducted a recent analysis of the current state of sustainability disclosure in annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. The study reviewed the disclosures of over 700 U.S.‐and foreign‐domiciled companies, focusing on material sustainability topics as identified by SASB's industry‐specific accounting standards. The authors find large variations among different corporate sectors in the frequency and quality, as well as the focus, of their sustainability disclosures. Then, after examining in detail disclosures within the SASB Resource Transformation and Consumer Staples sectors, the authors suggest a number of possible drivers of this variation, including key sustainability and economic trends, while also presenting evidence of increasing investor interest in sustainability information. Although the authors' analysis was not intended to determine the extent to which the quality of sustainability disclosure affects investor returns, the findings provide a useful baseline for the as yet largely unexplored relationship between sustainability disclosure and corporate financial performance.     

A Preliminary Analysis of SASB Reporting: Disclosure Topics,Financial Relevance,and the Financial Intensity of ESG Materiality

At the end of 2018, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) released its corporate reporting standards for material environment, social, and governance (ESG) issues. These SASB standards are analogous to FASB's but deal with ESG activities that help the companies create value over the long term and have been endorsed by large asset management firms such as BlackRock. The authors analyze the quality of ESG reporting by the 91 companies that adopted SASB's framework. While the number of such companies is still small, their results are encouraging, an indication of better things to come. Using three measures of effectiveness, Disclosure Topic Compliance Index (DTCI), Financial Relevance Compliance Index (FRCI), and Financial Intensity Compliance Index (FICI), the authors found that most companies are doing a good to very good job of reporting and companies tend to focus on measures with the highest financial relevance. Scores on these three measures were similar across industry sectors except for a few cases where the DTCI score is low. They presented cases of three SASB standard companies: 1) Sunrun, a residential solar panel company that uses some hazardous materials, 2) Suncor, an integrated oil and gas company, and 3) Target, a retail company in a highly competitive industry needing to keep costs low while also managing an extensive supply chain responsibly. These 91 companies have demonstrated that reporting according to SASB standards can be done well. This success should encourage other companies to follow and the authors offer a seven‐step process to adopt SASB standards.     

Corporate Climate Change‐Related Governance Practices and Related Disclosures: Evidence from Australia

This paper investigates the climate change‐related corporate governance disclosure practices of five major Australian energy‐intensive companies over a 16‐year period. In doing so, a content analysis instrument is developed to identify disclosures made in relation to various policies and procedures the organisations have in place for addressing the issues associated with climate change. This instrument is applied to the respective companies’ annual reports and sustainability reports. An increasing trend is found in companies’ climate change‐related corporate governance disclosures over time; however, in many instances the disclosures provide limited insights into the climate change‐related risks and opportunities confronting the sample companies.     

Sentimental Sustainability: Does What Companies Say Tell More Than What Companies Do?

Based on a sample of more than eleven thousand unique 10-K reports of US companies filed with SEC in period 2013 to 2018, this study examines the relationship between actual sustainability performance of companies, evaluated by MSCI ESG performance scores, and the extent and the scope of environmental, social, and governance information disclosure in their annual reports. The study shows empirical evidence supporting the signalling theory view of voluntary disclosure of ESG information in annual reports for most industries, while environmentally unfriendly companies belonging to the Mining industry division show excessive reporting behavior favoring environmental topics, which is consistent with incentives to improve public image and mitigate social, political, and legal risks in line with the legitimacy theory of information disclosure. When differentiating between forward-looking and non-forward-looking ESG statements, the study shows that companies providing more forward-looking ESG information in annual reports show better next-year ESG performance. This study implements established content analysis techniques with focus on ESG reporting and performance, building up on the study of Baier, Berninger, and Kiesel (2020) that proposed an ESG-tailored dictionary for textual analysis purposes.     

Extractive Industries Reporting: A Review of Accounting Challenges and the Research Literature

While the extractive industries (EI) are of major significance economically, the reporting of their activities has been the subject of contentious debate posing dilemmas for regulators and standard setters over many decades. In order to ensure alignment with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) research project on EI, we first identify some important economic characteristics of EI and associated accounting challenges together with an overview of how current accounting standards deal with these challenges using International Financial Reporting Standards as the focus. Second, we conduct a review of extant research on EI reporting analyzed around the key areas of: (a) international diversity of accounting practices and the challenges facing information users; (b) standard-setting processes and lobbying behaviour that deals with why the IASB (and other standard setters) have not succeeded in developing rigorous standards for extractive activities; (c) the reporting of oil, gas, and mineral reserves, given that large proportions of the assets of EI firms (the reserves) are off-balance sheet; (d) environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting dealing with how EI firms have increased their reporting of ESG information in response to regulatory demands and pressure for voluntary disclosures; and (e) other EI related topics such as earnings management, risk disclosures, and voluntary disclosure behaviour. Finally, we present some conclusions together with suggestions relating to key areas for future research on EI reporting.     

How to Integrate ESG into Investment Decision‐Making: Results of a Global Survey of Institutional Investors

The authors review the findings of their global survey of 582 institutional investors that were either practicing or planning to practice some degree of integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their investment decision‐making process. The investors were evenly split between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across the three regions of the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Africa. The survey explored reasons for ESG investing; the barriers to such investing and investor approaches to overcoming them; and the time frames used for making investment decisions, evaluating the performance of managers, and awarding compensation. The authors report finding that the commonly perceived barriers to ESG integration—the belief that ESG integration requires sacrificing returns, that fiduciary duty prevents one from doing so, and unrealistically short‐term expectations for ESG to deliver outperformance—were not as great as commonly believed. The biggest barrier is the lack of high quality data about the performance of companies on their material ESG factors—a scarcity that the authors attribute to the lack of standards for measuring ESG performance and the lack of ESG performance data reported by companies. The results were very similar between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across regions. However, the investment horizons of asset owners were notably longer than those of asset managers, and the same was true of equity vs. fixed income investors. Investors in the Americas were more patient about time frames for seeing outperformance from ESG, while those in Asia Pacific were the least patient. There were also differences across regions in how to overcome the barriers to ESG integration.     

The Impact of the Management Approach on Segment Reporting

Accounting standard setters have increasingly attempted to align external segment reporting disclosures to a firm's internal reporting structure. We study how this move to the management approach for segment reporting impacted the number of reported segments and the extent of line item disclosures when Australia adopted IAS 14 (revised) and IFRS 8. We find that both standards led to firms disclosing a greater number of segments. An examination of the motives behind the non‐disclosure of segments suggests that segment information was withheld for agency cost reasons. We find only limited support for the proprietary cost motive for non‐reporting of segments. We also document that IFRS 8 led to a reduction in the amount of line item disclosure. Consistent with a proprietary cost explanation, the decrease in disclosure is greatest for firms with a higher number of profitable segments. Our results indicate that the change to the management approach to segment identification is not associated with the properties of analyst forecasts, nor did it lead to increased analyst following.     

ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors

This study discusses the effect of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on corporate financial performance. This study uses a sample of non-financial listed companies from 2000 to 2020 and applies the staggered difference-in-differences technique to eliminate the endogeneity problem. Findings show that ESG disclosure has a favorable effect on corporate financial performance. This conclusion remains robust after a series of robustness tests, including the parallel trend test, Goodman-Bacon decomposition, replacement of dependent variables, system GMM estimate, the placebo test, etc. ESG disclosure has heterogeneous effects on financial performance. The positive effect of ESG disclosure on corporate financial performance is more pronounced in companies with ESG investors and companies with longer inception, high media attention, and high agency costs. In addition, investors with ESG preferences exert a substantial moderating effect on the link between ESG disclosure and financial performance connection. We arrive at two conclusions in the extended analysis. One is that ESG disclosure attracts ESG investors. Another is that ESG investors also play a positive moderating role in the connection between ESG ratings and financial performance.     

Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reports

This research develops a model for assessing the quality of risk disclosures and applies the proposed model to four companies in the food production and processing sector. We contribute to the literature by extending prior work on risk disclosure quality using a longitudinal approach to assess the quality of risk reporting. While previous studies have described disclosure practices, this paper adopts a normative approach to disclosure. By suggesting a way of improving risk reporting disclosures, the paper provides guidance for current and future company managers. In line with previous research, this paper identifies certain problems with existing risk disclosures. Results suggest that company managers prefer providing disclosures that are symbolic rather than substantive. We argue that institutional factors and proprietary costs contribute towards and can explain this behaviour. In suggesting a way forward we highlight the role that stakeholders including managers, users, regulators and auditors can play in improving the quality of risk reporting. Flexibility in reporting could be maintained by adopting a properly monitored ‘comply or explain’ approach.     

New Corporate Forms: One Viable Solution to Advancing Environmental Sustainability

There is a clear trend in corporate governance toward increased attention to the environmental and social impacts of business operations. Major consulting firms are advising Fortune 500 companies on how to become more environmentally sustainable, private equity and “impact” investors are measuring environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and voluntary reporting and shareholder resolutions on issues of environmental sustainability are on the rise. While traditional corporate forms allow companies to embrace social and environmental responsibility with some measure of success, various real and perceived risks encourage directors to focus on short‐term profitability. Even if a company has a strong social mission at inception, founders often have difficulty “anchoring their mission” over time. And the lack of required disclosure of social and environmental performance makes it more difficult for investors to evaluate and compare companies. Many believe that the institutionalized mispricing of natural resources and the continued failure to price externalities, combined with the progressive nature of climate change, require the transformation of both business and law. This article discusses social and environmental sustainability within the traditional corporate form and then explores three emerging alternatives that are now being used by businesses in California: limited liability corporations (LLCs); benefit corporations (B corps); and flexible purpose corporations (FPCs). Of these three alternatives, FPCs—a corporate form that requires shareholders to agree on one or more social missions with management and the board—may be best suited to meet the needs of the many small private firms (as well as some large public companies) that, whether for purely economic or altruistic reasons, plan to integrate ESG into their operations.     

Climate Change and Asset Prices: Are Corporate Carbon Disclosure and Performance Priced Appropriately?

This paper empirically assesses the relevance of information on corporate climate change disclosure and performance to asset prices, and discusses whether this information is priced appropriately. Findings indicate that corporate disclosures of quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, to a lesser extent, carbon performance are value relevant. We use hand‐collected information on quantitative GHG emissions for 433 European companies and build portfolios based on GHG disclosure and performance. We regress portfolios on a standard four factor model extended for industry effects over the years 2005 to 2009. Results show that investors achieved abnormal risk‐adjusted returns of up to 13.05% annually by exploiting inefficiently priced positive effects of (complete) GHG emissions disclosure and good corporate climate change performance in terms of GHG efficiency. Results imply that, firstly, information costs involved in carbon disclosure and management do not present a burden on corporate financial resources. Secondly, investors should not neglect carbon disclosure and performance when making investment decisions. Thirdly, during the period analysed, financial markets were inefficient in pricing publicly available information on carbon disclosure and performance. Mandatory and standardised information on carbon performance would consequently not only increase market efficiency but result in better allocation of capital within the real economy.     

Does environmental investment pay off?—portfolio analyses of the E in ESG during political conflicts and public health crises

This paper examines the contribution of environmental investment on firm value during the Russia-Ukraine War and Global Public Health Crisis. Using media-based environmental scores, we investigate the performance of the emission-reduction-based and green-innovation-based portfolios. The results indicate that while engaging in environmental activities decreases firm value during the noncrisis time, it creates value when companies face market-wide crises. Our findings suggest that environmental investment serves as a risk-hedging vehicle for political and health crises. In addition, compared to corporate ESG disclosures, firm-level media-based environmental scores mitigate the endogeneity between a company's ESG disclosure policies and its firm characteristics.