Is it costly to be both shariah compliant and socially responsible?

Positive ethics associated with socially responsible investments (SRI) is challenging the limits of Islamic investments' conservative approach to promote corporate social responsibility. In this study, we test the integration of social performance measures (companies the most virtuous or high-rated in terms of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues) in Islamic portfolios using KLD social ratings. We seek to determine the financial price of complying both to Islamic investment and SRI principles. To do so, we measure the financial performance of self-composed Islamic portfolios with varying ESG scores. The results indicate no adverse effects on returns due to the application of ESG screens on shariah-compliant stocks during the 2007–2011 periods while reporting substantially higher performance for the portfolios with good records in governance, products, diversity, and environment issues. On the opposite, a negative performance is associated with an SRI strategy of disengagement from shariah-compliant stocks with community and human rights controversies. Our performance measures are controlled for market sensitivity, investment style, momentum factor, and sector exposure.     

Does it cost to be sustainable?

We investigate whether firms’ corporate social performance (CSP) ratings impact their performance (cost of capital) and risk. Using a proprietary CSP ratings database, we find no difference in the risk-adjusted performance of UK firms with high and low CSP ratings. Additionally, the firms do not differ in their amount of idiosyncratic risk. We find some evidence of high-ranked firms being larger. The empirical evidence therefore indicates that investors and managers are able to implement a CSP investment or business strategy without incurring any significant financial cost (or benefit) in terms of risk or return.     

What does it mean to be green?

Today a company is not considered environmentalist unless it moves beyond mere compliance with government regulations to behavior its competitors, and even customers, do not expect. How should it set its agenda? Author Art Kleiner proposes that, to be green, a company must ask three questions: What products should we bring to market? How much disclosure of pollution information should we support? And how can we reduce waste at its source? These questions can't be answered, Kleiner says, unless managers insist on sustainable growth. In this sense, a big investment in environmentalism is like a big one in R&D--both presuppose patient capital and managerial maturity. What are green products? Kleiner cautions against giving in to misinformed public opinion--as McDonald's did in giving up its styrene "clamshells," which were more recyclable than the composite papers it switched to. Rather, companies should rely on literature that analyzes the product life cycle. As for public disclosure, the benefits may be unexpected. Federal legislation requiring companies to report the emission of potentially hazardous waste to a central data bank has not made environmentalists attack them. Rather, it has forced companies to learn what chemicals they inadvertently produce and how much--knowledge that helps them improve production processes. Sharing it helps ecological researchers study the combined effects of plant emissions. As for pollution prevention, Kleiner notes the analogy to quality and observes that it is better to design harmful waste products out of the system than catch them at the end of the line.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Is it Necessary to Ration Health Care?

Although there have been restrictions on access to health care since the inception of the National Health Service (NHS), there has been increasing debate on rationing and priority-setting following the changes introduced from 1991. Much of this debate has been fuelled by the fact that local Health Authorities (HAs), working with limited budgets to purchase health care services for their local population, must set priorities in order to remain within their budget. Some commentators go further and argue that health care rationing is both necessary and inevitable. Others suggest that acceptance of the necessity of rationing may be self-defeating, and question the underlying assumptions. This article reviews some of the arguments and asks whether health care rationing is really necessary.     

Is it time to reboot welfare economics? Overview

The contributions of economists have long included both positive explanations of how economic systems work and normative recommendations for how they could and should work better. In recent decades, economics has taken a strong empirical turn as well as having a greater appreciation of the importance of the complexities of real-world human behaviour, institutions, the strengths and failures of markets, and interlinkages with other systems, including politics, technology, culture and the environment. This shift has also brought greater relevance and pragmatism to normative economics. While this shift towards evidence and pragmatism has been welcome, it does not in itself answer the core question of what exactly constitutes ‘better’, and for whom, and how to manage inevitable conflicts and trade-offs in society. These have long been the core concerns of welfare economics. Yet, in the 1980s and 1990s, debates on welfare economics seemed to have become marginalised. The articles in this Fiscal Studies symposium engage with the question of how to revive normative questions as a central issue in economic scholarship.     

Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio

Minor innovations make up most of a company's development portfolio, on average, but they never generate the growth companies seek. The solution, says Day--the Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor of Marketing and a codirector of the Mack Center for Technological Innovation at Wharton--is for companies to undertake a systematic, disciplined review of their innovation portfolios and increase the number of major innovations at an acceptable level of risk. Two tools can help them do this. The first, called the risk matrix, graphically reveals the distribution of risk across a company's entire innovation portfolio. The matrix allows companies to estimate each project's probability of success or failure, based on how big a stretch it is for the firm to undertake. The less familiar the product or technology and the intended market, the higher the risk. The second tool, dubbed the R-W-W (real-win-worth it) screen, allows companies to evaluate the risks and potential of individual projects by answering six fundamental questions about each one: Is the market real? Explores customers' needs, their willingness to buy, and the size of the potential market. Is the product real? Looks at the feasibility of producing the innovation. Can the product be competitive? and Can our company be competitive? Investigate how well suited the company's resources and management are to compete in the marketplace with the product. Will the product be profitable at an acceptable risk? Explores the financial analysis needed to assess an innovation's commercial viability. Last, Does launching the product make strategic sense? examines the project's fit with company strategy and whether management supports it.     

Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies

This study examines what factors affect firms’ decisions to adopt a proactive environmental strategy and whether pursuing proactive environmental strategies leads to improved financial performance. Using longitudinal data from 1990 to 2003 for the four most polluting industries in the US (Pulp & Paper, Chemical, Oil & Gas, and Metals & Mining), this research empirically models the causal relations between firms’ environmental performance and their financial resources and management capability. Our results show that positive (negative) changes in firms’ financial resources in the prior periods are followed by significant improvements (declines) in firm’s relative environmental performance in the subsequent periods. In addition, we also find that significant improvements (declines) in environmental performance in the prior periods can lead to improvements (declines) in financial performance in the subsequent periods after controlling for the impact of Granger causality. Finally, 3SLS analysis suggests that the positive association between environmental performance and financial performance is robust. Overall, our results are consistent with predictions of the resource-based view of the firm and indicate that although becoming “green” is associated with improvement in firm performance, such a strategy cannot be easily mimicked by all firms.     

Does it pay to be socially connected with wall street brokerages? Evidence from cost of equity

We show that social connections between a firm's executives and directors and brokerages that follow the firm decrease the firm's cost of equity. We use quasi-natural experiments to address endogeneity concerns and find that the uncovered effect of firm-brokerage social connections on cost of equity is likely causal. The effect is found to be more pronounced for firms with more soft information, opaque information environments, tight financial constraints, weak corporate monitoring, or high executive equity ownership. Further, consistent with the evidence on cost of equity, we find that firm-brokerage social connections reduce SEO underpricing, decrease information asymmetry in stock markets, and improve the firm's equity valuation.     

Is it the weather? Comment

This comment discusses some errors in a recent paper by Jacobsen and Marquering [Jacobsen, B., Marquering, W., 2008. Is it the weather? Journal of Banking and Finance 32 (4), 526–540], in which the authors challenge our previous finding that stock market returns exhibit seasonal patterns consistent with the influence of seasonal affective disorder on investor risk aversion. We find that we cannot replicate the authors’ findings, even after corresponding with them. Furthermore, we document several problems with their methodology, including misspecification of their economic model, misspecification of their econometric model, and use of inappropriate data. While we agree that seasonal affective disorder is not an explanation for all variation in equity markets, we do maintain that careful analysis leads to economically and statistically significant evidence of the effect we originally documented.     

Does it pay to be ethical? Evidence from the FTSE4Good

The empirical mean–variance evidence comparing the performance of Socially Responsible Investments (SRI) and conventional investments suggests that there is no significant difference between the two. This paper re-examines the problem in the context of Marginal Conditional Stochastic Dominance (MCSD), which can accommodate any return distribution or concave utility function. Our results provide strong evidence that there is a financial price to be paid for socially responsible investing. Indices composed of socially responsible firms are MCSD dominated by trademarked indices composed of conventional firms as well as by indices carefully matched by size and industry with the firms in the SRI indices. Zero cost portfolios created by shorting the SRI index and using the proceeds to invest in the conventional index generate higher average returns, lower variance and higher skewness than either of the two indices standing alone. They also MCSD dominate the SRI and conventional indices standing alone.     

Is an Auditor's Propensity to Issue Going Concern Opinions a Valid Measure of Audit Quality?

A number of previous studies use auditor propensity to issue a going concern opinion (GCO) as a proxy of audit quality when examining a sample of financially distressed firms. This study examines whether audit quality (measured by discretionary accruals) influences the probability of financially distressed firms receiving GCOs using a non‐specific sample of 2937 firm‐year observations from Australia over the period 2011–2015. The study first investigates the association between financially distressed firms and the issuance of GCOs. This association is then re‐tested after separating the total sample into low and high audit quality subsamples. The results indicate that financially distressed firms are more likely to receive GCOs, confirming the application of ASA 570 Going Concern. However, financially distressed firms that receive GCOs from their auditors are limited to firms that have higher‐quality audits.     

Is spin-off policy an effective way to improve performance of Islamic banks? Evidence from Indonesia

Indonesia has adopted a dual banking system in which both conventional and Islamic banks operate. Most of the sharia-based banks, however, are still operating Islamic windows within their conventional entity. To strengthen the role of Islamic banking in the intermediation system, the government issued Islamic Banking Law No. 21/2008 to encourage Islamic windows of conventional banks to become a legal entity separate from their parent company. Because some Islamic windows have spun off in this fashion, we can employ a difference-in-difference approach to examine the effect of such a spin-off on Islamic banks’ performance, efficiency, and risk. Our study covers all Islamic commercial banks (including Islamic windows of conventional banks) in Indonesia from 2008–2019. We find that the performance and efficiency of full-fledged Islamic banks are significantly lower compared with Islamic windows of conventional banks. Moreover, our results show that financing risk increases after the spin-off. The inferior performance of full-fledged Islamic banks persists for four years after the spin-off. We also find that a conversion strategy results in better outcomes, particularly for profitability and efficiency, than a pure spin-off strategy.     

Is it all about awareness? The normalization of coastal risk

Coastal risk is already high in several parts of the world and is expected to be amplified by climate change, which makes it necessary to outline effective risk management strategies. Risk managers assume that increasing awareness of coastal risk is the key to public support and endorsement of risk management strategies – an assumption that underlies a common worldview on the public understanding of science, which has been named the deficit model. We argue that the effects of awareness are not as straightforward. In particular, awareness of coastal hazards might not lead to more technically accurate risk perceptions. Based on research on risk perception normalization, we explored the hypothesis that coastal risk awareness reduces coastal risk perception – in particular the perceived likelihood of occurrence of coastal hazards – through its effect on reliance on protective measures to prevent risk. Individuals can rely on protective measures, even when those are not effective, as a positive illusion to reduce risk perception. This effect might be stronger for higher probability hazards and for permanent residents of costal zones. Data from 410 individuals living in coastal zones corroborated most of our expectations. Global results demonstrated a risk normalization effect mediated by reliance on current measures. Additional analyses made clear that this effect occurred in 2 of the 5 high-probability hazards (flood and storm), and not in the low-probability hazard (tsunami). Normalization might be more likely among high-probability hazards which entail catastrophic and immediate impacts. This effect was also found among permanent residents, but not among temporary residents. Results imply that coastal risk management might benefit from (a) taking risk perception normalization effects into account, (b) tailoring strategies for permanent and temporary residents and (c) promoting a higher public engagement, which would facilitate a more adaptive and effective coping with coastal risk than the use of positive illusions.     

Is it inevitable that evolution self-destruct?

To get an idea of where humanity is headed, we must look at the causes of change—the human brain and the inherent rules of group behavior. Our brain evolved to meet the needs of hunting-gathering societies, not the complex civilization we have developed. Today we are ill-suited for the challenges we face, and those who hold power too often lack the mind and integrity needed to use it wisely. Organizations by their very nature often act irrationally. A glance into the future shows where this may lead. The well-to-do shield themselves from deteriorating conditions while the poor suffer. A major catastrophe in a wealthy country that cannot be ignored eventually awakes the affluent to the downward path. They mobilize at last, but it is too late. Forces are in motion that cannot be stopped. Conditions including global warming, mass starvation, and political instability continue to worsen. As global warming has made all but the extreme northern and southern hemispheres uninhabitable, the remaining diminished populations there lose contact with each other. Within each group, aggressive individuals fight to the last person over what is left rather than cooperate to solve problems. Is it inevitable that evolution must over time self-destruct?     

Is there an optimal microcredit size to maximize the social and financial efficiencies of microfinance institutions?

Financial intermediation theory posits that a smaller loan size triggers a higher cost per dollar lent. This leads to question whether microfinance can become a self-sustainable industry. Hence, in microfinance innovations like loans without collateral, progressive loans, solidarity groups and relational lending are employed to reduce asymmetric information costs, adverse selection, and moral hazard while serving the poorest people. Crucially, we find a non-linear U-shaped effect of loan size on financial and social efficiencies. This reconciles the two opposite strands of the literature, aligning microfinance and banking central principles. The major implication of this study is that, unlike banking, microfinance institutions can grant small size loans while simultaneously obtaining high levels of financial and social efficiency. Indeed, our findings do not support the widely debated mission drift assumption since loan size does not generate a trade-off between financial and social outcomes. Therefore, loan size is a core management variable.     

The diversification cost of large,concentrated equity stakes. How big is it? Is it justified?

While the hypothesis that ownership concentration can affect the value of a company has seen a lot of empirical study, little light has been shed on a complementary problem, that these concentrated owners have a cost of their position due to an undiversified portfolio. Using a unique data set of the actual diversification of all Norwegian equity owners, we show that the largest owners of a corporation in fact have very undiversified equity portfolios, and that such owners have significant costs to their concentrated portfolios. At the level of risk of a benchmark portfolio, if they were to move from their present portfolio composition in risky assets to a well diversified portfolio, their returns would have increased by about 13 percentage points in annual terms. We ask whether this cost can be explained by estimated benefits of ownership concentration (private benefits), and show that extant estimates of private benefits are too low to offset our cost estimates.     

Does it pay to be different? Relative CSR and its impact on firm value

Conventional aggregation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) raw scores and its interpreted impact on firm value have provided mixed evidence in the literature. We show that the value impact of CSR activities relies heavily on the industry-specific relative position of the firm. Only firms that distinguish themselves over their peers are associated with increased firm value. This finding is robust and holds for both responsible and irresponsible behaviors. Information concerns and portfolio construction can allude to a possible CSR clientele, suggesting the existence of an optimal CSR level. Our peer-effect results are robust to unobserved heterogeneity along the lines of Gormley and Matsa (2013).     

Is there an alternative way to avoid another eurozone crisis to the Five Presidents' Report?

The EU Commission's Five Presidents' Report proposes new rules for the eurozone covering fiscal policy, banking and financial markets designed to avert another eurozone crisis. This paper examines the causes of the current eurozone crisis and discusses whether the Report's proposals are likely to succeed. It is argued that the main causes of the crisis were EMU and the failure of financial markets to price risk correctly. It is claimed that the Report may not solve these problems. Having already lost their monetary policy instrument, the Report's fiscal proposals would remove countries' fiscal policy instrument too and deprive countries of the means of economic stabilisation. The proposals would also transfer to an undemocratic and unaccountable Commission important national competences.