Information
- Author Services
Initiatives
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
- Active Journals
- Find a Journal
- Proceedings Series
- For Authors
- For Reviewers
- For Editors
- For Librarians
- For Publishers
- For Societies
- For Conference Organizers
- Open Access Policy
- Institutional Open Access Program
- Special Issues Guidelines
- Editorial Process
- Research and Publication Ethics
- Article Processing Charges
- Testimonials
- Preprints.org
- SciProfiles
- Encyclopedia
Article Menu
- Subscribe SciFeed
- Recommended Articles
- Google Scholar
- on Google Scholar
- Table of Contents
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
JSmol Viewer
Esg performance and systemic risk nexus: role of firm-specific factors in indian companies.
1. Introduction
2. literature review, 2.1. theoretical background, 2.2. systemic risk (sr), 2.3. esg and sr, 2.4. esg, sr, and firm size, 2.5. esg, sr, and firm age, 2.6. esg, sr, and cost of debt, 3. research methodology, 3.1. sample, 3.2. data analysis method, 3.4. variables, 4. data analysis, results, and discussions, 4.1. descriptive statistics, 4.2. esg-sr sensitivity nexus, 4.3. firm size, esg, and sr sensitivity dynamics.
- DUM_Q1 (Small Firms): Represents firms in the lowest quartile (Q1) with firm value ≤2.840, representing approximately the bottom 25% of firms. Takes the value 1 if the firm’s log of total assets is in the first quartile (Q1) and 0 otherwise.
- DUM_Q2 (Mid-sized Firms): Represents firms in the second quartile (Q2), with firm values between 2.840 and 5.940, representing the middle 50% of firms. Firms with a firm value between 2.840 and 5.940. Takes the value 1 if the firm’s log of total assets is between the first quartile (Q1) and the third quartile (Q3) and 0 otherwise.
- DUM_Q3 (Large Firms): Represents firms in the third quartile (Q3), with firm value >5.940, representing the top 25% of firms. Firms with a firm value >5.940. Takes the value 1 if the firm’s log of total assets is in the third quartile (Q3) and 0 otherwise.
4.4. Firm Age, ESG, and SR Sensitivity Dynamics
4.5. cost of debt, esg, and sr sensitivity dynamics, 4.6. robustness test, 5. implications, 6. conclusions, 7. limitations and directions for further research, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.
- Acharya, Viral V., Lasse H. Pedersen, Thomas Philippon, and Matthew Richardson. 2017. Measuring systemic risk. The Review of Financial Studies 30: 2–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Acharya, Viral V., Yakov Amihud, and Lubomir Litov. 2011. Creditor rights and corporate risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics 102: 150–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Aevoae, George Marian, Alin Marius Andrieș, Steven Ongena, and Nicu Sprincean. 2023. ESG and systemic risk. Applied Economics 55: 3085–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Albuquerque, Rui, Yrjö Koskinen, and Chendi Zhang. 2019. Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science 65: 4451–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Anantharaman, Divya, and Yong Gyu Lee. 2014. Managerial risk taking incentives and corporate pension policy. Journal of Financial Economics 111: 328–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Aydoğmuş, Mahmut, Güzhan Gülay, and Korkmaz Ergun. 2022. Impact of ESG performance on firm value and profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review 22: 119–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Barnea, Amir, and Amir Rubin. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics 97: 71–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Barney, Jay B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Baumol, William J., and Robert J. Strom. 2007. Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1: 233–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Becchetti, Leonardo, Rocco Ciciretti, Ambrogio Dalò, and Stefano Herzel. 2015a. Socially responsible and conventional investment funds: Performance comparison and the global financial crisis. Applied Economics 47: 2541–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Becchetti, Leonardo, Rocco Ciciretti, and Iftekhar Hasan. 2015b. Corporate social responsibility, stakeholder risk and idiosyncratic volatility. Journal of Corporate Finance 35: 297–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Becchetti, Leonardo, Rocco Ciciretti, and Ambrogio Dalò. 2018. Fishing the corporate social responsibility risk factors. Journal of Financial Stability 37: 25–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Beloskar, Ved Dilip, and S. V. D. Nageswara Rao. 2022. Corporate social responsibility: Is too much bad?—Evidence from India. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets 29: 221–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Benlemlih, Mohammed, and Mohammad Bitar. 2018. Corporate social responsibility and investment efficiency. Journal of Business Ethics 148: 647–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Bhattacharya, Chitra B., Sankar Sen, and Daniel Korschun. 2018. Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review 60: 77–82. [ Google Scholar ]
- Billio, Monica, Michele Costola, Iva Hristova, Carmelo Latino, and Loriana Pelizzon. 2021. Inside the ESG ratings: (Dis)agreement and performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28: 1426–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Billio, Monica, Mila Getmansky, Andrew W. Lo, and Loriana Pelizzon. 2012. Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. Journal of Financial Economics 104: 535–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Bollen, Nicolas. 2007. Mutual fund attributes and investor behavior. Journal of Financial Quantitative Analysis 42: 683–708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Boubaker, Sabri, Alexis Cellier, Riadh Manita, and Asif Saeed. 2020. Does corporate social responsibility reduce financial distress risk? Economic Modelling 91: 835–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Bouslah, Kais, Lawrence Kryzanowski, and Bouchra M’zali. 2018. Social Performance and Firm Risk: Impact of the Financial Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics 149: 643–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Capelle-Blancard, Gunther, and Aurélien Petit. 2019. Every little helps?: ESG news and stock market reaction. Journal of Business Ethics 157: 543–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Cerqueti, Roy, Rocco Ciciretti, Ambrogio Dalò, and Marco Nicolosi. 2021. ESG investing: A chance to reduce systemic risk. Journal of Financial Stability 54: 100887. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Chodnicka-Jaworska, Patrycja. 2021. ESG as a Measure of Credit Ratings. Risks 9: 226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- da Silva, Paulo Pereira. 2022. Crash risk and ESG disclosure. Borsa Istanbul Review 22: 794–811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dang, Chongyu, Zhichuan Frank Li, and Chen Yang. 2018. Measuring firm size in empirical corporate finance. Journal of Banking & Finance 86: 159–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- de Villiers, Charl, Jing Jia, and Zhongtian Li. 2022. Corporate social responsibility: A review of empirical research using Thomson Reuters Asset4 data. Accounting & Finance 62: 4523–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dhaliwal, Dan, J. Scott Judd, Matthew Serfling, and Sarah Shaikh. 2016. Customer concentration risk and the cost of equity capital. Journal of Accounting and Economics 61: 23–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dharmapala, Dhammika, and Vikramaditya Khanna. 2018. The impact of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from India’s Companies Act of 2013. International Review of Law and Economics 56: 92–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dungey, Mardi, Thomas Flavin, Thomas O’Connor, and Michael Wosser. 2022. Non-financial corporations and systemic risk. Journal of Corporate Finance 72: 102129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Duque-Grisales, Eduardo, and Javier Aguilera-Caracuel. 2021. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack. Journal of Business Ethics 168: 315–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Dziwok, Ewa, Marta Anita Karaś, and Michał Stachura. 2023. Using E from ESG in Systemic Risk Measurement. In Creating Value and Improving Financial Performance. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions . Edited by Paul Wachtel, Giovanni Ferri and Ewa Miklaszewska. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- El Ghoul, Sadok, and Aymen Karoui. 2017. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Mutual Fund Performance and Flows? Journal of Banking & Finance 77: 53–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Ellis, Scott, Satish Sharma, and Janusz Brzeszczyński. 2022. Systemic risk measures and regulatory challenges. Journal of Financial Stability 61: 100960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Eratalay, Mustafa Hakan, and Ariana Paola Cortés Ángel. 2022. The Impact of ESG Ratings on the Systemic Risk of European Blue-Chip Firms. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Faccio, Mara, Maria-Teresa Marchica, and Roberto Mura. 2011. Large shareholder diversification and corporate risk-taking. The Review of Financial Studies 24: 3601–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Faccio, Mara, Maria-Teresa Marchica, and Roberto Mura. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance 39: 193–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Farah, Tazrina, Jialong Li, Zhicheng Li, and Abul Shamsuddin. 2021. The non-linear effect of CSR on firms’ systematic risk: International evidence. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 71: 101288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Friede, Gunnar, Timo Busch, and Alexander Bassen. 2015. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 5: 210–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Fulton, Mark, Bruce Kahn, and Camilla Sharples. 2012. Sustainable Investing: Establishing Long-Term Value and Performance. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2222740 (accessed on 18 March 2024).
- Gao, K. 2016. Research on the Impact of Social Responsibility Performance on Systemic Risk Sensitivity. Ph.D. thesis, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China. [ Google Scholar ]
- Gao, Shang, Fanchen Meng, Wenshuai Wang, and Wenxin Chen. 2023. Does ESG always improve corporate performance? Evidence from firm life cycle perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science 11: 1105077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gidage, Mithilesh K, and Shilpa Bhide. 2024a. Does ESG Impact the Financial Well-Being of Companies? Evidence From India. In Emerging Perspectives on Financial Well-Being . Edited by Dharmendra Singh, Rohit Bansal, Swati Gupta and Yasmeen Ansari. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 74–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gidage, Mithilesh Kishor, and Shilpa V. Bhide. 2024b. FinTech, RegTech, and Financial Development in India’s Industry 4.0 Landscape. In Integrating RegTech Solutions for Industry 4.0 . Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 49–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gidage, Mithilesh, Shilpa Bhide, and Yuriy Bilan. 2024. Greenwashing in the Indian corporate landscape: An empirical assessment of ESG disclosures of NIFTY 50 companies. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Giese, Guido, Linda-Eling Lee, Dimitris Melas, Zoltán Nagy, and Laura Nishikawa. 2019. Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. Journal of Portfolio Management 45: 69–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. 2020. Global Sustainable Investment Review. Available online: https://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GSIR-20201.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2024).
- Gopalan, Radhakrishnan, Todd A. Gormley, and Ankit Kalda. 2021. It’s not so bad: Director bankruptcy experience and corporate risk-taking. Journal of Financial Economics 142: 261–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gramlich, Dieter, and Nicole Finster. 2013. Corporate sustainability and risk. Journal of Business Economics 83: 631–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gray, Dale F., Robert C. Merton, and Zvi Bodie. 2007. New Framework for Measuring and Managing Macrofinancial Risk and Financial Stability . Technical Report. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. [ Google Scholar ]
- Gupta, Hemendra, and Rashmi Chaudhary. 2023. An Analysis of Volatility and Risk-Adjusted Returns of ESG Indices in Developed and Emerging Economies. Risks 11: 182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Hakan Eratalay, M., and Evgenii V. Vladimirov. 2020. Mapping the stocks in micex: Who is central in the moscow stock exchange? Economics of Transition and Institutional Change 28: 581–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Hwang, Inchang, Simon Xu, Francis In, and Tong Suk Kim. 2017. Systemic risk and cross-sectional hedge fund returns. Journal of Empirical Finance 42: 109–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Ibhagui, Oyakhilome W., and Felicia O. Olokoyo. 2018. Leverage and firm performance: New evidence on the role of firm size. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 45: 57–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Ioannou, Ioannis, and George Serafeim. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies 43: 834–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Jain, Karishma, and P. S. Tripathi. 2023. Mapping the environmental, social and governance literature: A bibliometric and content analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management 16: 397–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Jo, Hoje, and Haejung Na. 2012. Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics 110: 441–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- John, Kose, Lubomir Litov, and Bernard Yeung. 2008. Corporate governance and risk-taking. The Journal of Finance 63: 1679–728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Joliet, Robert, and Yulia Titova. 2018. Equity SRI funds vacillate between ethics and money: An analysis of the funds’ stock holding decisions. Journal of Banking & Finance 97: 70–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Kamaruzaman, Siti Aisyah, Mazurina Mohd Ali, Erlane K. Ghani, and Ardi Gunardi. 2019. Ownership structure, corporate risk disclosure and firm value: A Malaysian perspective. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting 11: 113–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Kim, Yongtae, Haidan Li, and Siqi Li. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance 43: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Klarman, Seth. 1991. Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor . New York: HarperCollins, pp. 154–96. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lee, Darren D., and Robert W. Faff. 2009. Corporate Sustainability Performance and Idiosyncratic Risk: A Global Perspective. Financial Review 44: 213–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Leterme, Johan, and Anh Nguyen. 2020. Can ESG Factors Be Considered as a Systematic Risk Factor for Equity Mutual Funds in the Eurozone? Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/thesis:24176 (accessed on 22 February 2024).
- Li, Ke, Sam Kwong, Ran Wang, Kit-Sang Tang, and Kim-Fung Man. 2013. Learning paradigm based on jumping genes: A general framework for enhancing exploration in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Information Sciences 226: 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Lins, Karl V., Henri Servaes, and Ane Tamayo. 2017. Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance 72: 1785–824. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Liu, Guangrui, Hao Qian, Yong Shi, Yu Zhang, and Fengyuan Wu. 2024. Does ESG report greenwashing increase stock price crash risk? China Journal of Accounting Studies , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Liu, Hao, Hao Zhang, Ya-Chun Gao, and Xu-Dong Chen. 2022. Firm age and beta: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance 77: 244–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Liu, Jianxu, Quanrui Song, Yang Qi, Sanzidur Rahman, and Songsak Sriboonchitta. 2020. Measurement of systemic risk in global financial markets and its application in forecasting trading decisions. Sustainability 12: 4000. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Low, Angie. 2009. Managerial risk-taking behavior and equity-based compensation. Journal of Financial Economics 92: 470–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Löffler, Marius. 2023. The Impact of ESG Scores on a Firm’s Cost of Capital. Master’s thesis, ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Winterthur, Switzerland. [ Google Scholar ]
- Lööf, Hans, Maziar Sahamkhadam, and Andreas Stephan. 2022. Is corporate social responsibility investing a free lunch? The relationship between ESG, tail risk, and upside potential of stocks before and during the COVID-19 crisis. Finance Research Letters 46: 102499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Malik, Neha, and Smita Kashiramka. 2024. Impact of ESG disclosure on firm performance and cost of debt: Empirical evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production 448: 141582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Mardini, Ghassan H. 2022. ESG factors and corporate financial performance. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting 14: 247–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Merton, Robert C. 1973. Theory of rational option pricing. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 4: 141–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Neitzert, Florian, and Matthias Petras. 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility and Bank Risk. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3456754 (accessed on 22 March 2024).
- Novy-Marx, Robert. 2011. Operating leverage. Review of Finance 15: 103–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Panigrahi, Swayam Sampurna, Bikram Bahinipati, and Vipul Jain. 2018. Sustainable supply chain management: A review of literature and implications for future research. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 30: 1001–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Pistolesi, Francesco, and Emanuele Teti. 2024. Shedding light on the relationship between ESG ratings and systematic risk. Finance Research Letters 60: 104882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Porta, Michela. 2024. The Relationship between ESG Performance and Financial Stability: Are Sustainable Companies Less Likely to Fail? European Evidence. Master’s thesis, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland. Available online: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202401213591 (accessed on 18 March 2024).
- Principles for Responsible Investment. 2015. Principles for Responsible Investment—Annual Report 2015. Available online: http://2xjmlj8428u1a2k5o34l1m71.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/PRI_AnnualReport.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2024).
- Ruefli, Timothy W., James M. Collins, and Joseph R. Lacugna. 1999. Risk measures in strategic management research: Auld lang syne? Strategic Management Journal 20: 167–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Saci, Fateh, Sajjad M. Jasimuddin, and Justin Zuopeng Zhang. 2024. Does ESG performance affect the systemic risk sensitivity? Empirical evidence from Chinese listed companies. Management of Environmental Quality 35: 1274–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Sassen, Remmer, Anne-Kathrin Hinze, and Inga Hardeck. 2016. Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe. Journal of Business Economics 86: 867–904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Sensharma, Sushobhan, Manish Sinha, and Dipasha Sharma. 2022. Do Indian firms engage in greenwashing? Evidence from Indian firms. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal 16: 67–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Shapiro, Samuel Sanford, and Martin B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52: 591–611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Singh, Kuldeep. 2024. Listing on environmental, social and governance index and financial distress: Does the difference-in-differences matter? Asian Review of Accounting 32: 302–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Smith, Adam. 1776. Wealth of Nations . Hampshire: Harriman House. [ Google Scholar ]
- Solomon, Michael R. 2018. Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being , 12th ed. London: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
- Spence, Michael. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87: 355–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Tang, Hua, Langyu Xiong, and Ru Peng. 2024. The mediating role of investor confidence on ESG performance and firm value: Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Finance Research Letters 61: 104988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Tarashev, Nikola A., Claudio E. V. Borio, and Kostas Tsatsaronis. 2010. Attributing Systemic Risk to Individual Institutions. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1631761 (accessed on 12 December 2023).
- Teplova, Tamara, Tatiana Sokolova, and Sergei Gurov. 2024. Do ESG Factors Prove Significant Predictors of Systematic and Downside Risks in the Russian Market after Controlling for Stock Liquidity? Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17: 172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Thomson Reuters ESG Scores. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bita_Mashayekhi/post/ESG_Ratings-Are_there_any_ESG_ratings_that_require_particiaption_in_order_to_be_listed/attachment/5e69de1fcfe4a7bbe5652a52/AS%3A868158177046528%401583996447761/download/esg-scores-methodology.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2014).
- Tobias, Adrian, and Markus K. Brunnermeier. 2016. Covar. The American Economic Review 106: 1705. [ Google Scholar ]
- Torricelli, Costanza, and Beatrice Bertelli. 2022. ESG Screening Strategies and Portfolio Performance: How Do They Fare in Periods of Financial Distress? Centro Studi di Banca e Finanza (CEFIN) Working Paper No. 0087. Modena: Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Economia “Marco Biagi”. [ Google Scholar ]
- Verheyden, Tim, Robert G. Eccles, and Andreas Feiner. 2016. ESG for all? The impact of ESG screening on return, risk, and diversification. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 28: 47–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 5th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
- Wu, Shiyu, Xinyi Li, Xiaosen Du, and Zexin Li. 2022. The impact of ESG performance on firm value: The moderating role of ownership structure. Sustainability 14: 14507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Yadav, Mahender, and Mohit Saini. 2023. Environmental, social and governance literature: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting 15: 231–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Yu, Haixu, Chuanyu Liang, Zhaohua Liu, and He Wang. 2023. News-based ESG sentiment and stock price crash risk. International Review of Financial Analysis 88: 102646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Yu, Xiaoling, and Kaitian Xiao. 2022. Does ESG performance affect firm value? Evidence from a new ESG-scoring approach for Chinese enterprises. Sustainability 14: 16940. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Zhao, L., and H. Yue. 2014. Research on the relationship between cultural characteristics of investment countries and joint venture risks. Economic Research 1: 70–82. [ Google Scholar ]
- Zhao, Shangmei, Xinyi Chen, and Junhuan Zhang. 2019. The systemic risk of china’s stock market during the crashes in 2008 and 2015. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 520: 161–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
| Score Range | Grade |
|---|---|
| 0.0 to 0.0833 | D− |
| 0.0833 to 0.1667 | D |
| 0.1667 to 0.25 | D+ |
| 0.25 to 0.3333 | C− |
| 0.3333 to 0.4167 | C |
| 0.4167 to 0.5 | C+ |
| 0.5 to 0.5833 | B− |
| 0.5833 to 0.6667 | B |
| 0.6667 to 0.75 | B+ |
| 0.75 to 0.8333 | A− |
| 0.8333 to 0.9167 | A |
| 0.9167 to 1.0 | A+ |
| Type of Variable | Name of Variable | Symbol | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | Systemic Risk | β | Beta of a security is determined by taking the covariance of the security’s returns and the market’s returns and dividing it by the variance of the market’s returns over a specified period |
| Independent Variable | ESG Performance Score | ESGPS | Thomson Reuters ESG performance scores |
| Dummy Variables | Firm Size (for Dummy) | FS_DUMMY | Divided into DUM_Q1 (Small Firms); DUM_Q2 (Mid-sized Firms); DUM_Q3 (Large Firms). More details in |
| Firm Age | FA | In the text, the age of companies is represented as a dummy variable: a value of 1 indicates high age, while a value of 0 indicates low age | |
| Cost of Debt | CoD | CoD is the ratio of interest expenses of a firm to its average debt. Here, a value of 1 indicates high CoD, while a value of 0 indicates low CoD | |
| Control Variables | Firm Size (for Control) | FS | Natural logarithm of firm’s total assets at the end of the year |
| Cash Flow | CF | It is equal to the cash inflow generated by the company through specific economic activities | |
| Return on Assets | RoA | (Net Income/Total Assets) * 100% | |
| Firm Size | FS | Natural log of firm’s total assets | |
| Leverage | LEV | Total Debt/Total Equity | |
| Relative Issue Price (increase/ decreases | RP | The relative increase or decrease in the issue price is calculated as: ((closing price on the specified trading day − starting price)/(starting price)) * 100% | |
| Return on Capital Employed | RoCE | EBIT divided by invested capital | |
| Capital Output | CO | It is equal to the sum of the enterprise’s strategic investments and its rolling investments |
| Variable | Obs. | Avg. | S.D. | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | 2568 | 0.6300 | 1.9400 | −8.4900 | 7.4900 |
| ESGPS | 2568 | 0.4800 | 0.6200 | 0.2300 | 0.8700 |
| FS | 2568 | 5.1039 | 2.9730 | 0.5681 | 8.4763 |
| CF | 2568 | 175.3000 | 26.0400 | −0.5900 | 418.2000 |
| LEV | 2568 | 1.5800 | 0.2800 | 0.0200 | 14.3000 |
| RoA | 2568 | 6.4900 | 3.0800 | −0.3900 | 27.3900 |
| CO | 2568 | 64.1030 | 21.5900 | 0.5800 | 2940.3100 |
| RoCE | 2568 | 16.9326 | 5.4019 | −0.0481 | 23.4910 |
| RP | 2568 | 13.2900 | 33.3900 | −58.2000 | 308.1000 |
| Firm Age | 428 | 44.04 | 24.85 | 4 | 122 |
| Firm Size | 428 | 4.3900 | 2.3000 | 0.9200 | 6.4900 |
| Cost of Debt | 428 | 1.789 | 0.713 | −1.293 | 4.981 |
| Variables | Beta | ESGPS | FS | CF | LEV | RoA | CO | RoCE | RP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.000 | ||||||||
| ESGPS | 0.350 | 1.000 | |||||||
| FS | 0.038 | 0.245 | 1.000 | ||||||
| CF | 0.077 | −0.451 | 0.374 | 1.000 | |||||
| LEV | 0.345 | 0.591 | 0.118 | −0.540 | 1.000 | ||||
| RoA | 0.451 | 0.576 | 0.204 | 0.103 | −0.395 | 1.000 | |||
| CO | 0.487 | 0.054 | 0.054 | 0.491 | −0.053 | 0.591 | 1.000 | ||
| RoCE | 0.581 | 0.228 | 0.150 | 0.223 | 0.194 | 0.010 | 0.681 | 1.000 | |
| RP | 0.374 | 0.094 | −0.050 | 0.491 | 0.019 | 0.108 | 0.591 | −0.673 | 1.000 |
| Variables | VIF | 1/VIF |
|---|---|---|
| ESGPS | 2.401 | 0.416 |
| FS | 1.044 | 0.958 |
| CF | 1.778 | 0.562 |
| LEV | 3.108 | 0.226 |
| RoA | 2.349 | 0.426 |
| CO | 1.159 | 0.863 |
| RoCE | 1.690 | 0.592 |
| RP | 2.502 | 0.400 |
| Mean VIF | 2.264 | |
| Hypothesis | F-Statistic | p-Value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESGPS does not Granger-cause SR Sensitivity | 4.75 | 0.013 | *** |
| Variables | Systemic Risk (β) | |
|---|---|---|
| ESG Performance Score | ESGPS | −0.183 *** |
| (−1.18) | ||
| Firm Size | FS | −0.014 *** |
| (−12.31) | ||
| Cash Flow | CF | −0.00122 |
| (−0.85) | ||
| Leverage | LEV | −0.004 |
| (−3.40) | ||
| Return on Assets | RoA | −0.916 *** |
| (−4.39) | ||
| Capital Output | CO | 0.0430 |
| (0.75) | ||
| Relative to Issue Price | RP | −0.00058 * |
| (−0.26) | ||
| Return on Capital Employed | RoCE | −0.154 ** |
| (−2.25) | ||
| CONST | 3.481 *** | |
| (22.72) | ||
| Year Effect | YES | |
| Industry Effect | YES | |
| Obs. | 2568 | |
| R-squared | 0.538 | |
| F-test for Fixed Effects (p-value) | 13.42 (0.0098) | |
| Hausman Test (p-value) | 16.29 (0.0148) | |
| Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence (p-value) | 1.98 (0.12) | |
| Wald Test for Heteroskedasticity (p-value) | 29.34 (0.83) | |
| BP LM Test (p-value) | 37.560 (0.108) | |
| Variables | Model (I): Small Firms | Model (II): Mid-Sized Firms | Model (III): Large Firms | Model (IV): All Firms | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | ||
| ESG Performance Score | ESGPS | 0.07458 *** | 0.05137 ** | 0.01967 | 0.04026 *** |
| (3.19) | (2.46) | (1.48) | (3.11) | ||
| Firm Value | DUM_Q1 | 0.10234 *** | |||
| (3.02) | |||||
| ESGPS × Firm Value | ESGPS × DUM_Q1 | 0.03567 *** | |||
| (3.45) | |||||
| Firm Value | DUM_Q2 | 0.06345 ** | |||
| (2.14) | |||||
| ESGPS × Firm Value | ESGPS × DUM_Q2 | 0.02241 ** | |||
| (2.19) | |||||
| Firm Value | DUM_Q2 | 0.03018 * | |||
| (1.70) | |||||
| ESGPS × Firm Value | ESGPS × DUM_Q2 | 0.01012 | |||
| (1.12) | |||||
| Firm Value (Continuous) | FV_C | −0.025 ** | |||
| (2.20) | |||||
| ESGPS × Firm Value (Continuous) | ESGPS × FV_C | −0.010 * | |||
| (1.85) | |||||
| Cash Flow | CF | −0.0749 | −0.017 | −0.003 | −0.002 |
| (−0.84) | (0.015) | (0.002) | (0.003) | ||
| Leverage | LEV | −0.00419 | −0.01 | −0.002 | −0.003 |
| (−2.18) | (0.048) | (0.003) | (0.001) | ||
| Return on Assets | RoA | −0.314 *** | −0.180 *** | −0.150 ** | −0.160 *** |
| (0.070) | (0.081) | (0.001) | (0.001) | ||
| Capital Output | CO | 0.291 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.090 |
| (0.301) | (0.017) | (0.010) | (0.037) | ||
| Relative to Issue Price | RP | 0.08945 * | 0.07023 * | 0.06012 * | 0.06489 * |
| (0.054) | (0.014) | (0.192) | (0.168) | ||
| Return on Capital Employed | RoCE | 0.220 * | 0.200 * | 0.170 * | 0.180 * |
| (3.60) | (3.40) | (2.80) | (3.50) | ||
| CONST | 6.385 *** | 1.841 *** | 5.800 *** | 6.200 *** | |
| (1.284) | (0.071) | (0.068) | (2.081) | ||
| Year Effect | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| Industry Effect | YES | YES | YES | YES | |
| Obs. | 112 | 198 | 118 | 428 | |
| R-squared | 0.551 | 0.563 | 0.608 | 0.593 | |
| F-test for Fixed Effects (p-value) | 5.12 (0.003) | 4.89 (0.002) | 4.43 (0.002) | 6.02 (0.0079) | |
| Hausman Test (p-value) | 18.09 (0.0014) | 15.72 (0.0023) | 17.23 (0.0160) | 18.40 (0.0103) | |
| Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence (p-value) | 2.30 (0.25) | 2.97 (0.45) | 2.68 (0.33) | 3.40 (0.96) | |
| Wald Test for Heteroskedasticity (p-value) | 22.36 (0.62) | 18.93 (0.43) | 17.15 (0.18) | 20.95 (0.35) | |
| BP LM Test (p-value) | 1.95 (0.162) | 0.21 (0.80) | 8.25 (0.098) | 0.30 (0.71) | |
| Variables | Model (I) | Model (II) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | ||
| ESG Performance Score | ESGPS | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| (0.006) | (0.004) | ||
| Firm Age (Continuous) | FA_C | 0.007 ** | |
| (2.33) | |||
| ESGPS × Firm Age (Continuous) | ESGPS × FA_C | −0.002 ** | |
| (0.001) | |||
| Firm Age (DUMMY) | DUM_FA | 2.180 *** | |
| (19.96) | |||
| ESGPS × Firm Age (DUMMY) | ESGPS × DUM_FA | −0.006 ** | |
| (0.002) | |||
| Firm Size | FS | −0.067 * | −0.073 * |
| (0.038) | (0.021) | ||
| Cash Flow | CF | −0.021 | −0.023 |
| (0.032) | (0.035) | ||
| Leverage | LEV | −0.04 | −0.02 |
| (0.060) | (0.040) | ||
| Return on Assets | RoA | −0.118 *** | −0.218 *** |
| (0.073) | (0.068) | ||
| Capital Output | CO | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| (0.015) | (0.016) | ||
| Relative to Issue Price | RP | 0.032 * | 0.029 * |
| (0.012) | (0.013) | ||
| Return on Capital Employed | RoCE | 0.136 * | 0.128 * |
| (0.040) | (0.038) | ||
| CONST | 1.693 *** | 1.758 *** | |
| (0.075) | (0.083) | ||
| Year Effect | YES | YES | |
| Industry Effect | YES | YES | |
| Obs. | 428 | 428 | |
| R-squared | 0.658 | 0.672 | |
| F-test for Fixed Effects (p-value) | 4.98 (0.009) | 6.01 (0.007) | |
| Hausman Test (p-value) | 16.38 (0.0019) | 18.22 (0.0023) | |
| Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence (p-value) | 3.77 (0.48) | 5.58 (0.75) | |
| Wald Test for Heteroskedasticity (p-value) | 19.64 (0.70) | 20.83 (0.63) | |
| BP LM Test (p-value) | 7.57 (0.271) | 8.79 (0.318) | |
| Variables | Model (I) | Model (II) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | ||
| ESG Performance Score | ESGPS | −0.020 *** | −0.024 *** |
| (0.006) | (0.005) | ||
| Cost of Debt (Continuous) | CoD_C | 0.031 *** | |
| (0.008) | |||
| ESGPS × Cost of Debt (Continuous) | ESGPS × CoD_C | −0.110 *** | |
| (0.030) | |||
| Cost of Debt (DUMMY) | DUM_CoD | 0.034 *** | |
| (0.009) | |||
| ESGPS × Cost of Debt (DUMMY) | ESGPS × DUM_CoD | −0.121 *** | |
| (0.031) | |||
| Firm Size | FS | −0.008 ** | −0.003 *** |
| (0.003) | (0.001) | ||
| Cash Flow | CF | −0.002 | −0.003 |
| (0.001) | (0.002) | ||
| Leverage | LEV | −0.003 | −0.002 |
| (0.002) | (0.003) | ||
| Return on Assets | RoA | −0.001 * | −0.001 * |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | ||
| Capital Output | CO | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| (0.008) | (0.010) | ||
| Relative to Issue Price | RP | 0.330 * | 0.349 * |
| (0.190) | (0.192) | ||
| Return on Capital Employed | RoCE | 0.012 * | 0.010 * |
| (0.007) | (0.006) | ||
| CONST | 1.698 *** | 1.758 *** | |
| (0.080) | (0.083) | ||
| Year Effect | YES | YES | |
| Industry Effect | YES | YES | |
| Obs. | 428 | 428 | |
| R-squared | 0.591 | 0.583 | |
| F-test for Fixed Effects (p-value) | 7.58 (0.018) | 6.31 (0.0273) | |
| Hausman Test (p-value) | 14.59 (0.0023) | 16.38 (0.0018) | |
| Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence (p-value) | 2.77 (0.25) | 2.16 (0.31) | |
| Wald Test for Heteroskedasticity (p-value) | 25.51 (0.81) | 23.38 (0.41) | |
| BP LM Test (p-value) | 8.69 (0.312) | 9.15 (0.270) | |
| Variables | Std. (RoA) | |
|---|---|---|
| ESG Risk Rating Score | ESGRRS | −0.0118 * |
| (−0.93) | ||
| Firm Size | FS | −0.00186 ** |
| (−1.93) | ||
| Cash Flow | CF | 0.0641 *** |
| (−3.48) | ||
| Capital Output | CO | −0.0753 ** |
| (−1.84) | ||
| Market Value to Face Value Ratio | MFVR | −0.00481 ** |
| (−0.24) | ||
| Quick Ratio | QR | −1.802 *** |
| (0.488) | ||
| Board Independence | BI | −0.00081 |
| (0.003) | ||
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio | PE | −2.154 *** |
| (0.157) | ||
| CONST | 0.201 *** | |
| (4.48) | ||
| Year Effect | YES | |
| Industry Effect | YES | |
| Obs. | 2568 | |
| R-squared | 0.461 | |
| F-test for Fixed Effects (p-value) | 10.08 (0.007) | |
| Hausman Test (p-value) | 14.48 (0.013) | |
| Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence (p-value) | 4.05 (0.30) | |
| Wald Test for Heteroskedasticity (p-value) | 34.50 (0.93) | |
| BP LM Test (p-value) | 68.491 (0.560) | |
| Variables | 1st Stage Coefficient (ESGPS) | 2nd Stage Coefficient [Systemic Risk (β)] |
|---|---|---|
| Industry-Year Average ESG Score (ESG_ind) | 0.145 *** (3.45) | - |
| ESG Performance Score (ESGPS) | - | −0.172 *** (−3.11) |
| Firm Size (FS) | 0.051 ** (2.05) | −0.013 *** (−4.27) |
| Cash Flow (CF) | 0.009 (0.62) | −0.00108 (−0.72) |
| Leverage (LEV) | −0.026 ** (−2.10) | −0.0039 *** (−3.25) |
| Return on Assets (RoA) | 0.073 ** (2.28) | −0.892 *** (−4.01) |
| Capital Output (CO) | 0.014 (0.71) | 0.046 (0.83) |
| Relative to Issue Price (RP) | 0.005 (1.15) | 0.0010123 |
| Return on Capital Employed (RoCE) | 0.032 * (1.89) | −0.143 ** (−2.32) |
| Constant | 0.185 *** (4.12) | 3.512 *** (23.01) |
| R-squared | 0.327 | 0.527 |
| Observations | 2568 | 2568 |
| F-test for Weak Instrument | 16.09 *** |
| Variables | Model (I) | Model (II) | Model (III) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | Systemic Risk (β) | |
| ESGPS 1-Period Lagged | −0.174 *** (−3.18) | ||
| ESGPS 3-Period Lagged | −0.167 *** (−2.95) | ||
| ESGPS 5-Period Lagged | −0.159 *** (−2.78) | ||
| Firm Size (FS) | −0.012 *** (−4.21) | −0.013 *** (−4.13) | −0.014 *** (−4.09) |
| Cash Flow (CF) | −0.00105 (−0.70) | −0.00108 (−0.73) | −0.00111 (−0.74) |
| Leverage (LEV) | −0.0038 *** (−3.27) | −0.0040 *** (−3.33) | −0.0041 *** (−3.30) |
| Return on Assets (RoA) | −0.903 *** (−4.03) | −0.891 *** (−4.02) | −0.884 *** (−3.97) |
| Capital Output (CO) | 0.045 (0.81) | 0.043 (0.79) | 0.041 (0.77) |
| Relative to Issue Price (RP) | 0.0010368 | 0.0010864 | 0.0011172 |
| Return on Capital Employed (RoCE) | −0.148 ** (−2.34) | −0.145 ** (−2.31) | −0.143 ** (−2.28) |
| Constant | 3.509 *** (22.95) | 3.495 *** (22.78) | 3.481 *** (22.62) |
| Observations | 2568 | 2568 | 2568 |
| R-squared | 0.532 | 0.529 | 0.526 |
| The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Share and Cite
Gidage, M.; Bhide, S.; Pahurkar, R.; Kolte, A. ESG Performance and Systemic Risk Nexus: Role of Firm-Specific Factors in Indian Companies. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2024 , 17 , 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17090381
Gidage M, Bhide S, Pahurkar R, Kolte A. ESG Performance and Systemic Risk Nexus: Role of Firm-Specific Factors in Indian Companies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2024; 17(9):381. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17090381
Gidage, Mithilesh, Shilpa Bhide, Rajesh Pahurkar, and Ashutosh Kolte. 2024. "ESG Performance and Systemic Risk Nexus: Role of Firm-Specific Factors in Indian Companies" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17, no. 9: 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17090381
Article Metrics
Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Program Manager Impact Investments, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Initiative, Wharton School
- University of Pennsylvania
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Aug 21, 2024
Job Description
- Collaborate with the Head of Impact Investments to define project scope, goals, budgets, and deliverables each semester.
- Develop and monitor comprehensive project plans for WIVA and FFH, including tasks, milestones, and deliverables.
- Design and implement risk mitigation and compliance plans to ensure adherence to legal standards.
- Measure project success using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
- Attend and lead up to six one-hour virtual WIVA or FFH meetings weekly, where students pitch potential impact investment opportunities.
- Manage and share expertise with students.
- Support, manage, and motivate a team of expert consultants.
- Monitor and communicate potential legal risks to supervisors and senior staff promptly.
- Lead, coach, and motivate investment team members (students) proactively.
- Design and create student impact investing teams by assessing their expertise, skill sets, potential, and motivation.
- Mentor and guide student teams, providing necessary skills and knowledge for success, with a preference for impact investing expertise.
- Facilitate regular check-ins with student teams alongside the program coordinator to monitor progress and address challenges.
- Manage sensitive relationships with Penn Medicine, crowdfunding platforms, impact investing experts, and other key stakeholders.
- Perform additional duties as assigned to support the overall goals of the programs.
- Proven track record of successfully managing multiple projects simultaneously.
- Proven experience with data analysis.
- At least 1 year of investing related experience.
- Experience in mentoring or managing student teams is highly desirable, but the interest in doing this is required.
- Strong project management skills with a focus on delivering high-quality results.
- Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
- Strong leadership and interpersonal skills.
- Ability to work effectively both independently and in a team environment.
- Proficient in project management software and Microsoft Office Suite.
- Ability to mentor and develop students, fostering a collaborative and educational environment.
- Health, Life, and Flexible Spending Accounts : Penn offers comprehensive medical, prescription, behavioral health, dental, vision, and life insurance benefits to protect you and your family's health and welfare. You can also use flexible spending accounts to pay for eligible health care and dependent care expenses with pre-tax dollars.
- Tuition : Take advantage of Penn's exceptional tuition benefits. You, your spouse, and your dependent children can get tuition assistance here at Penn. Your dependent children are also eligible for tuition assistance at other institutions.
- Retirement: Penn offers generous retirement plans to help you save for your future. Penn's Basic, Matching, and Supplemental retirement plans allow you to save for retirement on a pre-tax or Roth basis. Choose from a wide variety of investment options through TIAA and Vanguard.
- Time Away from Work: Penn provides you with a substantial amount of time away from work during the course of the year. This allows you to relax, take vacations, attend to personal affairs, recover from illness or injury, spend time with family—whatever your personal needs may be.
- Long-Term Care Insurance: In partnership with Genworth Financial, Penn offers faculty and staff (and your eligible family members) long-term care insurance to help you cover some of the costs of long-term care services received at home, in the community or in a nursing facility. If you apply when you're newly hired, you won't have to provide proof of good health or be subject to underwriting requirements. Eligible family members must always provide proof of good health and are subject to underwriting.
- Wellness and Work-life Resources : Penn is committed to supporting our faculty and staff as they balance the competing demands of work and personal life. That's why we offer a wide variety of programs and resources to help you care for your health, your family, and your work-life balance.
- Professional and Personal Development: Penn provides an array of resources to help you advance yourself personally and professionally.
- University Resources: As a member of the Penn community, you have access to a wide range of University resources as well as cultural and recreational activities. Take advantage of the University's libraries and athletic facilities, or visit our arboretum and art galleries. There's always something going on at Penn, whether it's a new exhibit at the Penn Museum, the latest music or theater presentation at the Annenberg Center, or the Penn Relays at Franklin Field to name just a few examples. As a member of the Penn community, you're right in the middle of the excitement—and you and your family can enjoy many of these activities for free.
- Discounts and Special Services : From arts and entertainment to transportation and mortgages, you'll find great deals for University faculty and staff. Not only do Penn arts and cultural centers and museums offer free and discounted admission and memberships to faculty and staff. You can also enjoy substantial savings on other goods and services such as new cars from Ford and General Motors, cellular phone service plans, movie tickets, and admission to theme parks.
- Flexible Work Hours: Flexible work options offer creative approaches for completing work while promoting balance between work and personal commitments. These approaches involve use of non-traditional work hours, locations, and/or job structures.
- Penn Home Ownership Services: Penn offers a forgivable loan for eligible employees interested in buying a home or currently residing in West Philadelphia, which can be used for closing costs or home improvements.
- Adoption Assistance: Penn will reimburse eligible employees on qualified expenses in connection with the legal adoption of an eligible child, such as travel or court fees, for up to two adoptions in your household.
Application Details (to apply use the Apply Now button below.)
How to Apply: Please click the "Apply Now" button below or visit: https://wd1.myworkdaysite.com/recruiting/upenn/careers-at-penn
Jobs at the University of Pennsylvania. When inquiring or applying for positions within the University of Pennsylvania, please also reference AcademicCareers.com
Applicants with dual-career considerations can find university jobs such as professor jobs, dean jobs, chair / department head jobs, and other faculty jobs and professional and administrative staff employment opportunities at the University of Pennsylvania and at other institutions of higher education in the region on www.AcademicCareers.com To receive email alerts when new jobs at the University of Pennsylvania are posted, job seekers can sign up at new job openings at the University of Pennsylvania.
A Great Place to Work
Penn's innovative schools, centers, and divisions offer a vast array of positions in a broad range of fields. Penn is the largest private employer in Philadelphia. Here you can find new opportunities as your career develops—from your first job out of school to your first leadership role, and all points in between. You can discover new work settings as your goals evolve, and even change professions.
We’re famous for research and education, but did you know Penn also offers positions in areas such as financial management, hospitality, transportation, real estate development, investments, public safety, fundraising, marketing, communications, and information technology (IT)?
Penn is a leading employer in key fields. We are regularly ranked as one of the best places to work in IT, and our Office of Development and Alumni Relations is one of the premier organizations in the industry.
If you have a passion for excellence in education, research, or service to the community, Penn is the right choice for any point in your professional journey.
University Overview The University of Pennsylvania, the largest private employer in Philadelphia, is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. This historic, Ivy League school consistently ranks among the top 10 universities in the annual U.S. News & World Report survey. Penn has 12 highly-regarded schools that provide opportunities for undergraduate, graduate and continuing education, all influenced by Penn's distinctive interdisciplinary approach to scholarship and learning. Penn offers a unique working environment within the city of Philadelphia. The University is situated on a beautiful urban campus, with easy access to a range of educational, cultural, and recreational activities. With its historical significance and landmarks, lively cultural offerings, and wide variety of atmospheres, Philadelphia is the perfect place to call home for work and play. The University offers a competitive benefits package that includes excellent healthcare and tuition benefits for employees and their families, generous retirement benefits, a wide variety of professional development opportunities, supportive work and family benefits, a wealth of health and wellness programs and resources, and much more.
When inquiring or applying for positions within the University of Pennsylvania, please also reference AcademicCareers.com
IMAGES
COMMENTS
This master thesis represents the end of a two-year master's degree program in Finance & Strategic Management at Copenhagen Business School. The thesis is a quantitative study of responsible investments, where the main focus lay on the effect of ESG criteria and financial performance. The motivation was to do a quantitative study in practice
Finally, a recent paper that incorporates ESG investing into the MPT framework is discussed. 3.1 Modern Portfolio Theory. The MPT is a mean-variance theory that provides the foundation for portfolio construction and optimization. The MPT optimizes the relationship between returns and risk (Markowitz, 1952).
Master's thesis ESG investments: Can ESG momentum add alpha? Cand.Merc. Applied Economics and Finance Authors: Melanie Christina Damm (116279) & Julie Arvad Tranemose (101141) ... 2019). Integrating ESG into investment decisions has increased in importance for many investors as more research shows its implications on risk and return ...
actIt is a common belief that sustainability and pro tability are mutually exclusive con-cepts. Traditionally, investment decis. ons have been based on a narrow set of criteria relating to the trade-o between risk and return. Nevertheless, a growing demand for ESG strategies has led to a proliferation in o erings centered around sustainable invest.
Given the two underlying motivations for ESG investing, we find it interesting to investigate how economic shocks impact ESG investments. Several studies find that ESG investments demonstrate resilience during economic shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to investors viewing sustainability as a necessity rather than a luxury.
Investing (PRI), which, for the first time, talked about ESG investing as we know it. The Responsible Investor is now defined as the investor who incorporates ESG factors into his or her portfolio (Brochure PRI, 2021). 7 Figure 2. The PRI growth from 2006 until 2021 (Brochure PRI, 2021). Since 2006, the PRI has seen consistent growth up until ...
Master Thesis MSc. Financial Economics ESG Investing: Does an ESG Premium Exist and How Does SRI Impact Companies' Cost of Capital? Corentin Iannello (539276) Email: [email protected] December 13th, 2020 The views stated in this thesis are those of the author and not necessarily those of the supervisor, second assessor,
This thesis examines the relationship that has puzzled the academia, with a thorough and critical review of existing literature on ESG investing. The empirical analysis examines portfolios with varying degrees of ESG performance, where the performance has been identified by the companies' respective ESG and controversy score.
MASTER THESIS Copenhagen Business School 2021 The Impact of ESG Scores on Portfolio Return and Risk An Empirical Study ... abnormal returns by incorporating ESG ratings into their investment decision-making over the course of the analysis period. Thus, the paper concludes that ESG scores do have an impact on financial performance. ...
Master Thesis October 2021 Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam Author: Sheda Delfan Student number: 451826 Msc. Financial Economics Supervisor: Dr. Ronald Huisman Co-supervisor: Keywords: Sustainability, ESG investing, The prospect theory, ESG valuation curve, Sustainable return, Financial return, Social return . 2
This thesis is written in collaboration between two students, majoring in Financial Economics. The thesis is part of the master's degree in Economics and Business Administration at the Norwegian School of Economics. Our choice of topic was motivated by our joint interest in both finance and sustainability.
Master's Thesis 2021 30 ECTSJoha. Science in EconomicsAbstractIn this thesis, we investigate the impact of covid-19 on ESG versions of. broad market indices from S&P. We use a cross-market approach and look for abnormal returns in Europe, the US, and the global market. A total of nine ESG indices are used - three from each market - with ...
ESG Investing and Financial Performance A breakdown of ESG and its impact on financial performance across industries Master's Thesis Copenhagen Business School 16th May 2022 Pratya Arora - 118625 Monique Carmella Guastella - 141767 Supervisor: Nikolaos Kavadis M.Sc. in Finance and Strategic Management 119 pages 258,213 characters
Bergen, May 31st, 2021. B. WilhelmsenErik WoodsAbstractThis thesis investigates the link between ESG ratings and stock performance of Eu. opean large capitalization firms. Using ESG ratings from three independent providers - Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg and Sustainalytics - we examine differences in returns of zero-investment portfolios with ...
As a result, this master thesis provides suggestions to financial professionals on how to mitigate the negative market reaction and enhance their firm's stock performance. ... This section covers related topics of literature with regards to SEOs and ESG investment, which bases on capital structure theory and market reaction of firms' equity ...
Financial performance of ESG-motivated investment strategies A study on the out-of-sample risk-adjusted performance of ESG-motivated investment strategies compared to the S&P500 Master's Thesis M.Sc. Economics and Business Administration (Cand.merc) Finance & Investments (FIN) Authors
investment judgements by enabling investors to better assess risks and opportunities" (Bassen & Kovacs, 2008, p.184). Not only have ESG indicators become key indicators for the non-financial firm performance, but they are also commonly used to assess competencies of a company's management as well as to support risk management (Galbreath, 2013).
Master's Thesis (CMIBO1000E) - Contract number 18284 A Behavioral Perspective on Sustainable Finance: ... investing is here considered as any investment approach that integrates ESG consideration in the analysis and selection process of securities (GSIA, 2021). While some have welcomed this shift as a sign that investors "do care" about ...
This study investigates the ESG performance-systemic risk (SR) nexus among Indian companies. Using the beta coefficient from the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and statistical analysis, it explores how ESG performance affects SR. The findings reveal that firms with higher ESG scores have lower SR sensitivity. Notably, there is a significant difference in risk sensitivity between high ...
One important goal of companies is to boost their investments and the way to succeed in that is by implementing environmental, social, and governance inputs. (Mikołajek-Gocejna, 2018). The ESG criteria refer to environmental, social, and corporate governance factors that provide useful information for companies in terms of investing.
Master Thesis The Role of ESG Performance in M&A Decisions - Evidence from Acquisition Premia Author: Supervisor: Michelle Reichelt (133140) Colin Melvin ... expanding from the investor perspective to the entirety of stakeholders involved in any investment decisions. For this reason, ESG appears to be the prevailing concept in the context of ...
This Thesis studies the effect of Environmental, Social and Governance considerations in European investor's portfolio performance between 2009-2019. More specifically, it constructs low-ranked portfolios by selecting the 250 worst performers in each of the metrics. By applying well-known models in financial theory, the results suggest that ...
Lead, coach, and motivate investment team members (students) proactively. Design and create student impact investing teams by assessing their expertise, skill sets, potential, and motivation. Mentor and guide student teams, providing necessary skills and knowledge for success, with a preference for impact investing expertise.
This thesis investigates the impact of ESG performance score of the companies in their ability to access loans from banks. The data used in this analysis is based on 4828 deals lent to 1645 US companies ... agreement is the historical point for the official recognition of banks role in the impact investing, according to a study by Weber et. al ...
In this thesis, a qualitative literature review of the Nordic pension funds, ESG risks, and risk management will be conducted from researching the scholarly field. The relationship between ESG risk management and ESG standards will purposefully support the explorations for theory supported in the analysis section.