Stuart L. Gillan, Jay C. Hartzell, Andrew Koch, and ... - Pitt Business

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table III Decomposition of Operating Performance and ESG scores This table shows the relation between the decomposition of a firm’s operating performance and its ESG scores for each attribute separately. The decomposition of operating performance for the environmental score is shown in Panel A, for the social score in Panel B, and for the governance score in Panel C. The dependent variables are Revenue/Assets in the first two columns, Operating Expenses/Assets in columns (3) and (4) and Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT)/Assets in columns (5) and (6). All regressions include industry and year effects, where industry is defined using Fama-French (1993) 48-industry classification. Standard errors are clustered at the stock level. Panel A. Environmental Net Score [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Revenue/Assets Op Expense/Assets EBIT/Assets Environ. net score -0.0200 -0.0277** 0.00771*** (-1.62) (-2.33) (4.62) ln (market equity) -0.0420*** -0.0438*** -0.0634*** -0.0659*** 0.0233*** 0.0240*** (-6.79) (-7.13) (-10.79) (-11.23) (15.34) (15.68) ln (booktomkt) -0.111*** -0.112*** -0.105*** -0.107*** -0.00294 -0.00233 (-8.46) (-8.61) (-8.57) (-8.78) (-0.77) (-0.61) Observations 21274 21274 21277 21277 20960 20960 R-squared 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 Panel B. Social Net Score [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Revenue/Assets Op Expense/Assets EBIT/Assets Social net -0.000192 -0.00124 0.000687 (-0.04) (-0.30) (0.87) ln (market equity) -0.0420*** -0.0419*** -0.0634*** -0.0631*** 0.0233*** 0.0231*** (-6.79) (-6.48) (-10.79) (-10.26) (15.34) (15.07) ln (booktomkt) -0.111*** -0.111*** -0.105*** -0.105*** -0.00294 -0.00288 (-8.46) (-8.45) (-8.57) (-8.56) (-0.77) (-0.75) Observations 21274 21274 21277 21277 20960 20960 R-squared 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 29
Panel C. Governance Net Score [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Revenue/Assets Op Expense/Assets EBIT/Assets Govern. net -0.0233** -0.0334*** 0.0115*** (-2.17) (-3.20) (5.81) ln (market equity) -0.0420*** -0.0468*** -0.0634*** -0.0703*** 0.0233*** 0.0257*** (-6.79) (-7.22) (-10.79) (-11.47) (15.34) (16.13) ln (booktomkt) -0.111*** -0.112*** -0.105*** -0.107*** -0.00294 -0.00223 (-8.46) (-8.60) (-8.57) (-8.78) (-0.77) (-0.58) Observations 21274 21274 21277 21277 20960 20960 R-squared 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 t-statistics in parentheses *** p
Page 1 and 2: FIRMS’ ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND
Page 3 and 4: that 31 of the top 50 institutional
Page 5 and 6: underlying meaning for everyone - s
Page 7 and 8: struggled with identification issue
Page 9 and 10: In aggregate our findings suggest t
Page 11 and 12: indicators in each of the three ESG
Page 13 and 14: esults that are consistent with the
Page 15 and 16: Recall that Benabou and Tirole’s
Page 17 and 18: On average, firms with 1 unit net E
Page 19 and 20: contrast, we find significant negat
Page 21 and 22: In Table VIII, we report the result
Page 23 and 24: The results of this analysis are re
Page 25 and 26: suggesting that institutional inves
Page 27 and 28: Fisher-Vanden, Karen, and Karin S.
Page 29: Table II Firm Operating Performance
Page 33 and 34: Panel B: Total Direct Compensation
Page 35 and 36: Table VI Relation between Fraction
Page 37 and 38: Table VII Changes in ESG Scores ove
Page 39 and 40: Table VIII Changes in ESG Scores an
Page 41 and 42: C. Governance (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (
Page 43 and 44: Figure 1a: Histogram of Environment

Stuart L. Gillan, Jay C. Hartzell, Andrew Koch, and ... - Pitt Business

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?