oxford-study-pdf

Table 6: continuedStudy authorsTimeperiodesg issue esg factor impact (*)Jiao (2010) 1992-2003 Stakeholder welfare score S PositiveJo and Harjoto (2011) 1993-2004Aggregate CSR index and governanceindexESG Positive (15)King and Lennox (2001) 1987-1996 Total emissions E Positive (16)King and Lennox (2002) 1991-1996Installation of waste preventionmeasuresEPositiveKoh, Qian, and Wang (2013) 1991-2007 Aggregate CSR score ESG PositiveKonar and Cohen (2001) 1989 Release of toxic chemicals E Positive (17)Matsumura, Prakash, and Vera-Munoz (2011) 2006-2008 Total level of carbon emissions E Positive (18)McWilliams and Siegel (2000) 1991-1996 Socially responsible indicator variable ESG No EffectMehran (1995) 1979-1980Total executive compensation and shareof equity based salaryGPositivePava and Krausz (1996) 1985-1991 Aggregate CSR score ESG PositivePreston and O’Bannon (1997) 1982-1992Employee, customer, and communityrelationsS Positive (19)Richard, Murthi, and Ismail (2007) 1997-2002 Diversity S PositiveRusso and Fouts (1997) 1991-1992 Corporate environmental performance E Positive (20)Servaes and Tamayo (2013) 1991-2005 Aggregate CSR index ESG Positive (21)Simpson and Kohers (2002) 1993-1994 Community Relations S PositiveSmithey Fulmer, Gerhart, and Scott (2003) 1998 Employee wellbeing S Positive (22)Spicer (1978) 1970-1972 Pollution control mechanisms E PositiveWaddock and Graves (1997) 1989-1991 Weighted average CSR index ESG PositiveWu and Shen (2013) 2003-2009 Aggregate CSR index ESG PositiveYermack (1996) 1984-1991 Reductions in board size G Positive(*) In the last column of the table, we state the effect of better ESG on operational performance. ‘Positive’ indicatesthat better ESG has a positive effect on operational performance. ‘Mixed’ indicates that better ESG has a mixed effecton operational performance. ‘Negative’ indicates that better ESG has negative effect on operational performance.Notes to Table 6:(1) Evidence from numerous countries.(2) CSR strengths are not significantly correlated toTobin’s Q; CSR challenges show a significantlynegative correlation to Tobin’s Q.(3) Counts as positive, as better-governed firmswithout classified boards have a relatively betterperformance.(4) Positive but insignificant for sin industries only.(5) Just for firms that are not major polluters.(6) This is counted as positive, because weakshareholder rights (a high G-index) lead to pooroperating performance. Hence, improvements in31