Every Little Helps? ESG News and Stock Market Reaction

Abstract

Stories about corporate social responsibility have become very frequent over the past decade, and managers can no longer ignore their impact on firm value. In this paper, we investigate the extent and the determinants of the stock market’s reaction following ordinary news related to environmental, social and governance issues—the so-called ESG factors. To that purpose, we use an original database provided by Covalence EthicalQuote. Our empirical analysis is based on about 33,000 ESG news (positive or negative), targeting one hundred listed companies over the period 2002–2010. On average, firms facing negative events experience a drop in their market value of 0.1%, whereas companies gain nothing on average from positive announcements. We find also that market participants are responsive to the media, but they do not react to firms’ press releases or to NGOs’ disclosures. Moreover, our results indicate that sector’s reputation mitigates the loss (the goodwill hypothesis) and that cultural proximity and lexical contents of ESG disclosures play a significant role in the magnitude of the impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Coming Technological Singularity, 1993.

  2. 2.

    The academic literature on the impact of ESG news is larger, but most of the papers assess the market reaction following a specific event, based on small hand-collected samples without much details. Consequently, they provide little evidence concerning the determinants of the reaction or comparison between different events.

  3. 3.

    Recently, Elayan et al. (2014) have also used data from Covalence EthicalQuote, but they only consider aggregated information. However, their results suggest that these pieces of information convey useful information to shareholders.

  4. 4.

    Empirical studies on the relationship between CSP (corporate social performance) and CFP (corporate financial performance) are of three types. A first piece of literature examines whether portfolios composed of firms with a high level of CSP outperform the market (e.g., Barnett and Salomon 2006; Capelle-Blancard and Monjon 2014). A second strand considers the long-term relationship between CSP and accounting-based measures of CFP (e.g., King and Lenox 2001; Konar and Cohen 2001; Guenster et al. 2011). In this paper, we focus on the third type, namely event studies (see “Hypotheses Development” section).

  5. 5.

    Extensive media coverage might also be explained by the fact that ESG news are “blue-compatible”. Empirical evidence suggests that Democrats (the “blues”), in contrast to Republicans (“the reds”), are more apt to support causes such as environmental and labor protection, and they are more supportive of the stakeholder theory. For instance, Hong and Kostovetsky (2012) find that mutual fund managers who make campaign donations to Democrats hold less of their portfolios in industries that are deemed socially irresponsible (based on KLD ratings). Moreover, news media seems to be biased toward liberal ideas; see Groseclose and Milyo (2005) for empirical evidence from the USA. All together, this is consistent with the heavy weight news media give to ESG issues.

  6. 6.

    Interestingly, Zyglidopoulos et al. (2012) find that more media attention leads to an increase in CSR strengths, but does not drive any significant change in CSR weaknesses. Yet, this is still consistent with our hypothesis suggesting that it is more expensive for firms to improve their weaknesses, than to enhance their strengths.

  7. 7.

    For a formal model of greenwashing in presence of “soft” and “hard” (verifiable) information, see Bazillier and Vauday (2009).

  8. 8.

    Alternative specifications (with or without the sectoral index or with the CAPM) lead to very similar results. The most serious concern is about confounding events. While there is an extensive literature on the event study methodology, the contamination of the estimation period (Aktas et al. 2007) or the event period (Nelson et al. 2008) has attracted little attention. The standard approach consists in using a case-by-case analysis to neutralize all the confounding events, but this approach is impractical for large samples. In our case, we know precisely the dates of the possible confounding events (not all of them, but the ones related to ESG news). Then, we provide a robustness check in order to tackle the problem of confounding events. We consider another estimation window (−130, −11) where confounding events included in the Covalence EthicalQuote database are neutralized. In other words, for each firm, the days surrounding ESG news (−1, 0, +1) are dropped from the estimation window. The results are qualitatively the same (see in “Appendix” section). But the contamination by non-ESG events of the estimation period or the event period remains a possible limitation of this study.

  9. 9.

    See “Appendix” section for some examples of ESG news collected by Covalence EthicalQuote.

  10. 10.

    These lists have been manually check. The complete list (with more than 1000 sources) is available on request.

  11. 11.

    For example, the percentage of bad ESG news published by the media on environmental issues is equal to 7% for the banking industry and to 35% for the chemical industry. Conversely, the percentage of bad ESG news published by the media on corporate governance issues is equal to 24% for the banking industry and to 11% for the chemical industry (see Capelle-Blancard and Petit 2017).

  12. 12.

    An alternative would be to use the Volatility Index (VIX) computed by the CBOE and based on the implied volatility of the S&P 500 index options. Often referred to as the fear index, it shows a very similar pattern.

  13. 13.

    We also used the Fortune Magazine’s annual ranking of the “world’s most admired companies.” A problem, however, is that it does not cover all the firms included in our sample. Moreover, according to McGuire et al. (1988), Fortune Magazine’s ranking is linked to prior financial performance.

  14. 14.

    We also used a 6-month and a 2-year time frame for robustness tests, but it does not change the results.

  15. 15.

    We only consider news in English.

  16. 16.

    R&D spendings (divided the total assets) and percentage of floating shares have been used also, but the availability of the data (moreover, only annual) lowers the size of the sample without changing meaningfully the results.

  17. 17.

    Note that this first set of results holds when we consider alternative specifications: with a restricted sample that excludes events for which abnormal returns are likely to be misspecified (i.e., when parameters of the market model are jointly not significant), with or without sectoral indexes, with a longer estimation window cleaned of contaminating events, or with the Fama-French 4 factors. Those results are available on request.

  18. 18.

    Table 10 in “Appendix” section only considers cumulative abnormal returns significant at the 1% level. Table 11 uses a larger estimation window \([-130;-11]\) which is “decontaminated” (the days when a firm experiments ESG events were removed from the estimation windows).

  19. 19.

    Similarly, we also tested whether upcoming weekend (the so-called Friday effect) or holidays distract shareholders from ESG issues (DellaVigna and Pollet 2009), but we did not find any impact as well. We have also controlled for the total amount of news reported in the Dow Jones Factiva database (therefore, including non-ESG news), which can be considered as a proxy of limited attention of shareholders (Hirshleifer et al. 2009); the results were not significant.

  20. 20.

    See Coval and Moskowitz (2001), Grinblatt and Keloharju (2001), Huberman (2001) or Ivkovic and Weisbenner (2005).

  21. 21.

    In a previous version, we tested whether the impact of ESG news depends on the country where the event took place ; in particular, we distinguished developed and developing countries. On the one hand, the impact should be higher for negative events if they occur in developed countries compared to developing ones, because of environmental liability rules or the stringency of regulation. On the other hand, due to the difference of media coverage, small events are more likely to be reported in developed countries. We did not observe any significant differences.

References

  1. Aktas, N., de Bodt, E., & Cousin, J. G. (2007). Event studies with a contaminated estimation period. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2016). Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3213-8.

  3. Barnett, M., & Salomon, M. (2006). The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1101–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron, D. P. (2001). Private politics. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12(1), 31–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baron, D. P. (2005). Competing for the public through the news media. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 14, 339–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baron, D. P. (2009). A positive theory of moral management, social pressure, and corporate social performance. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18, 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baron, D. P., & Diermeier, D. (2007). Strategic activism and nonmarket strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16, 599–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bazillier, R., & Vauday, J. (2009). The GreenWashing machine: Is CSR more than communication? Working paper.

  9. Bird, R., Hall, A., Momente, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borenstein, S., & Zimmerman, M. B. (1988). Market incentives for safe commercial airline operation. The American Economic Review, 78(5), 913–935.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Couderc, N. (2009). The impact of socially responsible investing: Evidence from stock index redefinitions. The Journal of Investing, 18(2), 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Laguna, M.-A. (2010). How does the stock market respond to chemical disasters? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 59(2), 192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Monjon, S. (2014). The performance of socially responsible funds: Does the screening process matter? European Financial Management Journal, 20(3), 494–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Capelle-Blancard, G., & Petit, A. (2017). The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit all. Business and Society, 56(6), 919–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. The Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chaney, P. K., & Philipich, K. L. (2002). Shredded reputation: The cost of audit failure. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1221–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coval, J. D., & Moskowitz, T. J. (2001). The geography of investment: Informed trading and asset prices. Journal of Political Economy, 109(4), 811–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Da, Z., Engelberg, J., & Gao, P. (2011). In search of attention. The Journal of Finance, 64(5), 1461–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DellaVigna, S., & Pollet, J. M. (2009). Investor inattention and Friday earnings announcements. The Journal of Finance, 64(2), 709–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Demers, E., & Vega, C. (2010). Soft information in earnings announcements: News or noise? Insead working paper, 33/AC.

  22. Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Engelberg, J., & Parsons, C. (2011). The causal impact of media in financial markets. The Journal of Finance, 66(1), 67–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Engelberg, J. (2008). Costly information processing: Evidence from earnings announcements. Working paper.

  26. Elayan, F., Li, J., Liu, Z., Meyer, T., & Felton, S. (2014). Changes in the covalence ethical quote, financial performance and financial reporting quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fama, E., Fisher, L., Jensen, M., & Roll, R. (1969). The adjustment of stock prices to new information. International Economic Review, 10, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Farber, H., & Hallock, K. (2009). The changing relationship between job loss announcements and stock prices: 1970–1999. Labour Economics, 16(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher-Vanden, K., & Thorburn, K. (2011). Voluntary corporate environmental initiatives and shareholder wealth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 758–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2001). How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades. The Journal of Finance, 56(3), 1053–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guenster, N., Derwall, J., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2011). The economic value of corporate eco-efficiency. European Financial Management, 17(4), 679–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gunthorpe, D. (1997). Business ethics: A quantitative analysis of the impact of unethical behavior by publicly traded corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(5), 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dang, H.-A., Knack, S., & Rogers, H. (2009). International aid and financial crises in donor countries. Policy research working paper, 5162. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  37. Hamilton, J. (1995). Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the toxic release inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(1), 98–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hirshleifer, D., Lim, S. S., & Teoh, S. H. (2009). Driven to distraction: Extraneous events and underreaction to earnings news. The Journal of Finance, 64(5), 2289–2325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hong, H., & Kostovetsky, L. (2012). Red and blue investing: Values and finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Huberman, G. (2001). Familiarity breeds investment. Review of Financial Studies, 14(3), 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Huberman, G., & Regev, T. (2001). Contagious speculation and a cure for cancer: A nonevent that made stock prices soar. The Journal of Finance, 56(1), 387–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ivkovic, Z., & Weisbenner, S. (2005). Local does as local is: Information content of the geography of individual investors’ common stock investments. The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 267–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jacobs, B. W., Singhal, V. R., & Subramanian, R. (2010). An empirical investigation of environmental performance and the market value of the firm. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 430–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jarrell, G., & Peltzman, S. (1985). The impact of product recalls on the wealth of sellers. Journal of Political Economy, 93(3), 512–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jones, G., Jones, B., & Little, F. (2000). Reputation as reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of economic crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Karpoff, J., & Lott, J. (1993). The reputational penalty firms bear from committing criminal fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 36, 757–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Karpoff, J., Lott, J., & Wehrly, E. (2005). The reputational penalties for environmental violations: Empirical evidence. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 653–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kawashima, S., & Takeda, F. (2012). The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on stock prices of electric power utilities in Japan. Energy Economics, 34(6), 2029–2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking and Finance, 43, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. King, A., & Lenox, M. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. King, B. G., & Soule, S. A. (2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42(8), 1199–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kogan, S., Boudoukh, J., Feldman, R., & Richardson, M. (2013). Which news moves stock prices? A textual analysis (No. w18725). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  55. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Konar, S., & Cohen, M. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kothari, S., & Warner, J. (2006). Econometrics of event studies. In Espen Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of empirical corporate finance. North-Holland: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Krueger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lopatta, K., & Kaspereit, T. (2014). The cross-section of returns, benchmark model parameters, and idiosyncratic volatility of nuclear energy firms after Fukushima Daiichi. Energy Economics, 41, 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Luo, J., Meier, S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (2012). No news is good news: CSR strategy and newspaper coverage of negative firm events. Harvard working paper

  61. Lyon, T., Lu, Y., Shi, X., & Yin, Q. (2013). How do investors respond to Green Company Awards in China? Ecological Economics, 94(C), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lyon, T., & Maxwell, J. (2011). Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economic and Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 13–39.

    Google Scholar 

  64. MacWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Margolis, J., Elfenbein, H., & Walsh, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good... and does it matter? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on corporate social and financial performance. Working paper, Harvard University.

  66. Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenberg Domini ratings data. Business and Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mitchell, M. (1989). The impact of external parties on brand-name capital: The 1982 tylenol poisonings and subsequent cases. Economic Inquiry, 27(4), 601–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nelson, K. K., Price, R. A., & Rountree, B. (2008). The market reaction to Arthur Andersen’s role in the Enron scandal: Loss of reputation or confounding events? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46, 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Oberndorfer, U., Schmidt, P., Wagner, M., & Ziegler, A. (2013). Does the stock market value the inclusion in a sustainability stock index? An event study analysis for German firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(3), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Orlitzky, M. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, noise, and stock market volatility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 238–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Portney, Paul R. (2008). The (not so) new corporate social responsibility: An empirical perspective. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2), 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2011). Is ethical money financially smart? Nonfinancial attributes and money flows of socially responsible investment funds. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 20(4), 562–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Rennings, K., Schroder, M., & Ziegler, A. (2007). The effect of environmental and social performance on the stock performance of european corporations. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(4), 661–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schepers, D. H. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business and Society, 45(3), 282–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Scholtens, B. (2008). A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Ecological Economics, 68, 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schumaker, R. P., & Chen, H. (2009). Textual analysis of stock market prediction using breaking financial news: The AZFin text system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 27(2), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Smith, L. C., Smith, M., & Ashcroft, P. (2011). Analysis of environmental and economic damages from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Albany Law Review, 74(1), 563–585.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Spar, D. L., & La Mure, L. T. (2003). The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review, 45(3), 78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Takeda, F., & Tomozawa, T. (2008). A change in market responses to the environmental management ranking in Japan. Ecological Economics, 67(3), 465–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Tavares, J. (2003). Does foreign aid corrupt? Economics Letters, 79, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tetlock, P. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62, 1139–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business and Society, 55(8), 1083–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Werther, J., & Chandler, D. (2005). Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance. Business Horizons, 48(4), 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Yu, F. (2012). Participation of firms in voluntary environmental protection programs: An analysis of corporate social responsibility and capital market performance. Contemporary Economic Policy, 30(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Yu, K., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2013). Everybody’s talking but is anybody listening? Stock market reactions to corporate social responsibility communications. In Conference paper presented at the sustainability and the corporation: Big ideas (Vol. 24, p. 2015). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Retrieved July.

  91. Yu, Z. (2005). Environmental protection: A theory of direct and indirect competition for political influence. The Review of Economic Studies, 72(1), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Georgiadis, A. P., Carroll, C. E., & Siegel, D. S. (2012). Does media attention drive corporate social responsibility? Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1622–1627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, Patricia Crifo, Yannick Le Pen, Bert Sholtens, Charles Cho, Fabrizio Coricelli, Marie-Aude Laguna, Thomas Lyon, participants at the Informing Green Markets conference (Ann Arbor, 2011), the Mines-ParisTech workshop on the Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility (Paris, 2011), the UNPRI Mistra conference (Sigtuna, 2011), and the ESG seminar of the Ecole Polytechnique (Palaiseau, 2011), as well as two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. They also gratefully acknowledge Antoine Mach and Matthias Brunner from Covalence EthicalQuote for providing the data. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunther Capelle-Blancard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Gunther Capelle-Blancard declares that he has no conflict of interest. Aurélien Petit has worked on short-term contract with Covalence EthicalQuote.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 324 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4567 and 8 and Figs. 34 and 5.

Table 4 Examples of ESG disclosures
Table 5 Covalence EthicalQuote criteria 1/2
Table 6 Covalence EthicalQuote criteria 2/2
Fig. 3
figure3

Average number of ESG news per firm

Fig. 4
figure4

Average score per firm (number of good news minus number of bad news)

Fig. 5
figure5

Timing of ESG news. This figure presents, for each type of source, the total number of ESG news (from the bottom to the top: E, S and G) breakdown by year, month and day of the week (positive and negative news present similar patterns). Data: Covalence EthicalQuote, 2002–2010

Table 7 Sample of firms
Table 8 Summary statistics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capelle-Blancard, G., Petit, A. Every Little Helps? ESG News and Stock Market Reaction. J Bus Ethics 157, 543–565 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3667-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Socially responsible investing
  • ESG news
  • Disclosure
  • Event study