Academy of Management Journal · 2012 · 1.7K citations · 52 references
ManagementEnvironmental ManagementStrategic ManagementCorporate Environmental ManagementCorporate FinanceCorporate Social ResponsibilityCorporate Environmental StrategyCorporate SustainabilityCorporate Sustainability StrategyEnvironmental StrategyCorporate Climate Responsibility
The study investigates whether shareholders react to corporate environmental footprints and posits that the value of environmental CSR depends on external and internal moderators. Using an event‑study of US firms from 1980‑2009, the authors show that rising external pressure heightens penalties for eco‑harmful actions, reduces rewards for eco‑friendly initiatives, and that environmental CSR has diminishing marginal returns and insurance‑like properties. Results reveal that responsible environmental behavior raises stock prices while irresponsible behavior lowers them; over time, penalties for eco‑harmful actions have intensified and rewards for eco‑friendly actions have weakened, and firms with higher environmental CSR experience smaller stock‑market reactions to such events.
This study examines whether shareholders are sensitive to corporations' environmental footprint. Specifically, I conduct an event study around the announcement of corporate news related to environment for all US publicly traded companies from 1980 to 2009. In keeping with the view that environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR) generates new and competitive resources for firms, I find that companies reported to behave responsibly toward the environment experience a significant stock price increase, whereas firms that behave irresponsibly face a significant decrease. Extending this view of "environment-as-a-resource," I posit that the value of environmental CSR depends on external and internal moderators. First, I argue that external pressure to behave responsibly towards the environment―which has increased dramatically over recent decades―exacerbates the punishment for eco-harmful behavior and reduces the reward for eco-friendly initiatives. This argument is supported by the data: over time, the negative stock market reaction to eco-harmful behavior has increased, while the positive reaction to eco-friendly initiatives has decreased. Second, I argue that environmental CSR is a resource with decreasing marginal returns and insurance-like features. In keeping with this view, I find that the positive (negative) stock market reaction to eco-friendly (-harmful) events is smaller for companies with higher levels of environmental CSR.
52
Journal of the American Dietetic Association · 1994 · 46.5K citations
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
Eugene F. Fama, Kenneth R. French · Journal of Financial Economics · 1993 · 27.7K citations
On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance
Mark M. Carhart · The Journal of Finance · 1997 · 17K citations · Full text
Journal of economic literature
J. Armstrong · International Journal of Forecasting · 1996 · 10K citations