IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/30708.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Do Investors Value ESG?

Author

Listed:
  • Malcolm Baker
  • Mark L. Egan
  • Suproteem K. Sarkar

Abstract

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives have risen to near the top of the agenda for corporate executives and boards, driven in large part by their perceptions of shareholder interest. We quantify the value that shareholders place on ESG using a revealed preference approach, where shareholders pay higher fees for ESG-oriented index funds in exchange for their financial and non-financial benefits. We find that investors are willing, on average, to pay 20 basis points more per annum for an investment in a fund with an ESG mandate as compared to an otherwise identical mutual fund without an ESG mandate, suggesting that investors as a group expect commensurately higher pre-fee, gross returns, either financial or non-financial, from an ESG mandate. Our point estimate has risen from 9 basis points in 2019 when our sample begins to as much as 28 basis points in 2022. When we incorporate the possibility that investors are willing to accept lower financial returns in exchange for the psychic and societal benefits of ESG, when we consider that the holdings of ESG and non-ESG index funds overlap, when we measure the ESG ratings of these holdings, and when we focus on 401(k) participants who report being concerned about climate change or who work in industries with lower levels of emissions, we find that the implicit value that investors place on ESG stocks is higher still. A simple model of supply suggests that the large majority of these benefits accrue to investors and firms, with intermediaries capturing 5.9 basis points in fees, half of which reflect higher markups.

Suggested Citation

  • Malcolm Baker & Mark L. Egan & Suproteem K. Sarkar, 2022. "How Do Investors Value ESG?," NBER Working Papers 30708, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30708
    Note: AP CF
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w30708.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zach Y. Brown & Mark L. Egan & Jihye Jeon & Chuqing Jin & Alex A. Wu, 2023. "Why Do Index Funds Have Market Power? Quantifying Frictions in the Index Fund Market," NBER Working Papers 31778, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Montagnoli, Alberto & Taylor, Karl, 2024. "Who Cares about Investing Responsibly? Attitudes and Financial Decisions," IZA Discussion Papers 16952, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Bert Van Roosebeke & Ryan Defina, 2023. "The Role of Climate in Deposit Insurers' Fund Management: More Than a Financial Risk Management Factor?," IADI Survey Briefs 5, International Association of Deposit Insurers.
    4. Yin, Zhichao & Li, Xinqi & Si, Dengkui & Li, Xiaolin, 2023. "China stock market liberalization and company ESG performance: The mediating effect of investor attention," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1396-1414.
    5. Chi Zhang & Xinyang Li & Andrea Tamoni & Misha Beek & Andrew Ang, 2024. "ESG risk and returns implied by demand-based asset pricing models," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(3), pages 203-221, May.
    6. Michele Costa, 2023. "The evaluation of the effects of ESG scores on financial markets," Working Papers wp1189, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    7. Lee, King Fuei, 2023. "The Role of Catering Incentives in ESG Disclosure," MPRA Paper 120930, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G0 - Financial Economics - - General
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G5 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.