Connections between ESG and systemic risk based on dynamic stock return connectedness in the US
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2024.01.02Keywords:
ESG, systemic risk, risk management, connectednesAbstract
In this study, the number and direction of dynamic return connections have been analysed within and between portfolios with different ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) scores to determine their exposure to systemic risk. The number of significant pairwise Granger causality connections were counted between 2012 and 2019 on the portfolios of NASDAQ and NYSE using one-year, weekly rolling windows. According to the results of the current empirical research, the return of high ESG portfolios determines the return of low ESG portfolios. Low ESG performers are also more interconnected than companies with high ESG scores and thus more exposed to systemic risk; this low-ESG interconnectedness accelerates further as market volatility increases. Overall, investors can reduce exposure to systemic risk by applying a responsible mindset to their investment decisions. Application of the methods and findings of this study could be integrated into the regulatory risk management and portfolio diversification practices of individual or institutional asset managers.
Downloads
References
Abdennadher, E., & Hellara, S. (2018). Causality and contagion in emerging stock markets. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(4), 300-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2018.07.001
Acharya, V.V., Pedersen, L.H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2017). Measuring systemic risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw088
Akhtaruzzaman, M., Boubaker, S., & Umar, Z. (2021). COVID–19 media coverage and ESG leader indices. Finance Research Letters, 45(March), 102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102170
Balboa, M., López-Espinosa, G., & Rubia, A. (2015). Granger causality and systemic risk. Finance Research Letters, 15, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.08.003
Barber, B.M., & Lyon, J.D. (1997). Firm size, book‐to‐market ratio, and security returns: A holdout sample of financial firms. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 875-883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04826.x
Benoit, S., Colletaz, G., Hurlin, C., & Pérignon, C. (2013). A theoretical and empirical comparison of systemic risk measures. HEC Paris Research Paper No. FIN2014-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1973950
Bianconi, M., Hua, X., & Tan, C.M. (2015). Determinants of systemic risk and information dissemination. International Review of Economics & Finance, 38(July), 352-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2015.03.010
Billio, M., Getmansky, M., Lo, A.W., & Pelizzon, L. (2012). Econometric measures of connectedness and systemic risk in the finance and insurance sectors. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(3), 535-559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.12.010
Bisias, D., Flood, M., Lo, A.W., & Valavanis, S. (2012). A survey of systemic risk analytics. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 4(1), 255-296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101754
Bissoondoyal-Bheenick, E., Do, H., Hu, X., & Zhong, A. (2020). Learning from SARS: Return and Volatility Connectedness in COVID-19. Finance Research Letters, 41(July), 101796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101796
Broadstock, D.C., Chan, K., Luis, T.W.C., & Xiaowei W. (2020). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters, 38(January), 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101716
Chen, Y., & Lin, B. (2022). Quantifying the extreme spillovers on worldwide ESG leaders’ equity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 84(Nov), 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102425
Crespi, F., & Migliavacca, M. (2020). The determinants of ESG rating in the financial industry: the same old story or a different tale? Sustainability, 12(16), 6398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166398
Csillag B., & Neszveda G. (2020). A gazdasági várakozások hatása a tőzsdei momentumstratégiára. Közgazdasági Szemle, 67(11), 1093-1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2020.11.1093
De Nicolo, G., & Kwast, M.L. (2002). Systemic risk and financial consolidation: Are they related? Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(5), 861-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00211-X
Demers, E., Jurian H., Philip J., & Baruch L. (2021). ESG Didn’t Immunize Stocks During the COVID-19 Crisis, But Investments in Intangible Assets Did. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 48(3-4), 433-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12523
Diebold, F.X., & Yilmaz, K (2012). Better to Give to Receive: Forcast Based Measurement of Volatility Spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
EBA (2019). EBA action plan on sustainable finance. https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/EBA%20Action%20plan%20on%20sustainable%20finance.pdf
Fama, E.F., & French, K.R. (1992). The cross‐section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
Folger-Laronde, Z., Pashang, S., Feor, L., & ElAlfy, A. (2020). ESG ratings and financial performance of exchange-traded funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(2), 490-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1782814
Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
Hoepner, A. G. F., Oikonomou, I., Sautner, Z., Starks, L.T., & Zhou, X. (2019). ESG Shareholder Engagement and Downside Risk. Finance Working Paper, 671/2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874252
Hoje, J., & Haejung, N. (2012). Does CSR Reduce Firm Risk? Evidence from Controversial Industry Sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1492-2
Hong, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2009). Granger causality in risk and detection of extreme risk spillover between financial markets. Journal of Econometrics, 150(2), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.12.013
Hyunjoo, K. (2010). Dynamic causal linkages between the US stock market and the stock market of Eastern Asian economies. Cesis Electronic Working Paper Series. Paper No. 236. https://swopec.hhs.se/cesisp/abs/cesisp0236.htm
Le, T., Martin, F., & Nguyen, D. (2018). Dynamic connectedness of global currencies: A conditional Granger-causality approach. HAL. https://hal.science/hal01806733
Lindner, B., Auret, L., Bauer, M., & Groenewald, J.W. (2019). Comparative analysis of Granger causality and transfer entropy to present a decision flow for the application of oscillation diagnosis. Journal of Process Control, 79, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2019.04.005
Magyar Nemzeti Bank (2022). A Magyar Nemzeti Bank 10/2022. (VIII.2.) számú ajánlása. https://www.mnb.hu/letoltes/10-2022-zold-ajanlas.pdf
Mérő B., Nagy O., & Neszveda G. (2019). Új faktorok tesztelése az empirikus eszközárazásban. SZIGMA Matematikai-Közgazdasági Folyóirat, 50(4), 263–281. https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/szigma/article/view/3197/3001
Merton, R.C. (2014). Measuring the Connectedness of the Financial System: Implications for Risk Management. Asian Development Review, 31(1), 186–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ADEV_A_00026
MSCI (2022). ESG Investing. https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing
Neszveda G. (2018). A kiszámíthatatlanság fokozatainak szerepe a közgazdaságtanban. Köz-gazdaság – Review of Economic Theory and Policy, 13(4), 103-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.14267/RETP2018.04.18
Neszveda G., & Vágó Á. (2021). A likviditásnyújtás kereskedési stratégiájának hozamvizsgálata a magyar részvénypiacon. Közgazdasági Szemle, 68(7-8), 794-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.18414/Ksz.2021.7-8.794
Peng, Y., Weidong, C., Wei, P., & Guanyi, Y. (2019). Spillover effect and Granger causality investigation between China’s stock market and international oil market: A dynamic multiscale approach. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 367(March), 112460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.112460
Perneger, T.V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ, 316(7139), 1236-1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236
Policy Uncertainty (2022). Economic Policy Uncertainty. https://www.policyuncertainty.com/methodology.html
Refinitiv (2022). Environmental, Social and Governance Scores. https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf
Remmer, S., Hinze, A.K., & Hardeck, I. (2016). Impact of ESG factors on firm risk in Europe. Journal of Business Economics, 86(April), 867-904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-016-0819-3
Said, S.E., & Dickey, D.A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/71.3.599
Shaik, M., & Rehman, M.Z. (2022). The Dynamic Volatility Connectedness of Major Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Stock Indices: Evidence Based on DCC-GARCH Model. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 30, 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-022-09393-5
Shiller, R.J. (2015). Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400865536
Shrivastava, P., & Zsolnai, L. (2020). Business and Society in the Anthropocene. In Wasieleski, D.M., & Weber, J. (Eds.), Sustainability (Business and Society 360, Vol. 4) (pp. 3-15). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2514-175920200000004002
Singh, A. (2022). COVID‐19 and ESG preferences: Corporate bonds versus equities. International Review of Finance, 22(2), 298-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12351
Singh, A., Patel, R., & Singh, H. (2022). Recalibration of priorities: Investor preference and Russia-Ukraine conflict. Finance Research Letters, 50, 103294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103294
Tetlock, P.C. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1139-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01232.x
Umar, Z., Kenourgios, D., & Papathanasiou, S. (2020). The static and dynamic connectedness of environmental, social, and governance investments: International evidence. Economic Modelling, 93(December), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.08.007
US SIF. (2021). US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends 2020. https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202020%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
US SIF. (2019). US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends 2018. https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202020%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
US SIF. (2021). US SIF Foundation. 2020 Report on US Sustainable and Impact Investing Trends. https://www.ussif.org/files/Trends/2020_Trends_Highlights_OnePager.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors assign copyright to Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
