Abstract:Environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) scores have been widely touted as indicators of share price resilience during the COVID-19 humanitarian crisis. We undertake extensive analyses to investigate this claim and present robust evidence that, once the firm’s industry affiliation and accounting- and market-based measures of risk have been properly controlled for, ESG scores offer no such positive explanatory power for returns during COVID-19. Specifically, ESG is insignificant in fully specified returns regressions for the first quarter of 2020 COVID crisis period, and it is weakly negatively associated with returns during the market’s “recovery” period in the second quarter of 2020. Industry affiliation, market-based measures of risk, and accounting-based variables that capture the firm’s financial flexibility (liquidity and leverage) and their investments in internally-developed intangible assets together dominate the explanatory power of the COVID returns models. Relying on data from the global financial crisis (“GFC”) of 2008-2009, we develop parsimonious logit-based models to explain GFC period “winners” and “losers” (i.e., top and bottom deciles of returns performance), and we use these fitted models to predict winners and losers in the subsequent COVID crisis. Employing receiver operating characteristic (“ROC”) curves, we demonstrate that various accounting- and market-based models perform well both within-sample for the GFC period, as well as out-of-sample for the COVID crisis, but that ESG does not meaningfully add to the combined accounting and market models’ performance. We develop hedge strategies that go long (short) in firms during the COVID crisis that the GFC-based models predict will be winners (losers) and document that these predictions yield highly significant abnormal returns. Once again, ESG offers no enhancement to the out-of-sample returns performance. We conclude that celebrations of ESG as an important resilience factor in times of crisis are, at best, premature.

Isolating defensive corporate ESG effects: Evidence from purely domestic anti-COVID-19 measures

Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic

Cui bono? Large-scale evidence on the impact of COVID-19 policy measures on listed firms

How Does Firm ESG Performance Impact Financial Constraints? An Experimental Exploration of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Effect of ESG performance on the stock market during the COVID-19 Pandemic - Evidence from Japan

ESG performance and stock prices: evidence from the COVID-19 outbreak in China

The effects of heterogeneous CSR on corporate stock performance: evidence from COVID-19 pandemic in China

The role of ESG performance during times of COVID-19 pandemic

International firms and COVID-19: evidence from a global survey

ESG Didn’t Immunize Stocks Against the Covid-19 Market Crash

The Impact of COVID-19-Induced Sentiment on Firm Performance: The Moderating Impact of Sustainable ESG Activities

Corporate ESG and resilience of stock prices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in China

ESG performance in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: cross-country evidence

ESG Performance and Stock Price Volatility in Public Health Crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 Pandemic

How do ESG controversies moderate the nexus between ESG performance and cost of capital? Evidence from European listed companies

Corporate ESG performance as good insurance in times of crisis: lessons from US stock market during COVID-19 pandemic

ESG did not immunize stocks during the COVID‐19 crisis, but investments in intangible assets did

COVID-19, ESG investing, and the resilience of more sustainable stocks: Evidence from European firms

Impact of CSR on stock return resilience during the 2020 public health emergency: Evidence from the Chinese financial market

The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China

Is Corporate Social Responsibility investing a free lunch? The relationship between ESG, tail risk, and upside potential of stocks before and during the COVID-19 crisis