9 research outputs found
La Innovación para la Sostenibilidad: Un Llamamiento para una Actitud Abolicionista con el fin de Liberar Nuestra imaginación Hacia la Acción
No full text
Does voluntary corporate citizenship pay? An examination of the UN Global Compact
No full textPurpose – The UN Global Compact (GC) is the world's largest voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative. Signatory companies voluntarily agree to abide by the GC ten principles and explicitly declare compliance with social and human rights, environmental protection, and anti-corruption practices. Participants commit to CSR and are required to publish a yearly report called Communication on Progress (COP). If firms fail to provide a COP for one year they are labeled “non-communicating”, and for two years they are “delisted” from the GC. In 2006, the first list of non-communicating and delisted firms was announced. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent by which being a signatory company – that reports COP – reduces information risk, and thus leads to better market returns, lower cost of debt, and lower cost of equity. Design/methodology/approach – The authors studied the period from the launch of the GC until the first list of non-communicating firms was made public, investigating the extent by which being a signatory company – that reports COP – reduces information risk, and thus leads to better market returns, lower cost of debt, and lower cost of equity. Findings – The results suggest that communicating (reporting) firms have statistically significant higher market valuation – lower book to market – than companies that initially agree to participate in the GC but that do not comply with the reporting requirement. Communicating firms also have statistically significant higher ROA, lower cost of debt, lower cost of equity, and lower beta indicating better performance and less risk. The authors also find some evidence that non-communicating firms might be “free riding” and could have joined the GC to improve their corporate image. Originality/value – The paper provides evidence of the value of CSR reporting. It is not enough to disclose compliance with CSR, but it is also necessary to account for this through some sort of formal mechanism such as a CSR report. Voluntary disclosures and narrative statements in annual reports will continue to have questionable information content, but standards of environmental reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, not only improve the way in which social and environmental performance is measured, but they also provide evidence of compliance. This paper also presents evidence of the value of voluntary initiatives such as the GC when these initiatives are supported by formal reporting and when accountability/enforcement measures are in placeCitizenship, Communication on Progress (COP), Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting, Global Compact, Performance and CSR, Voluntary disclosure, Voluntary reporting
Does voluntary corporate citizenship pay? An examination of the UN Global Compact
No full textPurposeThe UN Global Compact (GC) is the world's largest voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative. Signatory companies voluntarily agree to abide by the GC ten principles and explicitly declare compliance with social and human rights, environmental protection, and anti‐corruption practices. Participants commit to CSR and are required to publish a yearly report called Communication on Progress (COP). If firms fail to provide a COP for one year they are labeled “non‐communicating”, and for two years they are “delisted” from the GC. In 2006, the first list of non‐communicating and delisted firms was announced. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent by which being a signatory company – that reports COP – reduces information risk, and thus leads to better market returns, lower cost of debt, and lower cost of equity.Design/methodology/approachThe authors studied the period from the launch of the GC until the first list of non‐communicating firms was made public, investigating the extent by which being a signatory company – that reports COP – reduces information risk, and thus leads to better market returns, lower cost of debt, and lower cost of equity.FindingsThe results suggest that communicating (reporting) firms have statistically significant higher market valuation – lower book to market – than companies that initially agree to participate in the GC but that do not comply with the reporting requirement. Communicating firms also have statistically significant higher ROA, lower cost of debt, lower cost of equity, and lower beta indicating better performance and less risk. The authors also find some evidence that non‐communicating firms might be “free riding” and could have joined the GC to improve their corporate image.Originality/valueThe paper provides evidence of the value of CSR reporting. It is not enough to disclose compliance with CSR, but it is also necessary to account for this through some sort of formal mechanism such as a CSR report. Voluntary disclosures and narrative statements in annual reports will continue to have questionable information content, but standards of environmental reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, not only improve the way in which social and environmental performance is measured, but they also provide evidence of compliance. This paper also presents evidence of the value of voluntary initiatives such as the GC when these initiatives are supported by formal reporting and when accountability/enforcement measures are in place.</jats:sec
Walking the Talk? An Examination of the Investments of Jesuit Universities in Fossil Fuel Firms
Get PDFThis article investigates perspectives that have been proposed as reasons both for and against fossil fuel divestment (FFD), paying special attention to the decisions that universities make concerning investments in their endowment portfolios. Arguments that have been advanced against FFD include its supposedly lower financial returns, lack of direct control over investments, reliance on financial advisors, high transaction costs, the need for market index funds that include the stocks of fossil fuel firms, and the institution’s fiduciary duty to increase returns. Arguments that have been advanced in favor of FFD include satisfactory returns from fossil fuel-free portfolios, risk reduction, the over-pricing of fossil fuel firms, improved portfolio diversification, and the need to align investing behavior with the institution’s values, mission, and role in society. The study challenges the alleged financial reasons for maintaining investments in fossil fuel firms by presenting evidence that divestment does not impair portfolio performance on a risk-adjusted basis, nor does it increase long-term transaction costs. Fossil fuel firms are overvalued given that they will eventually suffer from the increasing demand for clean energy substitutes and face inevitable regulatory actions as the effects of climate change worsen. Divestment, therefore, might well provide higher risk-adjusted returns over the long-term
Walking the Talk? Jesuit Universities and Fossil Fuel Investments
Get PDFThe student-led fossil fuel divestment (FFD) movement urges universities to remove investments in fossil fuel firms from their endowment portfolios to inspire reductions in carbon emissions and help control climate change. This article explores the movement in U.S.-based Jesuit universities by documenting their endowment size, current divestment status, and rationale for or against divesting. These institutions held a total of US$13.8 billion in their endowments as of 2019, making their investment decisions relevant and material. The article in general examines the alignment of divestment actions with the commitments of Jesuit universities to environmental stewardship and social justice as expressed in their mission statements and Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’. Two out of the 27 Jesuit universities in the U.S., namely, Georgetown and Seattle University, were already committed to FFD by April 2020; after accounting for branch campuses, this represents a commitment of 13.3% among all U.S.-based Jesuit universities. This is appreciably higher than the 4.12% divestment rate among all private 4-year universities in the United States. Each of the 27 U.S.-based Jesuit universities was contacted to verify their endowment size, divestment status, and position on FFD. The 13 who responded stated their commitment to environmental protection and sustainability, and some reported their rationale for or against divesting. Results suggest that the investment strategies of Jesuit universities are a “work in progress,” and are likely to evolve as they align with their common Roman Catholic and Jesuit identity and mission. The reasons stated for deciding not to divest, moreover, are consistent with previous literature. A second article in this issue of the Journal of Management for Global Sustainability explores those reasons in detail and broadens the theme of divesting to encompass any organization
Innovation for Sustainability: A Call for an Abolitionist Mindset to Liberate Our Imagination for Action
Get PDFWALKING THE TALK?: An Examination of the Investments of Jesuit Universities in Fossil Fuel Firms
Get PDFThis article investigates perspectives that have been proposed as reasons both for and against fossil fuel divestment (FFD), paying special attention to the decisions that universities make concerning investments in their endowment portfolios. Arguments that have been advanced against FFD include its supposedly lower financial returns, lack of direct control over investments, reliance on financial advisors, high transaction costs, the need for market index funds that include the stocks of fossil fuel firms, and the institution’s fiduciary duty to increase returns. Arguments that have been advanced in favor of FFD include satisfactory returns from fossil fuel-free portfolios, risk reduction, the over-pricing of fossil fuel firms, improved portfolio diversification, and the need to align investing behavior with the institution’s values, mission, and role in society. The study challenges the alleged financial reasons for maintaining investments in fossil fuel firms by presenting evidence that divestment does not impair portfolio performance on a riskadjusted basis, nor does it increase long-term transaction costs. Fossil fuel firms are overvalued given that they will eventually suffer from the increasing demand for clean energy substitutes and face inevitable regulatory actions as the effects of climate change worsen. Divestment, therefore, might well provide higher risk-adjusted returns over the long-term
WALKING THE TALK?: Jesuit Universities and Fossil Fuel Investments
Get PDFThe student-led fossil fuel divestment (FFD) movement urges universities to remove investments in fossil fuel firms from their endowment portfolios to inspire reductions in carbon emissions and help control climate change. This article explores the movement in U.S.-based Jesuit universities by documenting their endowment size, current divestment status, and rationale for or against divesting. These institutions held a total of US$13.8 billion in their endowments as of 2019, making their investment decisions relevant and material. The article in general examines the alignment of divestment actions with the commitments of Jesuit universities to environmental stewardship and social justice as expressed in their mission statements and Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’. Two out of the 27 Jesuit universities in the U.S., namely, Georgetown and Seattle University, were already committed to FFD by April 2020; after accounting for branch campuses, this represents a commitment of 13.3% among all U.S.-based Jesuit universities. This is appreciably higher than the 4.12% divestment rate among all private 4-year universities in the United States. Each of the 27 U.S.-based Jesuit universities was contacted to verify their endowment size, divestment status, and position on FFD. The 13 who responded stated their commitment to environmental protection and sustainability, and some reported their rationale for or against divesting. Results suggest that the investment strategies of Jesuit universities are a “work in progress,” and are likely to evolve as they align with their common Roman Catholic and Jesuit identity and mission. The reasons stated for deciding not to divest, moreover, are consistent with previous literature. A second article in this issue of the Journal of Management for Global Sustainability explores those reasons in detail and broadens the theme of divesting to encompass any organization
