TwitterFacebookLinkedInEmailRSS
logo

An editorial blog of CFA Society Minnesota

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
    • Compensation Survey Contact Form
  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

On Thin Ice

2nd December, 2013 · Diane Brehmer

[an occasional series skating on the edge of ethics, investing and SRI (Sustainability, Responsibility, Impact)]
Diane Brehmer

The winner of this year’s Moskowitz prize for excellence in quantitative SRI research is Dr. Caroline Flammer, Ivey Business School, for “Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach”. The approach taken in this study finds a positive causal relationship between CSR and financial performance.

This paper uses a new approach to assess, quantitatively, whether CSR[1] is beneficial to companies. What is novel is the use of a regression discontinuity design that allows the author to draw sharp causal inference on the impact of CSR on financial performance.

Prior studies of the effect of CSR on performance have found, in general, a small positive correlation between CSR and financial performance.[2] A common concern with these studies is that endogenous factors, not reflected in the model or that cannot be measured, can just as easily explain the higher financial performance associated with CSR.

To address these concerns, Dr. Flammer’s study uses a different approach. It examines the impact of shareholder-sponsored CSR proposals that pass or fail by a small margin – “close-call” proposals – on stock prices. This approach addresses the above concerns in two ways:

    • Shareholder-sponsored proposals are developed by external shareowner groups, and hence are independent of company management. Unlike management-sponsored proposals, they cannot be strategically withdrawn by the management if the outcome is expected to be unfavorable to the management.
    • Restricting the analysis to close-call votes eliminates proposals that pass or fail by a wide margin (“wide-margin” proposals). The rationale for eliminating wide-margin proposals is that the outcomes of wide-margin proposals are anticipated and reflected in stock prices before the vote takes place. In contrast, close-call votes have a random element: their outcomes are uncertain. Close-call votes are not reflected in prices in advance and therefore are more useful for estimating the causal effect of CSR on financial performance.

Outcomes of close-call votes have a binary distribution. They are modeled using a “Regression Discontinuity Design”, a method from economics used to compare outcomes just above and just below a discontinuous threshold. The 50% majority requirement to pass is the threshold around which a minor difference in votes causes a discontinuity in outcomes – i.e., the proposal either passes or fails.

Key findings:

  • Companies whose shareholder proposals pass on a “close-call” vote have an average abnormal return of +0.92% relative to close-call proposals that fail.
  • Discontinuity at 50% is real. Abnormal returns are a continuous and smooth function of vote share up to the 50% threshold, at which point they see a significant positive jump.
  • Abnormal returns move toward zero as the vote share increases or decreases away from 50%, an indicator that the outcome of non-close votes is anticipated by the market and reflected in stock prices prior to the vote.
  • Positive abnormal returns relate to approval, not implementation of shareholder CSR proposals. Approved proposals have a 52% probability of implementation by company management. On a probability-adjusted basis, the average estimated positive abnormal return of shareholder CSR proposals that are both approved and implemented is 1.77%.
  • Firms with relatively low levels of CSR prior to the vote see higher value gains; those with higher levels of CSR see lower value gains. This finding is consistent with decreasing marginal returns.
  • Higher CSR gains are seen in industries with higher CSR norms (i.e. “clean” industries).
  • Operating performance improvements from close-call votes persist for years following the vote. Improvement is attributed to higher labor productivity and sales growth.

Summary of results:

  • 2,729 total proposals: abnormal return ~0%.
  • 2.607 wide-margin votes: abnormal return ~0%
  • 122 proposals, vote share +/-10% of majority: abnormal return = 1.07%, significant at 5% level
  • 61 proposals, vote share +/-5% of majority: abnormal return = 1.36%, significant at 5% level.

Institutional ownership of all companies in the sample averaged 63% (range: 8.4%  – 91%). In the years preceding the vote, there is no significant difference in institutional ownership for companies that subsequently approve or reject a close-call CSR proposal.

The Moskowitz Prize[3] is sponsored by the Center for Responsible Business, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, to recognize outstanding research on socially responsible investing and the financial implications of responsible business practices. It is the only global award for excellence in quantitative SRI research (sustainable, responsible, impact investing). Studies are reviewed by an expert panel of judges from academia and the investment industry. Judging criteria include:

1.      Practical significance to practitioners of socially responsible investing

2.      Appropriateness and rigor of quantitative methods

3.      Novelty of results

The prize has been awarded annually since 1996. It is named after Milton Moskowitz, one of the first to publish quantitative research on the financial performance of screened and unscreened portfolios, and known for Fortune Magazine’s “The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America”. Past winners include Meir Statman, Denys Glushkov, Elroy Dimson, Oğuzhan Karakaş, Xi Li, Sadok El Ghoul, Omrane Guedhami, Chuck C. Y. Kwok, Dev Mishra, Rob Bauer, Daniel Hann and others.

Full paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146282

About the author: http://www.ivey.uwo.ca/faculty/directory/caroline-flammer/

About the Moskowitz Prize: http://responsiblebusiness.haas.berkeley.edu/programs/moskowitzresearchprogram.html


[1]

[1]      CSR: corporate social responsibility

[2]

[2]           In 167 studies of the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance, between 1972 and 2007, Margolis, Elfenbein and Walsh (2007) find, in aggregate, a small, positive correlation between CSR and financial performance.

[3]  http://www.ssrn.com/update/cgn/cgnann/ann13003.html

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Posted in Ethics, Hot Topic Commentary | Tags: ethics, social impact investing, SRI |
« Love Me Tender
But These Go to Eleven (or Twenty Times), and Over What Time Frame? »

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • Important Minnesota Financial Literacy Legislation Update 03/20/2023
  • New Financial Literacy Effort Launched for Minnesota Communities and Schools 09/30/2022
  • End of an Era 07/26/2022
  • Starting my Midwestern Goodbye 04/05/2022
  • Face-Off 10/18/2021

Submit your inquiry here

Categories

  • Compliance (3)
  • Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule (1)
  • Ethics (7)
    • Ask the Ethicist (2)
  • Freezing Assets Shout Out (34)
  • Hot Topic Commentary (177)
  • Intellisight (1)
  • Local Charterholders (88)
  • Member Spotlight (4)
  • Society President Letters (15)
  • Spotlight on MN Companies (1)
  • Valuation (2)
  • Weekly Credit Wrap (35)

Archives

  • March 2023 (1)
  • September 2022 (1)
  • July 2022 (1)
  • April 2022 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (2)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (2)
  • August 2020 (1)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (1)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (1)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (3)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (2)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (3)
  • September 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (8)
  • February 2018 (3)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • November 2017 (5)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (2)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (2)
  • June 2016 (5)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (5)
  • January 2016 (3)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (4)
  • October 2015 (6)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (6)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (4)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (7)
  • October 2014 (10)
  • September 2014 (3)
  • August 2014 (5)
  • July 2014 (2)
  • June 2014 (5)
  • May 2014 (9)
  • April 2014 (9)
  • March 2014 (8)
  • February 2014 (7)
  • January 2014 (8)
  • December 2013 (6)
  • November 2013 (7)
  • October 2013 (13)
  • September 2013 (4)
  • August 2013 (2)

Popular Tags

#memberspotlight 2015 Compensation Survey A Day in the Life BlackRock Board of Directors Carlson School of Management CFA CFA Charter CFA Charterholder CFA Charterholders CFA Institute CFA Institute Research Challenge CFA Minnesota CFAMN CFA Program CFA Society Minnesota CFA Society MN Changing Perceptions Chartered Financial Analyst charterholders Compensation Survey Diversity ESG ethics freezing assets shout out interest rates investment management Josh Howard Joshua M. Howard Member Engagement Minnesota non-GAAP earnings North Dakota Nuveen Asset Management President's Letter SEC Society President South Dakota Susanna Gibbons University of Minnesota Volunteer Volunteering Volunteers Weekly Credit Wrap women in finance
© 2021 CFAMN Freezing Assets - Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFAMN, FreezingAssets.org or CFA Institute.
  • Home
  • Log In
  • RSS Feed