This paper investigates the impact of negative screening on the investment universe as well as on financial performance. We come up with a novel identification process and as such depart from mainstream socially responsible investing literature by concentrating on individual firms' conduct and by studying a much wider range of issues. Firstly, we study the size and financial performance of fourteen potentially controversial issues: abortion, adult entertainment, alcohol, animal testing, contraceptives, controversial weapons, fur, gambling, genetic engineering, meat, nuclear power, pork, (embryonic) stem cells, and tobacco. We investigate an international sample of more than 1,600 stocks for more than twenty years. We then analyze the impact of applying negative screens to a market portfolio. Our findings suggest that the choice for negative screening strategies does matter for the size of the investment universe as well as for risk-adjusted return performance. Investing in controversial stocks in many cases results in additional risk-adjusted returns, whereas excluding them may reduce financial performance. These findings suggest that there are opportunity costs to negative screening.

Fossil fuel divestment campaigns urge investors to sell their stakes in companies that supply coal, oil, or gas. However, avoiding investments in such companies might impose a financial cost on the investor because of foregone potentially profitable investments and reduced opportunities for portfolio diversification. We compare financial performance of investment portfolios with and without fossil fuel companies over the period 1927-2016. Contrary to theoretical expectations, we find that fossil fuel divestment does not seem to impair portfolio performance. These findings can be explained by the fact that, so far, fossil fuel company stocks do not outperform other stocks on a risk-adjusted basis and provide relatively limited diversification benefits. A more pronounced performance impact of divestment can be observed over short time frames and when applied to less diversified market indices.

No abstract

The transition from high-to lower-carbon production systems increasingly creates regulatory and market risks for high-emitting firms. We test to what extent equity market investors demand a premium to compensate for such risks and thus might raise firms' cost of equity capital (CoE). Using data for 1,897 firms spanning 50 countries over the years 2008-2016, we find a distinct and robust positive impact of carbon intensity (carbon emissions per unit of output) on CoE: On average, a standard deviation higher (sector-adjusted) carbon intensity is associated with a CoE premium of 6 (9) basis points or 1.7% (2.6%). This effect is primarily explained by systematic risk factors: high-emitting assets are significantly more sensitive to economy-wide fluctuations than low-emitting ones. The CoE impact of carbon intensity is more pronounced in high-emitting sectors, EU countries, and firms subject to carbon pricing regulation. Our results suggest that carbon emission reduction might serve as a valuable risk mitigation strategy.

No abstract