Business models for sustainability (BMfS) are relevant topics on research agendas, given their orientation toward sustainability issues. However, traditional versions of these models are often ill-equipped at solving complex social problems. Cross-sector partnerships for sustainability (CSPfS) have been recognized as a new paradigm that mitigates the failure of traditional models. Impact investing, and social impact bonds (SIBs) in particular, represent an interesting field of research in innovative business models for sustainable finance, even though the literature does not consider SIBs within this broader field. We propose an exploratory study based on qualitative methods aimed at conceptualizing SIBs within the framework of BMfS and understanding how SIB collaboration varies across social sectors and geographical areas. Our study identifies three different models of SIBs characterized by the different degrees of collaboration between actors: (i) SIB as a fully collaborative partnership; (ii) SIB as a low-collaborative partnership; and (iii) SIB as a partially collaborative partnership. Our findings are useful to policy makers and practitioners involved in the SIB design, suggesting that a fully collaborative SIB model may stand a better chance of achieving the expected social impacts.

Purpose This study aims to examine the relationship between female directors and bank risk. In particular, whether such a relationship varies across sound or unsound banks and with or without a critical mass of female directors is tested. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 215 listed banks from 40 countries over the period 2008–2016, this study carries out panel data analyses and tests all the model specifications on four different measures of risk (common equity ratio, leverage, NPLs ratio and price volatility). Findings The findings show that increasing the number of female directors does not reduce bank risk when banks are unsound. When banks are sound, female directors have a significant and positive role in reducing risk, only until reaching a critical mass of women. Practical implications This study provides useful corporate governance indications for policymakers and practitioners. Advantages of gender diversity on boards are recognized especially in sound banks, but increasing the number of women directors beyond the critical mass may not lead to lower risk. In fact, ethical or legal pressures aimed at increasing gender diversity on boards (i.e. soft or hard gender quotas) may cause undesired effects on bank risk, especially if female directors are not chosen on merit and skills. Moreover, gender-balanced boards, namely, with a “dual critical mass,” seem to assure more effective decision-making processes. Originality/value This study provides empirical evidence on female board members and risk minimization, differentiating between sound or unsound banks. Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature on the critical mass of women on the board of directors by testing this theory for these two categories of banks.

This paper investigates whether the European Union policies to tackle climate change create or destroy value for shareholders over the years 2013–2018. Using the event study method, our results suggest that all the sectors were affected by at least one climate policy announcement and that negative effects were more common than positive effects, especially when the Paris Agreement came into force. Up until that point, the announcement of a new policy produced significant positive effects only on the most environmentally committed firms. Finally, data panel regressions reveal that the company's sector, more than its environmental commitment, played a central role in determining market reactions toward climate policies. Our paper contributes to the still limited debate on the relationship between environmental regulation and value for equity investors and opens up the debate on a topic yet to be explored: the mitigating role of the company's environmental commitment. Relevant implications for policy makers promoting a European sustainable economy are also discussed.

This paper analyzes the response of sustainable indexes to the pandemic lockdown orders in Europe and the USA, contributing to both the research on the effects of the global pandemic outbreak and the resiliency of sustainable investments under market distress. Our results demonstrate that sustainable indexes were negatively impacted by lockdown orders; however, they did not show statistically significant different abnormal returns compared to traditional indexes. Similarly, our empirical results confirm that sustainable screening strategies (negative, positive, best in class) did not have an influence during such announcements. These results are robust across several model specifications and robustness tests, including nonparametric tests, generalized autoregressive conditionally heteroskedastic (GARCH) estimation of abnormal returns, and alternative events. The findings suggest that investors do not have to pay the price for the investments in sustainable assets when a bear market occurs; consequently, ceteris paribus, these investments appear suitable for financial-first investors. Such results have relevant practical consequences in terms of sustainable investment attractiveness and market growth.

No abstract