Recent findings provide evidence that companies highly rated in terms of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score report higher excess returns and lower volatility, this being supported by the assumption that ESG factors are considered, by market agents, as a good proxy for firms’ financial soundness. The aim of this paper is to investigate how ESG components affect stock returns. We use a two-step methodology to analyze the performance of companies included in the Eurostoxx50 index over the 2010–2018 period according to their ESG score. To classify companies in terms of ESG commitments, we combine several ESG indicators (quantitative ratings, scorings and qualitative-opinions) collected on a monthly basis. Our results do not support previous evidence; the Eurostoxx50 companies’ performance does not seem to be affected by their efforts in terms of ESG commitments.

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.

This paper goes beyond the relationship between a bank ESG performance (ESGP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). Here, the link between ESG factors and financial benchmarks is analysed to verify whether banks may find in the market reaction sufficient stimuli (higher CFP) to adopt ESG conduct spontaneously. Using panel estimation methods on European banks listed in STOXX Europe 600, between 2008 and 2019, this paper tests the relationship between ESGP and CFP considering different dimensions of financial performance at once, both accounted-based (ROA and ROE) and market-based (Capitalisation to Book Value, Tobin's Q). Besides, we employ VBM (EVA Spread) not previously considered. The main findings support the current approach of banking authorities, focusing on bank ESG risks, more than ESG opportunities, in order to "force" banks into adopting a new ESG business model, at this early stage of transition to sustainability.

Current cancer treatment options include surgical intervention, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The quality of the provision of each of them and their effective coordination determines the results in terms of benefit/risk.Regarding the radiation oncology treatments, there are not stabilised quality indicators to be used to perform control and continuous improvement processes for healthcare services. Therefore, the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology has undertaken a comprehensive project to establish quality indicators for use with the information systems available in most Spanish healthcare services. Methods: A two-round Delphi study, examining consensus of several possible quality indicators (n=28) in daily practice. These indicators were defined after a bibliographic search and the assessment by radiation oncology specialists (n=8). They included aspects regarding treatment equipment, patient preparation, treatment and follow-up processes and were divided in structure, process and outcome indicators. Results: After the evaluation of the defined quality indicators (n=28) by an expert panel (38 radiation oncologist); 26 indicators achieved consensus in terms of agreement with the statement. Two quality indicators did not achieve consensus. Conclusions: There is a high degree of consensus in Spanish Radiation Oncology specialists on which indicators in routine clinical practice can best measure quality. These indicators can be used to classify services based on several parameters (patients, equipments, complexity of the techniques used and scientific research). Furthermore, these indicators allow assess our current situation and set improvements objectives.

Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. 6 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2006 978-1-4039-9789-0Immo non perditurus: eo loco sit donatio undi repeti non debeat, reddi posit.