MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126950753 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14020070

ESG Disclosures and Stock Price Crash Risk

2021· article· en· W3126950753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rio Murata, Shigeyuki Hamori

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsPredictive powerCrashEconometricsStock (firearms)Corporate governanceStock priceBusinessSample (material)Investment decisionsStock marketActuarial scienceEconomicsFinancial economicsFinanceBehavioral economicsComputer scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigate the relationship between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures and stock price crash risk. A stock price crash is a dreadful event for market participants. Thus, exploring stock price crash determinants is helpful for investment decisions and risk management. In this study, we use samples of major market index components in Europe, the United States, and Japan to perform regression analyses, after controlling for other potential stock price crash determinants. We estimate static two-way fixed-effect models and dynamic GMM models. We find that coefficients of firm-level ESG disclosures are not statistically significant in the static model. ESG disclosure coefficients in the dynamic model are not statistically significant in the U.S. market sample. On the other hand, coefficients of ESG disclosure scores in the dynamic model are statistically significant and negative in the European and Japanese marker sample. Our findings suggest that ESG disclosures lower future stock price crash risk; however, the effect and predictive power of ESG disclosures differ among regions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207