Socially Responsible Investment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Morocco, Egypt and Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socially responsible investing (SRI) seeks to combine financial returns with social and environmental performance. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, SRI is seen as an alternative way to maintain sustainable returns. This article attempts to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the performance of socially responsible stocks. In other words, we test the resilience of ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) oriented companies’ stock prices to the global crisis, and compare it with the performance of selected non-ESG stocks. To do so, we focus on companies listed on the Moroccan, the Egyptian and the Turkish stock exchanges. We use the event study methodology, which relies mainly on calculating the daily abnormal returns of each company and aggregating them over an event window to test their statistical significance. The results reveal that all the companies listed on these three stock exchanges suffered from the COVID-19 crisis, posting negative abnormal returns. However, the ESG oriented companies listed on the Turkish stock exchange were more resilient compared to non-ESG companies. Sustainable investing underperformed non-ESG investing in Morocco and Egypt, as ESG oriented companies posted more pronounced negative abnormal returns, compare to non-ESG companies. So, unlike Turkey, ESG oriented companies were less portfolio protective alternative during the crisis in Morocco and Egypt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".