Do ESG Ratings Reduce the Asymmetry Behavior in Volatility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well noted in the literature that volatility responds differently to positive and negative shocks. In this paper, we explore the impact of ESG ratings on such asymmetric behavior of volatility. For this analysis, we use the return data, ESG ratings, and solvency ratios of the constituent stocks of S&P Europe 350 for the period January 2016–December 2021. We apply autoregressive moving average models for the conditional means and GARCH and stochastic volatility models for the conditional variances to estimate the asymmetry coefficients. Afterwards, these coefficients are regressed via Arellano–Bond and lagged first difference methods to estimate the impact of ESG ratings. Our findings confirm that stocks of riskier firms are more likely to suffer from asymmetry behavior of volatility. We also confirm that firm leverage is linked to this asymmetry behavior. We found evidence that the impact of ESG ratings was negative before COVID-19, but positive afterwards. For some sectors, higher ESG ratings are linked to higher asymmetry. Finally, we found that during COVID-19, the asymmetry behavior became more pronounced.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".