Risk Characterization of Firms with ESG Attributes Using a Supervised Machine Learning Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the risk–return tradeoff of a portfolio of firms that have tangible environmental, social, and governance (ESG) attributes. We introduce a new type of penalized regression using the Mahalanobis distance-based method and show its usefulness using our sample of ESG firms. Our results show that ESG companies are exposed to financial state variables that capture the changes in investment opportunities. However, we find that there is no economically significant difference between the risk-adjusted returns of various ESG-rating-based portfolios and that the risk associated with a poor ESG rating portfolio is not significantly different than that of a good ESG rating portfolio. Although investors require return compensation for holding ESG stocks, the fact that the risk of a poor ESG rating portfolio is comparable to that of a good ESG rating portfolio suggests risk dimensions that go beyond ESG attributes. We further show that the new covariance-adjusted penalized regression improves the out-of-sample cross-sectional predictions of the ESG portfolio’s expected returns. Overall, our approach is pragmatic and based on the ease of an empirical appeal.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".