MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399086795 · doi:10.21511/imfi.21(2).2024.25

ESG factors in M&A in India: Performance and market insights from 2010 to 2023

2024· article· en· W4399086795 on OpenAlexaff
Manoj Panda, Pankaj Sharma, László Vasa, Manohar Kapse, Vinod Sharma, Yogesh Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestment Management and Financial Innovations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsAssociation for Canadian and Québec Literatures
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessProfitability indexLeverage (statistics)Corporate governanceMergers and acquisitionsValue (mathematics)Market valuePositive correlationMonetary economicsIndustrial organizationAccountingFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses the impact of mergers and acquisitions on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance and market value of acquiring companies operating in India. Data were collected and analyzed from 69 M&A announcements from January 2010 to June 2023, sourced from the Bloomberg database. The analysis reveals a positive correlation between the post-merger market value of acquiring firms and their ESG performance, indicating that an improvement in ESG factors is associated with increased market value after mergers. Additionally, a positive correlation was identified between acquiring companies’ post-merger ESG performance and their target firms’ pre-merger ESG performance. This finding suggests that when acquiring a target firm with high ESG performance, the acquirer is likely to experience an improvement in its own post-merger ESG performance. Moreover, both the post-merger market value and ESG performance of the acquirer are likely to improve with the profitability and size of firms but will have a negative impact based on the leverage components of the acquiring firms. 

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestment Management and Financial InnovationsSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207