Unraveling the relationship between sustainability and returns: a multi-attribute utility analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to establish an analytical framework to help investors accommodate their environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) preferences. The analytical solutions were complemented by empirical analyses to shed light on their benefits and tractability. Design/methodology/approach This study proposes an expected multi-attribute utility analysis for ESG investors in which stocks can be treated as more green or less green (brown) than the market, represented by an index, all modeled in a one-factor structure. The solution is found via the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation with proper treatment of various sources of risk. For the empirical analysis, we use the RepRisk Rating of US stocks from 2010 to 2020 to select companies that are representative of various ESG ratings. Findings This study finds closed-form solutions for optimal allocations, wealth and value functions. Our empirical analysis reveals drastic increases in wealth allocation toward high-rated ESG stocks for ESG-sensitive investors, even as the overall level of pecuniary satisfaction remains unchanged. Originality/value This study broadens the existing analytical framework by introducing a market portfolio along with green and brown stocks. As by-products, we first demonstrate that investors do not need to reduce their pecuniary satisfaction to increase green investment. Second, we propose a parameterization to capture investors' preferences for green assets over brown or market assets, independent of asset performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".