The Impact of AI-Integrated ESG Reporting on Firm Valuation in Emerging Markets: A Multimodal Analytical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enhanced Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting on firm valuation in emerging markets. It aims to explore how AI integration enhances the interpretability and predictive accuracy of ESG metrics in shaping market perceptions and investor decisions. This study employs a panel dataset from 2018 to 2024, analysing publicly listed non-financial firms across five major sectors: manufacturing, energy, telecommunications, consumer goods, and industrials. This study contributed by employing AI-powered multimodal analysis with conventional ESG scoring methods and integrating Fixed-Effects Regression with machine learning (ML) algorithms including Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Random Forest to identify complex, non-linear relationships within ESG data and firm valuation. The results show empirical evidence that integrating ML enhances the explanatory power of ESG data. Findings indicate that ESG performance is positively correlated with higher market valuations, particularly in Environmental and Social dimensions. Governance metrics are more inconsistent, which may be due to heterogeneity in governance practices, regulatory enforcement and the challenges of quantifying governance quality beyond compliance indicators across the focus emerging markets. Firms identified in ESG controversies tend to face valuation penalties, which stresses market sensitivity to reputational risks. ML algorithms outperform conventional techniques in predictive accuracy, revealing complex, non-linear interactions within ESG data. This study contributes to both the academic literature and practice showing how next-generation ESG reporting can robust valuation models, address limitations of conventional ESG scoring, and ensure a reliable outlook for investors and policymakers of industries in emerging markets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".