Search

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds are among the fastest‐growing investment styles. ESG investing thereby has a governing effect, and a key open question is whether ESG merely reduces risks for investors or whether it can have a sustainability impact and actively contribute to climate transition. This governance through ESG is characterized by three potential transmission mechanisms: ratings, shareholder engagement, and capital allocation. These can create sustainability impact or constitute "ESG gaps" if transmission mechanisms remain ineffective/unutilized. Based on financial data, an investigation of ESG methodologies and expert interviews, we provide a novel ESG market analysis, focusing on the standard‐setting role of a handful of ESG index providers in capital allocation. Our findings highlight that while "Dark Green" indices could have an impact, currently "Broad ESG" indices, which do not meaningfully facilitate sustainability, dominate investing: we call this the "ESG capital allocation gap." This has important implications, because effective transmission mechanisms are crucial for ESG funds to achieve sustainability impact in the real economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing studies have scrutinized the rise of states as global owners and investors, yet we still lack a good understanding of what state investment does in a globalized economy, especially in host states. Comparative capitalisms research has analyzed foreign state investment as a potential source of patient capital for coordinated and mixed-market economies. However, this patient capital framework cannot explain the recent surge of protectionist sentiments, even among the "good hosts" of state-led investment. Therefore, we go beyond the patient capital argument and develop a novel framework centered on the globalized nature of foreign state investment. We create and empirically illustrate a novel typology based on different modes of cross-border state investment—from financial to strategic—and different categories of host states. Our results provide a new pathway to study the rise and effects of cross-border state investment in the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the global financial crisis, there is a massive shift of assets towards index funds. Rather than picking stocks, index funds replicate stock indices such as the S&P 500. But where do these indices actually come from? This paper analyzes the politico-economic role of index providers, a small group of highly profitable firms including MSCI, S&P DJI, and FTSE Russell, and develops a research agenda from an IPE perspective. We argue that these index providers have become actors that exercise growing private authority as they steer investments through the indices they create and maintain. While technical expertise is a precondition, their brand is the primary source of index provider authority, which is entrenched through network externalities. Rather than a purely technical exercise, constructing indices is inherently political. Which companies or countries are included into an index or excluded (i.e. receive investment in- or outflows) is based on criteria defined by index providers, thereby setting standards for corporate governance and investor access. Hence, in this new age of passive asset management index providers are becoming gatekeepers that exert de facto regulatory power and thus may have important effects on corporate governance and the economic policies of countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]