Abstract:
We find that firm environmental performance positively affects institutional shareholding, the shareholding of long-term institutions in particular. However, no such correlation is found for the shareholding of short-term institutions. Results of this study indicate that the better the firm environmental performance, the higher the abnormal returns, suggesting that institutions investing in firms with better environmental performance earn higher stock returns. Further analysis illustrates that firms with better environmental performance easily access to bank loans, enjoy lower loan costs and obtain higher tax benefit. Our findings indicate that the government encourages firms to enhance their environmental performance, and in return, provides more favorable lending terms and more tax benefits, leading to long-term firm value enhancement. Such findings only exist in state-owned firms.
黎文靖, 路晓燕. 机构投资者关注企业的环境绩效吗?——来自我国重污染行业上市公司的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2015, 426(12): 97-112.
LI Wenjing, LU Xiaoyan. Do Institutional Investors Care Firm Environmental Performance? Evidence from the Most Polluting Chinese Listed Firms. Journal of Financial Research, 2015, 426(12): 97-112.
Adhikari, A., C. Derashid, and H. Zhang, 2006, “Public Policy, Political Connections, and Effective Tax Rates: Longitudinal Evidence from Malaysia”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25: 574-595.
[8]
Chan, K., V. Covrig, and L. Ng, 2005, “What Determines the Domestic Bias and Foreign Bias? Evidence from Mutual Fund Equity Allocations Worldwide”, Journal of Finance, 60: 1495-1534.
[9]
Cooper, I., and E. Kaplanis, 1994, “Home Bias in Equity Portfolios, Inflation Hedging and International Capital Market Equilibrium”, Review of Financial Studies, 7: 45-60.
[10]
Cox, P., S. Brammer, and A. Millington, 2004, “An Empirical Examination of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1): 27-43.
[11]
Cox, P., and P. G. Wicks, 2011, “Institutional Interest in Corporate Responsibility: Portfolio Evidence and Ethical Explanation”, Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1): 143-165.
[12]
Dahlquist, M., and G. Robertsson, 2001, “Direct Foreign Ownership, Institutional Investors, and Firm Characteristics”, Journal of Financial Economics, 59(3): 413-440.
[13]
Falkenstein, E., 1996, “Preferences for Stock Characteristics as Revealed by Mutual Fund Portfolio Holdings”, Journal of Finance, 51(1): 111-135.
[14]
French, K., and J. Poterba, 1991, “Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets”, American Economic Review, 81: 222-226.
[15]
Gompers, P. and A. Metrick, 2001, “Institutional Investors and Equity Prices”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 229-259.
[16]
Graves, S. B., and S. A. Waddock, 1994, “Institutional Owners and Social Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 1034-1046.
[17]
Grinblatt, M. and M. Keloharju, 2001, “How Distance, Language, and Culture Influence Stockholdings and Trades”, Journal of Finance, 56: 1053-1073.
[18]
Hong, H., J. Kubik, and J. Stein, 2008, “The Only Game in Town: Stock-price Consequence of Local Bias”, Journal of Financial Economics, 90: 20-37.
[19]
Johnson, R. D., and D. W. Greening, 1999, “The Effects of Corporate Governance and Institutional Ownership Types on Corporate Social Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 564-576.
[20]
Kang, J., and R. Stulz, 1997, “Why IS There A Home Bias? An Analysis of Foreign Portfolio Equity Ownership in Japan”, Journal of Financial Economics, 46(1): 3-28.
[21]
Lin, S., S. Tian, and E. Wu, 2013, “Emerging Stars and Developed Neighbors: The Effects of Development Imbalance and Political Shocks on Mutual Fund Investments in China”, Financial Management, 42(2): 339-371.
[22]
Patten, D. M., 2005, “The Accuracy of Financial Report Projections of Future Environmental Capital Expenditures: A Research Note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30: 457-468.
[23]
Yan, X., and Z. Zhang, 2009, “Institutional Investors and Equity Returns: Are Short-term Institutions Better Informed?”, Review of Financial Studies, 22: 893-924.