The divest movement has focused attention on strategic and ethical differences in the practice of socially responsible investing and highlighted an unnecessary bifurcation of best-of-class engagement and divestment. Although best-of-class engagement is favored as a contemporary and pragmatic approach, this paper calls for a more pronounced recognition of absolute dealbreakers and divestment as an underpinning for best-of-class engagement. After linking divestment and best-of-class engagement to their foundations of absolutism and relativism, respectively, I critique best-of-class engagement and argue that without a (...) distinct and explicit role for divestment, best-of-class strategies are ethically and strategically fraught. Following a discussion of which types of issues suggest divestment or best-of-class engagement, I identify the Norway Government Pension Fund as a noteworthy example, and posit that divestment and engagement are best presented and employed in tandem, particularly for issues that have yet to be addressed by law and convention. (shrink)

While a growing number of firms are being evaluated on environment, social and governance criteria by sustainability rating agencies, comparatively little is known about companies’ responses. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with companies operating in Italy, the present paper seeks to narrow this gap in current understanding by examining how firms react to ESG ratings, and the factors influencing their response. Unique to the literature, we show that firms may react very differently to being rated, with our analysis yielding a fourfold (...) typology of corporate responses. The typology captures conformity and resistance to ratings across two dimensions of firm behaviour. We furthermore show that corporate responses depend on managers’ beliefs regarding the material benefits of adjusting to and scoring well on ESG ratings and their alignment with corporate strategy. In doing so, we challenge the idea that organisational ratings homogenise organisations and draw attention to the agency underlying corporate responses. Our findings also contribute to debates about the impact of ESG ratings, calling into question claims about their positive influence on companies’ sustainability performance. We conclude by discussing the wider empirical, theoretical and ethical implications of our paper. (shrink)

In response to demand from investors and other stakeholders, companies have increased voluntary disclosure of climate change-related policies and performance. Information intermediaries have correspondingly emerged to provide needed credibility and commensurability of climate disclosures. However, the provision of performance ratings and lax audit capabilities creates opportunities for firms to manipulate those ratings for impression management. This article explains how firms may attain an intermediary’s favorable assessment of climate performance using varied methods of strategic disclosure. Using data from a prominent climate (...) intermediary (CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), I find that strategic disclosure is widespread and effective in attaining higher ratings, particularly through disclosure of forward-looking factors, suggesting that ratings may not be an accurate indicator of a firm’s true underlying performance. This article contributes to commensuration and impression management literatures, offers guidance for mechanism design to improve the reliability of intermediated voluntary disclosure, and highlights important areas for future research. (shrink)