This study examined the association between the social sustainability aspects of environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives and stock price synchronicity in 146 publicly listed companies in India from 2011 to 2021. Social sustainability is gauged using indicators such as community engagement, adherence to human rights, customer loyalty, consumer health and safety protection, and employee welfare. Panel data regression with industry-year fixed effects reveals a positive association between social sustainability and stock price synchronicity. This finding suggests that the stocks of companies with strong social issue management are more aligned with market movements. The findings indicate that investors value ethical management, commitment to human rights and employee satisfaction. The insights provided by this study are vital for investors’ fund allocation decisions, highlighting the importance of workforce and supply chain diversity, fair workplace practices, human rights compliance and product integrity in informed investment decision-making. Overall, the research confirms the economic benefits that social sustainability bestows on companies and their investors.
BahreiniV., BaghbaniM., & BahreiniR. (2013). Analysis between financial leverage with the stock price and the operational performance of the accepted companies in Tehran’s stock market. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 2(Suppl 3), 25.
2.
Ben-NasrH., & GhoumaH. (2018). Employee welfare and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 48, 700–725.
3.
BoseI., & PalR. (2012). Do green supply chain management initiatives affect firms’ stock prices?Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 624–634.
4.
CerquetiR., CicirettiR., DalòA., & NicolosiM. (2021). ESG investing: A chance to reduce systemic risk. Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100887.
5.
ChappleL., & HumphreyJ. E. (2014). Does board-gender diversity have a financial impact? Evidence using stock portfolio performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 709–723.
6.
ChauhanY., & KumarS. B. (2018). Do investors value the non-financial disclosure in emerging markets?Emerging Markets Review, 37, 32–46.
7.
ChenH.-Y., & YangS. S. (2020). Do investors exaggerate corporate ESG information? Evidence of the ESG momentum effect in the Taiwanese market. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101407
8.
ChoiI. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272.
9.
DaiJ., LuC., YangY., & ZhengY. (2018). Is the social responsibility information disclosed by the companies really valuable? Evidence from Chinese stock price synchronicity. Sustainability, 10(10), 3578.
10.
DattaS., & FuadS. (2017). Valuing intangible assets: A balance sheet approach for DS30 listed companies. Australian Academy of Accounting and Finance Review, 2(2), 119–135.
11.
De MortangesC. P., & Van RielA. (2003). Brand equity and shareholder value. European Management Journal, 21(4), 521–527.
12.
DobbinF., & JungJ. (2010). Corporate board gender diversity and stock performance: The competence gap or institutional investor bias. NCL Review, 89, 809.
13.
DurnevA., MorckR., YeungB., & ZarowinP. (2003). Does greater firm‐specific return variation mean more or less informed stock pricing? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 797–836.
14.
EdmansA. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621–640.
15.
EdmansA. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 1–19.
16.
EdmansA., LiL., & ZhangC. (2014). Employee satisfaction, labor market flexibility, and stock returns around the world. National Bureau of Economic Research.
17.
FamaE. F. (1970). Efficient market hypothesis: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 28–30.
18.
GrewalJ., HauptmannC., & SerafeimG. (2017). Stock price synchronicity and material sustainability information. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2966144
19.
ImK. S., PesaranM. H., & ShinY. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
20.
JiaoY. (2010). Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(10), 2549–2561.
21.
La TorreM., LeoS., & PanettaI. C. (2021). Banks and environmental, social and governance drivers: Follow the market or the authorities?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2132
22.
LevinA., LinC. F., & ChuC. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24.
23.
LiuW., LiuX., & ChoiT.-M. (2022). Effects of supply chain quality event announcements on stock market reaction: An empirical study from China. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2021-0638
24.
MaddalaG. S., & WuS. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(Suppl 1), 631–652.
25.
ManoppoC. P. (2015). The influence of ROA, ROE, ROS, and EPS on stock price. Journal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.35794/emba.3.4.2015.11493
26.
MeherB. K., HawaldarI. T., MohapatraL., SpulbarC., & BirauR. (2020). The effects of environment, society and governance scores on investment returns and stock market volatility. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(4), 234–239. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9311
27.
MorckR., YeungB., & YuW. (2000). The information content of stock markets: Why do emerging markets have synchronous stock price movements?Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 215–260.
28.
PiotroskiJ. D., & RoulstoneD. T. (2004). The influence of analysts, institutional investors, and insiders on the incorporation of market, industry, and firm‐specific information into stock prices. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1119–1151.
29.
PotharlaS., KumarN., ChoudharyP., & TurubilliS. K. (2023). Is ESG data financially viable? A case of stock price synchronicity. Management and Labour Studies. https://doi.10.1177/0258042X231181758
30.
RegoL. L., BillettM. T., & MorganN. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 47–60.
31.
RezaieH., & SalehiH. (2015). Investigating the relationship between intangible assets and heterogeneous firms listed in Tehran stock exchange. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 4(Suppl 1), 960.
32.
RollR. (1988). R2. Journal of Finance, 43(3), 541–566.
33.
SahaA. K., & BhuiyanM. A. (2013). Predictability of stock price fluctuation based on price earnings ratio: Evidence from Dhaka stock exchange. The Cost and Management, 41(2), 13–17.
34.
SaputraW. S., & YulimanA. B. (2023). Profitability, financial leverage, size, and underpricing stock price. AKURASI: Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 5(1), 63–72.
35.
SchiehllE., & KolahgarS. (2021). Financial materiality in the informativeness of sustainability reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 840–855.
36.
SchneiderB., HangesP. J., SmithD. B., & SalvaggioA. N. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance?Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 836.
37.
SridharanU. V, Royce CainesW., & PattersonC. C. (2005). Implementation of supply chain management and its impact on the value of firms. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 313–318.
38.
TsengK. C. (1988). Low price, price–earnings ratio, market value, and abnormal stock returns. Financial Review, 23(3), 333–343.
39.
VisvanathanG. (2017). Intangible assets on the balance sheet and audit fees. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 14, 241–250.
40.
YildizY., & Metin CamgozS. (2019). Brand equity and firm risk: An empirical investigation in an emerging market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(1), 218–235.
