Principales servicios y productos ofrecidos

In this paper we have found evidence that green companies enjoy positive abnormal stock market returns many years after they could be characterized as environmental out performers. These abnormal returns are not only statistically significant but also of great economic importance. According to our estimations the abnormal positive returns are between 14 percent and 17 percent a year. On the contrary, we fail to estimate any significant abnormal negative returns for those companies that stood out in the past by its poor environmental performance. These empirical findings could signal that investors price properly the negative effect of current environmental under performance but downward bias the positive value implications of Green strategies.

In terms of future studies our results have a number of interesting implications. First, coming research should be aware of the potential existence of several-year-ahead effects rather than just contemporaneous when identifying the effects of firm environmental performance on firm

stock market. The importance of this time-lag phenomenon could partially explain the contradictory results found in previous literature when estimating the link between environmental and firm performance. Second, following the lines of Klassen & Whybark (2009) this paper leaves open the question of which particular environmental technologies investors have problems to price properly: pollution prevention, pollution control or management systems? This knowledge would be particularly relevant to inform managers of the potential downsides when choosing alternate environmental technologies. Finally, our sample ends in the year 2008. Do our results still hold with data about environmental performance in the twenty first century? It could well be the case that investors have learnt now the value creation capabilities of Green strategies even if they failed to do so in the mid- nineties; but if they have learnt or not is an empirical question that still waits to be answered.

References

1. Anton, W. R. Q., Deltas, G., Khanna, M. 2004. Incentives for environmental self regulation and implications for environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48: 632-654.

2. Aragón-Correa, J. A., Sharma, S. 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28: 71-89.

3. Aragón-Correa, J. A., Matías-Reche, F., Senise-Barrio, M. E. 2004. Managerial discretion and 4. corporate commitment to the natural environment. Journal of Business Research, 57: 964-975. 5. Bansal, P., Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of

Management Journal, 43: 717-736.

6. Berning, P. W. 2000. How managers face criminal penalties under public protection laws. Business Newsletter at: http://www.constructionweblinks.com (accessed May 24th, 2005).

7. Campbell, K., Sefcik, S. E., Soderstrom, N. S. 2004. Executive compensation and non-financial risk: An empirical examination. Working Paper.

8. Carhart, M. 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance 58, 57-82.

9. Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 663-680.

10. Cohen, M.A., Fenn, S.A., Konar, S. 1997. Environmental and Financial Performance: Are they related? Working paper Vanderbilt University.

11. Cordeiro, J.J., Sarkis, J. 1997. Environmental Proactivism and Firm Performance: Evidence from Security Analysts Forecasts”. Business Strategy and the Environment 6: 104-114.

12. Deegan, C. 2004. Environmental disclosure and share prices-a study about efforts to study this relationship. Accounting Forum 28, 87-97

13. Delmas, M. 2001. Stakeholders and competitive advantage: The case of ISO, 14001. Production and Operations Management, 10: 343-358.

14. Derwall, J., Günster, N., Bauer, R., Koedjik, K. 2004. The Eco-Efficiency Premium Puzzle. ERIM report series research in Management.

15. DeSimone, L. D., Popoff, F. 1997. Eco-efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

16. Dowell, G., Hart, S., Yeung, B. 2000. Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46: 1059-1074.

17. Elsayed, K. Paton, D. 2005. The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: static and dynamic panel data evidence. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16, 395-412.

18. Epstein, M. J. 1996. Measuring corporate environmental performance: Best practices for costing and managing an effective environmental strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19. Fama, E. F., French, K. R. 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on bonds and stocks. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3-53.

20. Fama, E. F., MacBeth, J. D. 1973. Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy 81, 607-636.

21. Filbeck, G., Gorman, R. 2004. The relation between the Environmental and Finanial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics 29, 137-157-

22. Gabel, H. L., Sinclair-Desagné, B. 1993. Managerial incentives and environmental compliance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24: 229-240.

23. Hall, B. J., Liebman, J. B. 1998. Are CEOs really paid like bureaucrats? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113: 653-691.

24. Hamilton, J. T. 1995. Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the Toxic Release Inventory Data. Journal of Environmental Economic Management, 98-103.

25. Hart, S. L., Ahuja, G. 1996. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emissions reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5: 30-37. 26. Hassel, L., Nilsson, H., Nyquist, S. 2005. The value relevance of environmental performance. European

27. Hendrick, K.B., Singhal V.R. 1996. Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An empirical investigation. Management Science 42 (3): 415-436.

28. Henriques, H., Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 87-99.

29. Jaggi, B., Freedman, M. 1992. An examination of the impact of pollution performance on

30. economic and market performance: Pulp and paper firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19: 697-713.

31. Joshi, S., Khanna, M., and Sidique, S. Effect of Environmental Management Systems on Investor Reactions to Emission Information. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management Annual Conference 2005.

32. Khanna, M., Quimio, W. Bojilova, D., 1998. Toxics release information: A policy tool for environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36(3): 243.260.

33. King, A.A., Lenox, M.J. 2001. An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5, 105-116.