Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines whether a persistent firm-specific component of financial performance, estimated only from a 2011–2017 training window, remains informative out of sample and whether it is associated with later ESG ratings in Korean listed firms. The component (PFPC) is the firm fixed effect from a two-way fixed-effects model. In a chronologically separated 2019–2025 holdout, PFPC outperforms firm-mean benchmarks and, for Tobin’s Q, a training-fitted covariates model, but not that model for ROA, and it does not outperform the latest observed outcome for either measure; Tobin’s Q holdout accuracy decays to zero by 2022–2025. Using one observation per firm, mean ESG is negatively associated with ROA-based PFPC and positively associated with Tobin’s Q-based PFPC (one-standard-deviation differences of −0.21 and +0.48 standard deviations of PFPC). Two-stage firm-bootstrap intervals exclude zero for Tobin’s Q, whereas the ROA interval includes zero at its upper end and the ROA sign reverses under alternative winsorization. Because the data are current-vintage extracts, the exercise is a chronological holdout, not a real-time forecast. The evidence supports a bounded evaluation framework, not a universal predictive or causal ESG claim.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hyoungjoo Lim (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: