This paper investigates the joint and separate effects of Environmental (E), Social (S), and Governance (G) scores on bank stability. Using a sample of European banks operating in 21 countries over 2005–2017, we find that the total ESG score, as well as its sub-pillars, reduces bank fragility during periods of financial distress. This stabilizing effect holds strongly for banks with higher ESG ratings. These results are confirmed by a differences-in-differences (DID) analysis built around the introduction of the EU 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). Our evidence also reveals that, in times of financial turmoil, the longer the duration of ESG disclosures, the greater the benefits on stability. Finally, we show that the ESG–bank stability linkages vary significantly across banks’ characteristics and operating environments. Our findings are robust to selection bias and endogeneity concerns. Overall, they support the regulatory effort in requiring an enhanced disclosure of non–financial information.

While the concept of sustainability is receiving growing attention from investors, firms, regulators, and researchers, little is known about its role in the insurance industry. As institutional investors and risk-absorbers from businesses and individuals, insurers adopt an operating model that is more inclined to target long-term objectives; they should be among the firms benefiting the most from engaging in sustainable practices. The existing literature provides evidence of the positive impact of sustainability on commercial stability, but this is the first study to examine this relationship for the insurance sector. Focusing on American listed insurers, we found that sustainability, proxied by Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores, enhances the stability of insurers, and that this relationship is driven by environmental and social dimensions. We did not observe a significant contribution from the governance dimension. Finally, we found a stronger association for life insurers. Our results are shown to be robust to endogeneity, enterprise heterogeneity and potential sample selection biases.