This study investigates the impact of different cases of armed conflict on the US stock market. It examines whether the market reacts differently in cases of direct versus indirect US military involvement in the conflict and at the initiation or termination of the conflict. The analysis is based on nine armed conflicts that took place from 2003 to 2022. The study utilizes an event study methodology and focuses on three sectors in the US stock market: Defense and Aerospace, Oil and Gas, and Alternative Energy. The results indicate that direct military involvement is generally associated with less favorable market responses, particularly during conflict initiation stages and within energy-related sectors. In contrast, conflict termination events frequently generate more positive market reactions, reflecting lower geopolitical uncertainty and reduced military exposure. Indirect involvement events, especially those related to the Russia–Ukraine conflict and the Russian intervention in Syria, are associated with more favorable responses in several sectors, particularly Aerospace and Defense. The study contributes to the literature by adopting a multi-conflict framework, distinguishing between direct and indirect military involvement, comparing conflict initiation and termination phases, and providing sector-level evidence on the heterogeneous effects of armed conflicts on financial markets.

This study examines whether the presence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) committees enhances firms’ likelihood of receiving sustainability awards and investigates the moderating roles of corporate sustainability strategy and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. The findings indicate that firms with CSR committees are significantly more likely to receive sustainability awards, highlighting the importance of board-level sustainability governance in achieving external sustainability recognition. The results further show that firms with strong sustainability strategies and superior ESG performance are more likely to receive sustainability awards regardless of whether they have a CSR committee, suggesting that substantive sustainability practices are more influential than governance structures alone in securing such recognition. Moreover, CSR committees exert their strongest influence in firms with weak or moderately developed sustainability strategies. In contrast, their incremental contribution diminishes in firms with well-established sustainability strategies and high ESG performance, where recognition is driven primarily by strategic sustainability integration and demonstrated ESG outcomes. This study contributes to the corporate sustainability and governance literature by demonstrating that while CSR committees enhance firms’ prospects of obtaining sustainability awards, their effectiveness depends on the extent to which sustainability is embedded within corporate strategy and reflected in ESG performance.