Abstract
AbstractWe show that banks with high environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings issue fewer mortgages in poor localities—in number and dollar amount—than banks with low ESG ratings. This lending disparity happens at both the county and census tract level, worsens in disaster areas of severe hurricane strikes, is robust to alternative ESG ratings (including using only the social (S) component), and cannot be explained by banks’ differential deposit networks. We find no difference in mortgage default rates between high- and low-ESG banks, rejecting an alternative explanation based on differential credit screening quality. We report a complementary, not substitution, relation between high-ESG banks’ mortgage lending and their community development investments (like affordable housing projects) in poor localities. Loan-application-level analyses confirm that high-ESG banks are more likely than low-ESG banks to reject mortgage loans in poor neighborhoods. The evidence hints at social wash: banks deploy prosocial rhetoric and symbolic actions while not lending much in disadvantaged communities, the social function they arguably ought to perform. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examinations partially undo the social wash effect.
Funder
Fox School of Business, Temple University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Accounting
Reference57 articles.
1. Agarwal, S., E. Benmelech, N. Bergman, and A. Seru. (2012). Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lead to risky lending? (no. w18609). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2. Avery, R.B., P.S. Calem, and G.B. Canner. (2003). The effects of the Community Reinvestment Act on local communities. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
3. Barr, M.S. 2005. Credit where it counts: The Community Reinvestment Act and its critics. NYU Law Review 80 (2): 513–652.
4. Bartlett, R., A. Morse, R. Stanton, and N. Wallace. (2022). Consumer-lending discrimination in the FinTech era. Journal of Financial Economics 143 (1): 30–56.
5. Bénabou, R., and J. Tirole. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica 77 (305): 1–19.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献