Martin Nerlinger
Title
Prof. Dr.
Last Name
Nerlinger
First name
Martin
Email
martin.nerlinger@unisg.ch
ORCID
Phone
+41 71 224 70 31
18 results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 18
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, What Drives Sustainable Institutional Engagement and Voting Behavior?We examine what drives institutional engagement and voting on environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related shareholder proposals, using data from Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and Morningstar. We find that personal engagement often substitutes for voting, especially among large fund families and those using meetings or site visits. Funds that vote more often or disclose less are less supportive of ESG proposals, while those filing proposals or outsourcing votes show more support. Collaborative engagement and longer PRI membership correlate with stronger ESG voting. Though engagement-active funds don't show major ESG performance gains, they increasingly support firms’ ESG improvements, highlighting the role of active ownership in promoting sustainability.Type:journal articleJournal:Financial Review - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Assessing the Sustainability of the Business Model: Firm Governance Using the Sustainable Value Creation Framework and Its MeasurementsThe generally accepted definition of sustainability's has a future orientation where "the needs of the present" are satisfied "without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987). That sustainability is at the firm level (as in von Carlowitz, 1712) is an increasingly self-evident proposition. Yet leaders aspiring to make their organizations sustainable face a multitude of challenges, and not exactly because of a lack of choice in the CSR and ESG options available to them. Bafflement can easily turn into frustration when inconsistency, the lack of connection to the firm’s business model or poor-quality data become apparent. On the other hand, progress towards applying sustainability has been considerable over the last decade as exemplified by the ‘big’ global ESG framework and standard-setting organizations. Yet despite the progress made by the copious number of frameworks and measurements, serious issues and blind spots persist. For instance, monopoly positions, subsidies or regulatory privileges are clearly unsustainable and yet rarely captured by existing sustainable frameworks and measurements. This is but one issue—a review of all those identified in the academic and practitioner literature is the paper's first step. In a second step, this paper proposes requirements for sustainability frameworks and measurements. These include: (i) comprehensive capture of sustainable activities; (ii) comprehensive capture of unsustainable activities; (iii) pricing all the value creation and appropriation of the firm; (iv) measuring business model sustainability in relation to the financial statement; (v) measuring the balance of the business model’s sustainable and unsustainable activities. In the third and final step, the paper discusses two sustainable value creation measurements (VCr/VCp) anchored in a multi-disciplinary body theory while developing specific metrics for their calculation. Once empirically validated, the VCp/VCr measurements might inform managers and investors in their choices, inform public policy and could even be employed to adjust equity valuations and credit ratings.Type:journal article - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Get green or die trying? Carbon risk integration into portfolio management.Portfolio management is confronting climate change more strongly and rapidly than expected. Risks arising from the transition from a brown, carbon-based to a green, low-carbon economy need to be integrated into portfolio and risk management. The authors show how to quantify these carbon risks by using a capital markets–based approach. Their measure of carbon risk, the carbon beta, can serve as an integral part of portfolio management practices in a more comprehensive way than fundamental carbon risk measures. Apart from other studies, the authors demonstrate that both green and brown stocks are risky per se, but there is no adequate remuneration in the financial market. In addition, carbon risk exposure is correlated with exposures to other common risk factors. This requires due diligence when integrating carbon risk in investment practices. By implementing carbon risk screening and best-in-class approaches, the authors find that investors can gain a desired level of carbon risk exposure, but this does not come without well-hidden costs.Type:journal articleJournal:Journal of Portfolio ManagementVolume:47Issue:3 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Will the DAX 50 ESG establish the standard for German sustainable investments? A sustainability and financial performance analysisType:journal articleJournal:Credit and Capital MarketsVolume:53Issue:4Scopus© Citations 8 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The Link between Climate Change Risk Perception, Strategy, and Performance: A Risk-Based ApproachWhile many companies engage in both climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, a clear understanding of how risk perceptions shape these strategies and their ultimate effectiveness is lacking. Our research proposes a novel risk-based model of corporate climate change strategy, arguing that companies' perceptions of climate risk determine the type of strategy they pursue, ultimately affecting environmental and financial performance. We theorize three risk-based climate strategies (risk-avoiding, risk-reducing, and risk-transferring) and hypothesize that they mediate the relationship between risk and performance. We use a rich dataset of large panel data and causal mediation analysis to test our hypotheses. We find that more stringent climate strategies mediate the climate change risk-environmental performance relationship more strongly than less stringent strategies. Further, stringent strategies improve short-term financial performance and external carbon exposure evaluations influence long-term financial performance. Our new conceptualization is based on risk and task environment, and integrated with climate mitigation and adaptation.Type:conference paper - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Introduction: Value Creation Ratings Report on The Sustainable Value Creation of Firms (VCr2025 proof-of-concept)This introductory chapter establishes the theoretical foundations and practical applications of the Value Creation Rating (VCr) as a comprehensive measurement framework for firm-level sustainable value creation. The chapter opens by positioning risk origination as a critical precondition for value creation, arguing that long-term business success requires integrating financial performance with sustainability through the origination—not merely management—of risk. The Sustainable Value Creation (SVC) Initiative operates on a foundational ontological premise: all value is either created (through first-order productive activities) or transferred (through second-order extractive activities). This dichotomy enables the Value Creation-Appropriation (VCA) framework to decompose firm revenue into three categories: value created and appropriated (Net Value Creation), value appropriated but not created (transfer-IN), and value created but not appropriated (transfer-OUT). The VCr2025 proof-of-concept employs 102 Metrics to assess 1,000 listed firms, expanding from the previous year's 54 Metrics applied to 122 companies. The chapter systematically contrasts the SVC approach with traditional ESG frameworks, addressing their fundamental limitations: inconsistent measurements, reporting focus divorced from business models, limited data quality, partial stakeholder coverage, and performance decoupling. The VCr distinguishes itself through standardization anchored in business model logic, comprehensive stakeholder coverage, direct linkage to profit-and-loss statements, and integration of sustainability with actual revenue generation mechanisms. The framework organizes Metrics across four Rating Areas (Non-market Power, Market Power, Non-market Value, Market Value) structured within Power and Value Sub-Ratings. To enhance practical utility, the chapter introduces 17 VCr Themes organized across seven domains—Finance, Management, Operations, Governance, Environment, Society, and Technology—providing actionable categorization for strategic decision-making and capital allocation. The VCr's applications span corporate finance, valuations (debt, equity, firms), financial product innovation, and risk management, while complementing the macro-level Elite Quality Index (EQx) that measures national elite systems, thereby connecting micro-level business models to economic development outcomes through elite theory.Type:book section - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Value Creation Rating (VCr): A PrimerChapter 2 of the VCr2025 report introduces the Value Creation Rating (VCr) as a comprehensive firm-level sustainability measurement designed to distinguish sustainable value creation from extractive value transfers in business models. Developed within the Sustainable Value Creation (SVC) framework, the VCr aligns financial performance and risk origination with long-term societal sustainability by assessing how firms create, appropriate, or transfer value across a wide range of stakeholders. Unlike conventional ESG, CSR, or sustainability ratings, the VCr explicitly incorporates political-economy relationships, power dynamics, and institutional contexts. The VCr measures the proportion of value creation relative to value appropriation (revenue) by aggregating both inclusive value transfers (“transfer-OUT,” value created but not appropriated) and extractive value transfers (“transfer-IN,” value appropriated but not created). It is operationalized through a four-level architecture comprising 102 firm-level SVC Metrics, 12 Pillars, 4 Rating Areas (Non-market Power, Market Power, Non-market Value, Market Value), and two Sub-Ratings (Power and Value), which together yield a single VCr score. A complementary measure, the Value Creation Position (VCp), focuses more narrowly on the proportion of extractive value transfers relative to revenue. The chapter details the conceptual foundations, data sources, calibration methods, weighting schemes, and sector-specific baselines underpinning the VCr methodology. It also introduces applied tools such as the Sustainable Value Matrix, which positions firms according to profitability and value creation. Overall, the VCr is presented as a practical analytical and decision-making instrument for managers, investors, policymakers, and society to evaluate and transform business models toward long-term sustainable value creation.Type:book section - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Enhancing the accuracy of firm valuation with multiples using carbon emissions(2022); Jurczenko, EmmanuelCarbon emissions are nowadays an important driver of the value of a firm. We are the first to analyze the potential of carbon emissions data in enhancing the accuracy of firm valuations using the similar public company methodology with multiples. Using carbon emissions has a potential to improve firm valuation accuracy in two separate ways. First, we construct multiples based on carbon emissions (CEM) which are able to estimate firm values. And second, we create more precise peer groups by including carbon emissions (CEPG) in the composition process. To gain deeper insights, we are conducting further analyses, e.g. by measuring the accuracy of carbon emissions peer groups and carbon emissions multiples at valuing carbon intensive or carbon inefficient firms. We extend our study by looking at firms in countries with carbon pricing or by taking ESG and SDGs concerns into account. Overall, we find that CEPG improves the accuracy of firm valuations in more than three quarters of all cases whereas CEM have limited use. Therefore, we recommend analysts, asset managers and investors to include carbon emissions data into their peer group composition.Type:book section - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication,