Integrating ESG into Factor Pricing Models and Actuarial Risk Estimation: Implications for Venture Capital
Main Article Content
Keywords
environmental, social and governance (ESG), factor pricing model, actuarial risk estimation, venture capital, tail risk
Abstract
This paper reviews how Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors can be incorporated into factor pricing models and actuarial risk estimation methods, and evaluates their implications for venture capital (VC) investment. Traditional asset pricing models, including single-factor and multi-factor models, provide a framework for assessing systematic risk, while actuarial techniques such as Value at Risk (VaR), Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR), and Extreme Value Theory (EVT) are effective in measuring tail risk. Existing literature suggests that ESG performance influences both expected returns and downside risk, with firms exhibiting stronger ESG profiles generally showing lower tail risk and greater resilience during periods of financial stress. In the context of venture capital, ESG serves as a signal of management quality, governance capability, and long-term growth potential, helping investors mitigate information asymmetry and improve investment selection. This review identifies major research findings, ongoing debates, and current gaps, particularly the lack of an integrated framework combining factor pricing and actuarial methods for ESG analysis in private markets. The paper concludes by proposing future research directions for building quantitative ESG assessment tools tailored to venture capital.
References
- [1] Bani-Khaled, S., Azevedo, G., & Oliveira, J. (2025). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors and firm value: A systematic literature review of theories and empirical evidence. AMS Review, 15, 228–260.
- [2] Aldukkah, A. (2023). The impact of management quality on the ESG risks [Master’s thesis]. Hamad Bin Khalifa University.
- [3] Sharpe, W. F. (1963). A simplified model for portfolio analysis. Management Science, 9(2), 277–293.
- [4] Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1), 3–56.
- [5] Carhart, M. M. (1997). On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 57–82.
- [6] Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.
- [7] Gillan, S. L., Koch, A., & Starks, L. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889.
- [8] Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549.
- [9] Ding, X., et al. (2021). Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics.
- [10] Broadstock, D. C., et al. (2021). The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance.
- [11] Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. (2003). Financial contracting theory meets the real world: An empirical analysis of venture capital contracts. Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 281–315.
- [12] Gompers, P. A., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S. N., & Strebulaev, I. A. (2016). How do venture capitalists make decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 121(1), 1–23.
- [13] Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2020). Coordinated engagements. Journal of Financial Economics, 138(2), 576–595.
- [14] Krüger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(2), 304–329.
