Institutional Investors, Shareholder Activism, and ESG in the Energy Sector

The search for relationships between shareholder activism and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance has been a research area that has garnered increased interest in recent years. Specifically, climate change and environmental concerns have been evaluated by private and public sectors around the world, and progress has been made with actions such as the Paris Agreement. Scholars conducted various studies to analyze the relationship between shareholder activism and corporate financial performance (CFP). In addition, scholars have also conducted various studies to analyze the relationship between ESG performance and CFP as well as ESG performance and risk. Given the emergence of ESG in recent years, the adoption of standardized ESG criteria and performance measures across industries and markets is still relatively undeveloped compared to criteria such as SEC reporting criteria for US publicly-traded companies. Therefore, the insights on shareholder activism and ESG adoption and performance remain inconclusive. This study aims to raise awareness and increase studies focusing on how investors can utilize resources such as activism to affect ESG adoption and performance. This paper also continues to raise awareness regarding current discrepancies in ESG ratings by company, industry, as well the discrepancies that are observed between different ESG rating agencies. This study specifically tracks the changes resulting from the formation of the Climate Action 100+ at the One Planet Summit in 2017 by evaluating the Sustainalytics Environmental Score of select energy and power utility companies from the initiative. Given the data, a paired t-test was implemented to gain more knowledge on how Sustainalytics Environmental Scores moved after major ESG-related announcements. In addition, this paper reviews current news and market developments in ESG and shareholder activism as well as academic and scholarly literature researching shareholder activism, ESG, and CFP. The results from this study show minuscule to no benefit to a company’s Sustainalytics Environmental Score given the current Sustainalytics dataset and publicly-available ESG information for students. This paper further reviews how discrepancies between ESG rating data and actual firm ESG performance presents potential challenges for institutional investors, retail investors, and firms. This paper also discusses future research areas and topics that could increase clarity regarding the relationship between shareholder activism and ESG adoption and performance

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field