HIP Analyzer

Regression Analysis

Three OLS specifications examining HIP score impact on cumulative abnormal returns

1

Model 3 with management variables explains the most variation (R² = 0.056), suggesting management quality matters more than ESG scores alone.

2

The Wealth pillar has a surprising negative effect on returns (β = -0.275, p < 0.001), suggesting these companies may be overvalued.

3

ManagementPractices is the single strongest predictor (β = 0.652, p < 0.001) - operational quality drives post-acquisition success.

Model Explanatory Power (R-squared)
Model 1: Aggregate HIP Rating

Single-factor model testing overall HIP Rating impact on post-acquisition returns

R-squared

0.045

F-stat

8.92

CAR = α + β₁(HIPRating) + ε

The overall HIP (Human Impact + Profit) score, ranging from 0 to 100. It combines environmental, social, and governance factors into a single measure of corporate responsibility.

Coefficient Estimates

Detailed Results

VariableBetaSEt-statSig.Plain English
Intercept-0.0320.018-1.78
n.s.
Baseline return when all predictors are zero
HIPRating0.0890.0302.97
p<0.01
For each 1-point increase in HIP score, returns increase by 8.9 percentage points
Model 2: Five Pillars Decomposition

Disaggregated model examining individual contribution of each HIP pillar

R-squared

0.029

F-stat

4.51

CAR = α + β₁(Health) + β₂(Wealth) + β₃(Earth) + β₄(Equality) + β₅(Trust) + ε

Companies with higher Wealth pillar scores (financial inclusion, fair wages) actually have worse post-acquisition returns. This may be because the market already prices in these factors, leading to overvaluation.

Coefficient Estimates

Detailed Results

VariableBetaSEt-statSig.Plain English
Intercept-0.0320.018-1.78
n.s.
Baseline return when all predictors are zero
Health-0.0360.037-0.95
n.s.
Higher Health pillar scores are associated with 3.6pp lower returns
Wealth-0.2750.065-4.25
p<0.001
Higher Wealth pillar scores are associated with 27.5pp lower returns
Earth0.0110.0430.25
n.s.
Higher Earth pillar scores are associated with 1.1pp higher returns
Equality0.0330.0550.59
n.s.
Higher Equality pillar scores are associated with 3.3pp higher returns
Trust0.0840.0801.05
n.s.
Higher Trust pillar scores are associated with 8.4pp higher returns
Model 3: Management Variables

Extended model incorporating governance and management quality indicators

R-squared

0.056

F-stat

8.96

CAR = α + β₁(MgmtPractices) + β₂(Accountability) + ε

When we test what actually drives post-acquisition returns, management quality (how well a company is run) matters more than any ESG pillar score. Good management, not ESG labels, predicts success.

Coefficient Estimates

Detailed Results

VariableBetaSEt-statSig.Plain English
Intercept-0.0890.025-3.56
p<0.001
Baseline return when all predictors are zero
ManagementPractices0.6520.1115.88
p<0.001
Better management practices are associated with 65.2pp higher returns
Accountability-0.4780.085-5.61
p<0.001
Higher accountability scores are associated with 47.8pp lower returns
Key Interpretation

Model progression: Moving from Model 1 to Model 3 increases R² from 0.045 to 0.056, with management variables providing the strongest explanatory power.

Management dominance: ManagementPractices (β=0.652) is the strongest predictor across all models, suggesting operational quality matters far more than ESG scores for post-acquisition success.

Wealth paradox: The Wealth pillar has a significant negative coefficient (β=-0.275, p<0.001), indicating that companies scoring highly on financial inclusion and fair wages may already be priced at a premium, leading to lower post-acquisition returns.