Thank you for your research. :-)

Why the disparity between some showing a positive and some showing a negative relationship between abnormal returns & ESG investing? Is the difference in studies motivated by the biases that potentially cause abnormal returns? Worded differently, if the methodologies are correct, why is there a considerable divergence in studies? That appears nontrivial and is interesting to the reader.

Additionally, I understood the ratio of Figure 2 as a comparison between the abnormal trading volume at day t to the average over the range, t[-255, -46]. Is that the correct interpretation?