Search results

This study aims to empirically examine the influence of financial constraints on firm carbon emissions. In addition to the role of financial constraints in firm-level carbon emissions, this study also examines this influence in the presence of governance, environmental orientation and firm-level attributes.

Using pooled ordinary least square, this study examines the impact of financial constraints on firm-level carbon emissions using a panel of 1,536 US firm-year observations from 2008 to 2019. This study also used two-step generalized method of moment–based dynamic panel data and two-stage least square approaches to address potential endogeneity. The results are robust to endogeneity and collinearity issues.

The results suggest that financial constraints enhance the carbon emissions of the firms. The economic significance of financial constraints on carbon emissions is more pronounced for the firms that do not report environment-related expenditure investment and those that are highly leveraged. The authors further document that firms with a nondiverse gender board signify a statistically significant impact of financial constraints on carbon emissions. These results are also economically significant, as one standard deviation increase in financial constraints is associated with a 3.340% increase in carbon emissions at the firm level.

Some implicit and explicit factors like corporate emissions policy and culture may condition the relationship of financial constraints with carbon emissions. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to consider these factors for future research. In addition, it is beneficial to identify the thresholds and/or quantiles at which financial constraints may significantly make a difference in enhancing carbon emissions.

The findings offer policy implications for investment in stakeholder engagement for capital acquisitions, thereby effectively enforcing environmental innovation and leading to a reduction in carbon emissions.

This study integrated governance and environment-oriented variables in the model to empirically examine the role of financial constraints on the carbon emissions of the firms in the USA over and above what has already been documented in the earlier literature.

This paper intends to investigate the empirical link between governance and energy investment in PPP. To succinctly account for biases in the fixed effects (FE) model, the authors adopted different bias-corrected techniques. The majority of these techniques provided evidence that PPP investments in energy are boosted by increasing the desire for accountability, prioritising the voice of the masses and disabusing the rule of laws. This study could not find any positive influence from the control of corruption to PPP investment in energy.

The acute shortage of power supply in SSA has attracted PPP investments in the energy subsector of the economy, leading to the recent debate on governance and public, private investment. The authors contributed to this argument by examining the impact of country governance on PPP investment in energy using a sample of countries in SSA.

Therefore, the authors concluded that low control of corruption is responsible for the inadequate volume of PPP investments. In the light of this, the government should redefine the anti-corruption bill of their sovereignty to accommodate severe sanctions when necessary.

This paper uses the fixed effects (FE) model by introducing batteries of nonlinear panel models to capture the relationship between the impacts of country governance on PPP investment in energy.