Search results

This study aims to address gaps and limitations in the literature regarding firms’ exposure to climate risks. It reviews existing research, proposes new theoretical frameworks and provides directions for future studies.

A bibliometric and systematic approach is used to review the literature on firms’ climate risk exposure. The study examines current theoretical frameworks and suggests additional ones to enhance understanding.

This study contributes to the climate finance literature by offering a comprehensive overview of firms’ climate risk exposure and used theories. It emphasizes the urgent need to tackle climate change and the crucial role of firms in climate risk management. The study supports the advancement of sustainability policies and highlights the importance of understanding firms' climate risk exposure.

This study informs the development of climate risk management strategies within firms and supports the implementation of effective sustainability policies.

Addressing climate risks can contribute to a more sustainable and resilient future for society as a whole.

This study provides a roadmap for future research by identifying gaps and limitations in the literature. It introduces new perspectives and theoretical frameworks, adding original insights to the field of study.

The authors investigate whether firm-specific vulnerability to climate change influences foreign exchange hedging, using a novel text-based measure of firm-level climate change exposure generated by state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithms.

The authors' empirical analysis includes firm-fixed effects, random-effects regressions, propensity score matching (PSM), entropy balancing, an instrumental-variable analysis and using an exogenous shock as a quasi-natural experiment.

The authors' findings suggest that greater climate change exposure brings about a significant reduction in exchange rate hedging. Companies more exposed to climate change may invest significant resources to address climate change risk, such that they have fewer resources available for currency risk management. Additionally, firms seriously coping with climate change risk may view exchange rate risk as relatively less important in comparison to the risk posed by climate change. Notably, the authors also find that the negative effect of climate change exposure on currency hedging can be specifically attributed to the regulatory aspect of climate change risk rather than the physical dimension, suggesting that companies view the regulatory dimension of climate change as more critical.

Recent studies have demonstrated that climatic fluctuations represent one of the most recent sources of unpredictability, thereby impacting the economy and financial markets (Barnett et al., 2020; Bolton and Kacperczyk, 2020; Engle et al., 2020). The authors' study advances this field of research by revealing that company-specific exposure to climate change serves as a significant determinant of corporate currency hedging, thus expanding the existing knowledge base.

This study aims to investigate how a firm's management team's capacity to efficiently use its resources affects the firm's exposure to climate change. Specifically, the authors investigate the intriguing question – does managerial ability affect a firm's climate change exposure?

The authors use an unbalanced panel dataset of 4,230 US based firms listed on Compustat from 2002–2019 and test the hypothesis by panel regression analysis. To mitigate endogeneity concerns, difference-in-differences and instrumental variable approaches are used.

The baseline analysis shows a negative, statistically significant impact of managerial ability on climate change exposure. The findings hold after controlling for endogeneity using two-stage least squares regression and difference-in-differences tests. The authors find the negative effect is stronger for managers engaged in socially responsible activities, and after climate change issues receiving greater public awareness following the 2006 release of the Stern Review and the 2016 signing of the Paris Accord.

Motivated by the resource-based theory and the natural resource-based view of the firm model, the empirical results support the view that greater managerial ability protects the firm against environmental challenges through efficient use of firm resources. Compared with traditional climate change measures that are plagued by disclosure issues, the use of the Sautner, Van Lent, Vilkov and Zhang's machine learning based dataset utilizing earning conference calls provides stronger, robust findings that will be useful to management and investors in environmental performance assessments.

Motivated by the resource-based theory and the natural resource-based view of the firm model, the empirical results support the view that greater managerial ability protects the firm against environmental challenges through efficient use of firm resources. Compared with traditional climate change measures that are plagued by disclosure issues, the use of the machine learning based dataset utilizing earning conference calls provides stronger, robust findings that will be useful to management and investors in environmental performance assessments.

Exploiting novel measures of climate change exposure and corporate culture generated by a powerful textual analysis of earnings conference calls, this study aims to explore the effect of firm-specific climate change exposure on corporate innovation through the lens of corporate culture.

The authors apply the standard regression analysis as well as a variety of sophisticated techniques, namely, propensity score matching, entropy balancing and an instrumental-variable analysis with multiple alternative instruments.

The authors find that more exposure to climate change risk results in more innovation, as indicated by a significantly stronger culture of innovation. The findings are consistent with the notion that firms more exposed to climate change risk are pressed to be more innovative to adapt to the numerous changes caused by climate change. Finally, the authors also find that the effect of firm-level exposure on innovation is considerably less pronounced during uncertain times.

The authors are among the first studies to take advantage of a novel measure of firm-specific exposure to climate change and investigate how climate change exposure influences an innovative culture. Since climate change is a timely issue, the findings offer important implication to several stakeholders, such as shareholders, executives and investors in general.

This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of climate risk disclosure by providing empirical evidence on whether corporate disclosure meets rising stakeholders’ demand for risk disclosure concerning climate change.

Drawing on a triangulated approach for collecting data from multiple sources in a longitudinal study, we perform a panel regression analysis on a sample of multinational firms between 2007 and 2021. Inspired by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles, our innovative and inclusive model of measuring firm-level climate risks underscores the urgent need to redefine materiality from a broader value creation (rather than only financial) perspective, including the impact on sustainable development.

The findings of this study provide evidence of limited corporate climate risk disclosure, indicating that organisations have yet to accept the reality of climate-related risks. An additional finding supports the existence of a nexus between higher corporate environmental disclosure and higher corporate resilience to material financial and environmental risks, rather than pervasive sustainability risk disclosure.

We argue that a mechanical process for climate-related risk disclosure can limit related disclosure variability, risk reporting priority selection, thereby broadening the short-term perspective on financial materiality assessment for disclosure.

This study extends recent literature on the adequacy of corporate risk disclosure, highlighting the importance of disclosing material sustainability risks from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for long-term success. Corporate management should place climate-related risks at the centre of their disclosure strategies. We argue that reducing the systematic underestimation of climate-related risks and variations in their disclosure practices may require regulations that enhance corporate perceptions and responses to these risks.

This study emphasises the importance of reconceptualising materiality from a multidimensional value creation standpoint, encapsulating financial and sustainable development considerations. This novel model of assessing firm-level climate risk, based on the GRI principles, underscores the necessity of developing a more comprehensive approach to evaluating materiality.

Taking advantage of distinctive text-based measures of climate policy uncertainty and firm-specific exposure to climate change, this study aims to examine the impact of firm-specific vulnerability on dividend policy.

To mitigate endogeneity, the authors apply an instrumental-variable analysis based on climate policy uncertainty as well as use additional analysis using propensity score matching and entropy balancing.

The authors show that an increase in climate policy uncertainty exacerbates firm-specific exposure considerably. Exploiting climate policy uncertainty to generate exogenous variation in firm-specific exposure, the authors demonstrate that companies more susceptible to climate change are significantly less likely to pay dividends and those that do pay dividends pay significantly smaller dividends. For instance, a rise in firm-specific exposure by one standard deviation weakens the propensity to pay dividends by 5.11%. Climate policy uncertainty originates at the national level, beyond the control of individual firms and is thus plausibly exogenous, making endogeneity less likely.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt in the literature to investigate the effect of firm-specific exposure on dividend policy using a rigorous empirical framework that is less vulnerable to endogeneity and is more likely to show a causal influence, rather than a mere correlation.

This study investigates the reaction to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) 2010 interpretative guidance on climate risk disclosures. Issued on February 8, 2010, the release represents one of the few examples of authoritative requirements for environmental disclosure in filers’ 10-K reports. As such, we attempt to determine the effect of the new requirement on companies’ disclosures as well as how the market reacted to the guidance announcement. Based on a sample of 155 large companies drawn randomly from the Fortune 500, we find first, that, as expected, climate change disclosures increased significantly following the release, but overall, the information provision remained quite limited. We further find that, presumably as intended, companies from industries facing greater climate change exposures exhibited significantly larger increases in disclosure (controlling for prior levels of information provision). Finally, we document that the market reaction to the release of the SEC guidance was significantly positive and driven by more positive returns from firms in climate risk industries. We interpret these unexpected findings as potentially being due to investors believing the new requirements were less demanding than might have been anticipated or that they believe firms facing climate risks were in a better position to respond than other companies.

Green sukuk (GS) is an emerging financial tool that has gained momentum in recent years owing to increased attention being given to Islamic finance, socially responsible investing (SRI) and sustainability agendas. Yet, GS studies are fragmented, dispersed and lack comprehensive reviews. As a response to this gap in academia, this paper aims to synthesize the knowledge on GS into thematic clusters, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the subject and offering guidelines for future research.

This study implemented a systematic literature review approach to analyse studies on GS that were published prior to and including June 2023. The PRISMA 2020 protocol was used in the sample selection process. A total of 62 peer-reviewed journal articles from six databases were identified and categorized into various themes.

The results suggest that previous research has predominantly focused on the areas of GS advantages, drivers, market development and potential sectors, along with challenges and recommendations to improve the market. However, it was found that some other aspects, including GS pricing, performance and purchasing intention, require further research attention. The analysis also indicated that the use of theories in the GS context was limited, with only five theories employed in just four out of the 62 articles examined. Moreover, this paper’s findings revealed that the studies employing quantitative and empirical analysis methods were limited to four articles. Geographically, most of the studies were conducted in Indonesia and Malaysia, while other countries with high-potential markets (e.g. GCC) had limited GS practices and studies.

The results of this study have several practical implications. For investors, a review of GS will provide greater insight into the understanding of the GS market, helping them make better investment decisions. For policymakers, this paper empowers them with the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding GS markets by highlighting key recommendations identified in the literature. Finally, the proposed guidelines can be used in future research.

While Green Bonds have received significant attention, there is a dearth of research on GS and those that exist are fragmented. A systematic literature review is necessary to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

This paper aims to explore current trends in how companies disclose climate-related risks and opportunities in their financial statements. As part of the authors’ analysis, they examine: whether forward-looking assumptions and judgements are typically considered in reporting climate-related risks/opportunities; whether there are differences in the reporting practices of firms in carbon-intensive industries versus non-carbon-intensive industries; and whether negative media reports have an influence on the levels of disclosure a firm makes.

The authors chose content analysis as their methodology and examined the financial statements published by firms listed on the UK’s FTSE 100 between 2016 and 2020. This analysis is framed by Suchman’s three dimensions of legitimacy, being pragmatic, cognitive and moral.

Climate-related disclosures in the notes and financial accounts of these firms did increase over the period. Yet, overall, the level the disclosures was inadequate and the quality was inconsistent. From this, the authors conclude that pragmatic legitimacy is not a particularly strong driving factor in compelling organisations to disclose climate-related information. The firms in carbon-intensive industries do provide greater levels of disclosure, including both qualitative and quantitative (monetary) content, which is consistent with cognitive legitimacy. However, from a moral legitimacy perspective, this study finds that firms did not adapt responsively to negative media coverage as a way of reflecting their accountability to broader public norms and values. Overall, this analysis suggests that regulatory enforcement and a systematic reporting framework with adequate guidance is going to be critical to developing transparent climate-related reporting in future.

This paper contributes to existing studies on climate-related disclosures, which have mainly examined the ‘front-half’ of annual reports. Conversely, this study aims to shed light on these practices in the “back-half” of these reports, exploring the underlying reasons for reporting climate-related risks and opportunities in financial accounts. The authors’ insights into the current disclosure practices make a theoretical contribution to the literature. Practitioners can also draw on these insights to improve how they report on climate-related risks and opportunities in their financial statements.

This paper aims to quantify the (syndicated) loan exposure to elevated environmental risk sectors of the banking system in the USA, EU, China, Japan and Switzerland at US$1.6tn and to highlight its importance, which ranges from 3.8 (USA) to 0.5 per cent (China) in terms of total national banking assets. The paper highlights the relevance of exploring prudential policy responses, including a harmonized taxonomy, statistical and reporting framework that could contribute to internalizing the negative externalities associated with climate risks by both banks and their supervisors. Among the prudential supervisory tools, credit registers facilitate the assessment of environmental risk drivers in “carbon stress tests.” This paper also presents a framework of analysis for the regulatory treatment of climate-related risks.

Similarly to Weyzig et al. (2014), this paper uses financial databases on the banks’ role as book runners for syndicated loans; that is, as the lead arrangers who also provide a large share of the actual lending. Loans are outstanding on December 31, 2014, and the paper assumes linear amortization of loans issued before that date and with maturity after that date. This study includes the largest banks from the above-mentioned countries with financial information available in SNL Financial and EU banks with financial information available in the ECB database on December 31, 2014. By assessing the relative share of the ten largest (or total reporting if less) banks’ exposure to each high environmental risk sector in relation to their total assets, these findings can be extrapolated across sectors in the respective country.

This paper quantifies the loan exposure to elevated environmental risk sectors of the banking system in the USA, EU, China, Japan and Switzerland in US$1.6tn, broadly in line with the findings of Battiston et al. (2017) and Weyzig et al. (2014). This paper also explores prudential policy approaches and tools. In addition to the lack of taxonomy of “brown” vs “green,” the paper identifies the limitations to assess the risks involved in the transition to a low-carbon economy: supervisory reports that do not make full use of the existing international statistical framework (e.g. EU COREP and FINREP); lack of harmonized reporting requirements of environmental risks; lack of credit registers as tools to perform carbon stress-testing; and supervisors’ governance framework that do not internalize environmental risks (e.g. proposed revision of the Basel Core Principles of Banking Supervision). As per the stress-testing, the paper presents two examples. The paper presents a framework of analysis for the regulatory treatment of climate-related risks. The author identifies two critical elements of such framework if prudential regulation of environmental risks is to be considered: the consideration or not of climate risk as credit risk and the impact of environmental risks over probabilities of default over the entire business cycle.

No internationally accepted “official” taxonomy of high environmental risk sectors exists. This paper uses Moody’s (2015a) classification of sectors according to their environmental risk exposure. This paper’s exposures do not reflect the real risk exposure of these institutions and the banking industry as a whole because, as explained in Page 6, these values are without regard to bilateral loans and guarantees and securitizations of loans; in the case of loans to power generation companies, renewable sources are not excluding and, similarly, for the production of electric vehicles, loans are not excluded. Furthermore, this paper does not assess banks’ exposures to sovereigns subject to high environmental risks and bonds and equity issued by corporations operating in high environmental risk sectors.

Contribution to the present policy debate on how to regulate banks’ exposure to high environmental risk and how to manage the transition to a low-carbon economy.

This paper can increase awareness of the banking sector transition risks to a low-carbon economy.

This paper quantifies banks direct exposures to high environmental risk sectors using an ample definition of sectors exposed to environmental risk. The author suggests policy actions to assess the environmental risks. The author defines a regulatory framework for banks to internalize the negative externalities of environmental risks.