This paper examines the spillover effect of environmental regulatory pressure on firms' green technological innovation, from the perspective of supply chain relationships. Analyzing data from Chinese listed companies, we find that the average environmental regulatory pressure faced by the customer firms of a supplier firm enhances the green patent applications filed by the supplier firm. When the industry of the supplier is more competitive or the proportion of the supplier's sales from its largest customer is higher, the supplier feels more pressured to pursue green innovation, resulting in more green patent filings. Thus, via their negotiation power, customer firms can prompt the supplier firm to innovate to meet their demand for green technologies. Finally, we show that this effect is particularly pronounced when the supplier firm has a strong financial position, is located in a highly marketized region, receives low R&D government subsidies, or enjoys a high ESG rating

In this study, we explore the impact of the establishment of environmental courts, an environmental justice system, on the cost of equity capital. Based on a quasi-natural experiment of establishing environmental courts in China, we find that they have a deterrent effect and reduce the cost of equity capital for heavily polluting firms in localities. We also find that a low proportion of managerial ownership, a low level of analyst attention, and high environmental uncertainty induce this deterrent effect. Furthermore, mechanism tests indicate that environmental courts enhance corporate environmental engagement and corporate ESG ratings, increase long-term institutional investor ownership, and reduce urban environmental violations to achieve a deterrent effect. The findings are more pronounced for the trial court sample, firms in cities with lower public participation in environmental protection, and firms with lower environmental information transparency. We also suggest the impacts and underlying mechanisms of the environmental justice system on the equity capital market, which is conducive to long-term planning by firm managers

We analyse the effects of the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) launched by the ECB after the burst of the Covid-19 pandemic. The effects of the programme were different from the previous asset purchases. The PEPP significantly reduced the yield on bonds that at the same time were eligible to the programme and showed a green label. Via a triple difference estimator, we show that this effect is additional to the outperformance of greens vs non-green bonds that also occurred in the set of non-eligible bonds. All in all, the estimated impact stands at 51 basis points, a value that is significant also from an economic point of view: around 20 per cent of the cost of issuing a bond. From a climate change perspective, this evidence suggests that asset purchase programmes are an effective way of supporting firms financing climate-friendly investments on the bond market. In addition, we find that the issuers that benefitted most from the PEPP improved their ESG performance to a larger extent than other issuers

We study the asset market for pollutive plants. Firms divest pollutive plants in response to environmental pressures. Buyers are firms facing weaker environmental pressures that have supply chain relationships or joint ventures with the sellers. While pollution levels do not decline following divestitures, sellers highlight their sustainable policies in subsequent conference calls, earn higher returns as they sell more pollutive plants, and benefit from higher Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings and lower compliance costs. Overall, the asset market allows firms to redraw their boundaries in a manner perceived as environmentally friendly without real consequences for pollution but with substantial gains from trade

US state governments frequently provide firms with targeted subsidies. In exchange, recipients promise to create or retain a certain number of jobs in the subsidizing state. Using novel hand-collected data, we address three questions: (i) the extent to which firms meet job creation targets promised in their applications, (ii) the factors that determine which firms meet the targets, and (iii) the benefits to firms from meeting those targets. We find that 63% of subsidies awarded to publicly traded U.S. firms between 2004 and 2015 meet their promised job creation targets. Firms with poorer labor practices are less likely to meet their targets, as are politically connected firms that receive subsidies in election years. Conversely, promised job targets are also more likely to be met for subsidies accompanied by government press releases but less likely to be met for subsidies accompanied by firm press releases; the latter likely reflects the fact that firms put out press releases for larger subsidies with more ambitious job targets. In terms of consequences, firms that meet job targets are more successful at obtaining subsequent subsidies both in and out of subsidizing states. However, while firms’ success in meeting job targets is associated with an uptick in positive media coverage, this does not flow through to ESG ratings, even on scores specific to community impact. Our results should be of interest to both academics and policymakers interested in the design of state-level economic incentives

Growing discussions of impact investing and stakeholder capitalism have increased interest in measuring companies' social impact. We conceptualize corporate social impact as the welfare loss that would be caused by a firm's exit. To illustrate, we quantify the social impacts of 74 firms in 12 industries using a new survey measuring consumer and worker substitution patterns combined with models of product and labor markets. We find that consumer surplus is the primary component of social impact, suggesting that consumer impacts deserve more attention from impact investors. Existing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and social impact ratings are essentially unrelated to our economically grounded measures

The increasing societal focus on environmental issues leads to important questions about the relationship between corporate environmental (ESG) performance and firms’ cost of capital, but research on this topic remains scant. The real estate sector offers an ideal testing ground to investigate the relationship in two distinct manners, while specifically addressing concerns about endogeneity. We first investigate the spreads on commercial mortgages collateralized by real assets, some of which are environmentally certified. We then study spreads on corporate debt of property companies (REITs), both at issuance and while trading in the secondary market. The results show that loans on environmentally certified buildings command lower spreads than conventional, but otherwise comparable buildings, varying between 24 and 29 basis points, depending on the specification. At the corporate level, REITs with a higher fraction of environmentally certified buildings have lower bond spreads in the secondary market. These results are robust to different estimation strategies, and signal that environmental risk is efficiently priced in the real estate debt market

This study measures the financial impact of screening for environmental, social and governance criteria on corporate bond portfolios. Specifically, the risk-adjusted financial performance of 103 socially responsible bond funds in the US and the Eurozone is compared with a matched sample of conventional funds. During the period 2001–2014, socially responsible bond funds outperform by one-half of one percent annually. An evaluation of fund holdings and a performance-attribution analysis suggest that this outperformance is directly related to the mitigation of ESG risks, which is achieved by the exclusion of corporate bond issuers with poor corporate social responsibility activities. A separation of crisis and non-crisis periods further indicates that the outperformance is especially likely to occur during recessions or bear market periods. We confirm this crisis-related return effect from a sample of socially screened bond indices. Moreover, our results are robust to alternative definitions of sustainability, survivorship bias, fund characteristics and stable in the US and Eurozone sub-samples