nach oben

Journal of Business Ethics

Erschienen in:

28.05.2016

Carbon Risk, Carbon Risk Awareness and the Cost of Debt Financing

verfasst von: Juhyun Jung, Kathleen Herbohn, Peter Clarkson

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We seek insights into potential benefits for firms adopting strategies to improve business sustainability in a carbon-constrained future. We investigate whether lenders incorporate a firm’s exposure to carbon-related risk into lending decisions through the cost of financing, and if so, importantly whether firms can mitigate the penalty by demonstrating an awareness of their carbon risks. We use a sample of 255 firm-year observations from eight industries over the period 2009–2013. We measure carbon-related risk exposure as the firm’s historical carbon emissions and our primary measure of carbon risk awareness is based on the firm’s willingness to respond to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) survey. We document a positive association between cost of debt and carbon risk for firms failing to respond to the CDP. Further, this association is economically meaningful, with a one standard deviation increase in carbon risk mapping into between a 38 and 62 basis point increase in the cost of debt. Equally, we find that this penalty is effectively negated for firms exhibiting carbon risk awareness. Our results are robust when we consider alternate measures of carbon awareness—disclosure through alternative medium to the CDP and firms’ annual cash investment in new capital assets using “cleaner” technology. Our results highlight not only the importance of carbon awareness as a business strategy for polluting firms, but also its importance to lenders exposed to their clients’ default and reputational risk. The debt market appears to incorporate historical carbon emissions and forward-looking indicators of carbon performance.

Vorheriger Artikel See What We Want to See? The Effects of Managerial Experience on Corporate Green Investments

Nächster Artikel An Integrative Model of the Influence of Parental and Peer Support on Consumer Ethical Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Self-Esteem, Power, and Materialism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

For example, Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. in 2005 causing an estimated insured loss of $45 billion, while severe flooding affected Europe in 2002 with an estimated $16 billion of direct losses (Labatt and White 2007). Stern (2007) estimated that a failure to act on climate change could cost the world economy between five and 20 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, with the potential to limit this cost to around 1 % by acting promptly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

MacKenzie (2009) provides an overview of the development of this perspective.

One study that directly examines the association between carbon emission and the cost of debt is Chen and Gao (2012). However, their study relies on emissions data from the Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (EGRID) and hence is restricted in scope to the U.S. electrical utility industry.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the member countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997 and came into force in 2005 (UNEP 2006). It is an internationally binding agreement whereby participating countries pledge to reduce GHG emissions to meet national reduction targets (UNEP 2006; Talberg and Swoboda 2013).

Details are available from the Clean Energy Regulator web site (www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au).

Of direct relevance here, the carbon emissions publishing thresholds are corporate groups with Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions combined that are equal to or greater than 125 kilotonnes for reporting year 2008–2009, 87.5 kilotonnes for reporting year 2009–2010, and 50 kilotonnes for reporting year 2010–2011 and beyond.

This information is sourced from the UNEP FI web site (http://www.unepfi.org/about/statements/history/index.html).

The Climate Change Governance Checklist was developed by the RiskMetrics Group to analyse corporate responses to climate change. This checklist consists of fourteen indicators to evaluate corporate climate change activities in five main governance areas of board oversight, management execution, public disclosure, emissions accounting, and strategic planning.

Several studies document the negative impact of carbon liabilities on firms. For example, the European-based study by Clarkson et al. (2015) finds that carbon emissions that exceed carbon allowances under the EU ETS negatively affect firm valuation. Similarly, the Australian-based study from Deutsche Bank (2009) estimated that the carbon liability arising from the proposed emissions trading scheme has a potential negative valuation impact on the top 25 emitters in Australia. In a similar vein, a U.S.-based study by Schneider (2011) suggests that for firms in polluting industries, environmental risk is one of the major idiosyncratic risks.

The Australian accounting standard AASB 123 stipulated that a firm is allowed to capitalise borrowing costs (e.g. interest on bank overdrafts and borrowings) that are directly attributable to the acquisition, construction or production of a qualifying asset into the cost of that asset.

The required details are obtained from the notes to the financial statements accessed from the Connect4 database.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the most widely used international accounting tool by government and business leaders to assess GHG emissions. It classifies GHG emissions at three levels: (1) Scope 1: ‘direct GHG emissions caused by a company’s fuel combustion or emitted through industrial processes owned or controlled by a company’; (2) Scope 2: ‘indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity’; and (3) Scope 3: ‘indirect emissions from other sources not owned or controlled by the company, such as suppliers and products in use’ (Salo and van Ast 2009, p. 6).

Although the CPM was subsequently repealed in 2014, it was operational from July 2012 and anticipated from 2007 onward by business as a succession of Labor governments signalled an intention to introduce some form of carbon tax.

Sourced from the CDP website (https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Respond/Pages/companies.aspx).

The CDP divides a firm’s response status into ‘Answered Questionnaire’, ‘Declined to Participate’, ‘Information Provided’ and ‘No Response’. ‘Answered Questionnaire’ indicates that a firm answered some or all of the questions in the questionnaire; ‘Declined to Participate’ indicates that a firm declined to participate in the project: ‘Information Provided’ indicates that a firm provided information relevant to the questionnaire in another form of report (e.g. CSR report) but did not answer the questionnaire; and ‘No Response’ indicates that a firm did not reply to the CDP regarding their request.

We also more narrowly identified non-responding firms that provided the information requested by the CDP in their CSR or annual reports, or on their corporate website, and reran the analyses after reclassifying these 2 firm-year observations as ‘carbon aware’, finding results to be qualitatively identical.

Given our Australian setting, we use an Australian Z-score model from Aldamen and Duncan (2012) to estimate a firm’s default risk, with the calculated Z-score then multiplied by −1 so that higher values represent a higher default risk. Aldamen and Duncan’s (2012) Z-score is computed as: Z-score = −0.38 + 2.05 (Retained Earnings/Total Assets) + 3.06 (EBIT/Total Assets) + 1.09 (Sales/Total Assets) − 2.91 (Book Value of Total debt/Total Assets) + 0.16 (Working Capital/Total Assets).

Chen and Gao (2012) interpret their finding as implying that if firms with newer equipment have relatively high carbon emission rates, required additional future capital expenditures on equipment with improved carbon emission rates will reduce cash flows available for debt payments and increase default risk. In contrast, Schneider (2011) attributes his finding to the fact that firms with new equipment may exhibit superior environmental performance thereby lowering the cost of debt.

While Goss and Roberts (2011) use the 3-month U.S. dollar LIBOR rate, given our Australian setting, we use the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash rate. While the 90-day bank bill swap rate (BBSW) is widely used as a benchmark interest rate for floating rate financial instruments, due to the inaccessibility of the historical BBSW data, we revert to official RBA cash rate which has been shown to be highly correlated with the BBSW (Morningstar 2013).

The following sources were used: Google Search (http://www.google.com.au); ABN Lookup (http://www.abr.business.gov.au); and ASIC Company Search (https://creditorwatch.com.au/express/asic/search/false/company).

Firms in the Financial sector were excluded because they are subject to industry-specific regulations, which may result in their capital market decisions being fundamentally different from those of non-financial firms (Pittman and Fortin 2004).

A focus on the high polluting industries is common in the academic literature (e.g. Clarkson et al. 2008; Schneider 2011).

The mean values of CARBON are 0.0031, 0.0189, 0.0034 and 0.0013 tonnes of Scope 1 GHG emissions per $1000 of sales for Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care and Telecommunication Services, respectively, and 1.0314, 0.1869, 0.4080 and 2.2885 tonnes of Scope 1 GHG emissions per $1000 of sales for Energy, Industrials, Materials and Utilities, respectively.

Gray et al. (2009) reported mean and median values of 8.7 and 7.1 %. Here, differences are likely attributable to the relatively low interest rate environment during our study period compared with theirs.

Arguably, in addition to providing assurance that our results and conclusions are not sensitive to our choice of proxy for carbon risk awareness, the use of these alternative proxies also addresses the potential concern that our CDP measure may be capturing the effect of an omitted, correlated variable associated with the firm’s decision to respond to the CDP survey rather than the firm’s carbon awareness.

These results are based on the 252 firm-year observations with the required data on investments in property, plant and equipment. The variables SIZE, TANG and NEW were removed from the model because of their high correlations with PPE.

Alcock, J., Finn, F., & Tan, K. J. K. (2012). The determinants of debt maturity in Australian firms. Accounting and Finance, 52, 313–341.CrossRef

Aldamen, H., & Duncan, K. (2012). Does adopting good corporate governance impact the cost of intermediated and non-intermediated debt? Accounting and Finance, 52, 49–76.CrossRef

Aldamen, H., & Duncan, K. (2013). Pricing of innate and discretionary accruals in Australian debt. Accounting and Finance, 53, 31–53.CrossRef

Armstrong, C. S., Guay, W. R., & Weber, J. P. (2010). The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 179–234.CrossRef

Australian Government: Department of Environment. (2014). Reducing Australia’s emissions. Retrieved from http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx.

Bauer, R., & Hann, D. (2010). Corporate environmental management and credit risk. Retrieved from http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1660470.

Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2008). Carbon trading: Accounting and reporting issues. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 697–717.CrossRef

Bharath, S. T., Sunder, J., & Sunder, S. V. (2008). Accounting quality and debt contracting. The Accounting Review, 83(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Brown, P. J., Fuller, D., & Harun, R. M. (2011). The association between greenhouse gas management and operating performance: Australian evidence. In: 34th annual congress of the European accounting association (EAA), Rome, Italy, 20–22 April.

Busch, T., & Hoffmann, V. (2007). Emerging carbon constraints for corporate risk management. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 518–528.CrossRef

Chapple, L., Clarkson, P. M., & Gold, D. L. (2013). The cost of carbon: capital market effects of the proposed Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Abacus, 49(1), 1–33.CrossRef

Chen, L. H., & Gao, L. S. (2012). The pricing of climate risk. Journal of Financial and Economic Practice, 12(2), 115–131.

Choi, B. B., Lee, D., & Psaros, J. (2013). An analysis of Australian company carbon emission disclosures. Pacific Accounting Review, 25(1), 58–79.CrossRef

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 303–327.CrossRef

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2011). Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30, 122–144.CrossRef

Clarkson, P. M., Fang, X., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. (2013). The relevance of environmental disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally informative? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32, 410–431.CrossRef

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Pinnuck, M., & Richardson, G. (2015). The valuation relevance of greenhouse gas emissions under the European Union Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. The European Accounting Review, 24(3), 551–580.CrossRef

Clean Energy Regulator. (2014). Carbon pricing mechanism. Retrieved from http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx.

Cogan, D., Good, M., & McAteer, E. (2008). Corporate governance and climate change: The banking sector. Ceres. Retrieved from http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/corporate-governance-banking-sector.

Cotter, J. (1998). Utilisation and restrictiveness of covenants in Australian private debt contracts. Accounting and Finance, 38(2), 181–196.CrossRef

Coulson, A. B., & Monks, V. (1999). Corporate environmental performance considerations within bank lending decisions. Eco-Management and Auditing, 6, 1–10.CrossRef

Depoers, F., Jeanjean, T., & Jérôme, T. (2016). Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the carbon disclosure project and corporate reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 445–461.CrossRef

Deutsche Bank. (2009). Australian carbon pollution reduction scheme: De-carbonising the CPRS. Sydney: Deutsche Bank.

Elijido-Ten, E., & Clarkson, P. (2015). Sustainability performance and proactive climate change strategies: Evidence from the world’s largest corporations. Working paper, Swinburne University.

Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2005). The market pricing of accruals quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39, 295–327.CrossRef

Goss, A., & Roberts, G. S. (2011). The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 1794–1810.CrossRef

Gray, P., Koh, P. S., & Tong, Y. H. (2009). Accruals quality, information risk and cost of capital: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 36, 51–72.CrossRef

Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gutiérrez-nieto, B., Serrano-cinca, C., & Camón-cala, J. (2016). A credit score system for socially responsible lending. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 691–701.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall International.

Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641–660.CrossRef

Hoffmann, V. H., & Busch, T. (2008). Corporate carbon performance indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(4), 505–520.CrossRef

Labatt, S., & White, R. R. (2007). Carbon finance: The financial implications of climate change. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 440–455.CrossRef

Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3), 329–351.CrossRef

Morningstar. (2013). Australian income securities research. Retrieved from http://www.morningstar.com.au/s/documents/Australian_Income_Securities_Review_November_2013_Final.pdf.

Natoli, S., & Sack, J. (2014, January 27). Australia: the new carbon policy landscape. Mondaq. Retrieved from http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/288208/Climate+Change/The+New+Carbon+Policy+Landscape.

Okereke, C., & Russel, D. (2010). Regulatory pressure and competitive dynamics: Carbon management strategies of UK energy-intensive companies. California Management Review, 52(4), 100–124.CrossRef

Petersen, M. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRef

Pittman, J. A., & Fortin, S. (2004). Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 113–136.CrossRef

Rainforest Action Network. (2011). The principle matter: Banks, climate and the carbon principles. Retrieved from http://www.ran.org/principle-matter-banks-climate-carbon-principles.

Ralston, D. (2013). Funding Australia’s future: summary. Australian Centre for Financial Studies. http://fundingaustraliasfuture.com/sites/faf.acfs.actuateit.net/files/papers/FAF_Stage_One_Summary.pdf.

Romilly, P. (2007). Business and climate change risk: A regional time series analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 474–480.CrossRef

Salo, J., & van Ast, L. (2009). Carbon risks and opportunities in the S&P 500. Boston, MA: Trucost.

Saunders, A., & Allen, L. (2002). Credit risk measurement—New approaches to value at risk and other paradigms. New York: Wiley.

Schneider, T. B. (2011). Is environmental performance a determinant of bond pricing? Evidence from the U.S. pulp and paper and chemical industries. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5), 1537–1561.CrossRef

Sharfman, M. P., & Fernando, C. S. (2008). Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 569–592.CrossRef

Sroufe, R. (2003). Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management practices and operations. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 416–431.CrossRef

Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Stubbs, C., & Lockwood, D. (2007). Carbon emissions management. Risk Management, 54(8), 42–48.

Subramaniam, N., Wahyuni, D., Cooper, B. J., Leung, P., & Wines, G. (2015). Integration of carbon risks and opportunities in enterprise risk management systems: Evidence from Australian firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96(1), 407–417.CrossRef

Suchard, J. A. (2007). The impact of right issues of convertible debt in Australian markets. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 17, 187–202.CrossRef

Talberg, A., & Swoboda, K. (2013). Emissions trading schemes around the world. Department of Parliamentary Services. Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/2501441/upload_binary/2501441.pdf;fileType=application/pdf.

Tang, Q., & Luo, L. (2014). Carbon management systems and carbon mitigation. Australian Accounting Review, 24(1), 84–98.CrossRef

Thompson, P. (1998). Bank lending and the environment: Policies and opportunities. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 16(6), 243–252.CrossRef

Thompson, P., & Cowton, C. J. (2004). Bringing the environment into bank lending: Implications for environmental reporting. The British Accounting Review, 36, 197–218.CrossRef

Twite, G. (2001). Capital structure choices and taxes: Evidence from the Australian dividend imputation tax system. International Review of Finance, 2(4), 217–234.CrossRef

UNEF FI. (2013). Portfolio carbon: Measuring, disclosing and managing the carbon intensity of investments and investment portfolios. Retrieved from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/climatechange/UNEP_FI_Investor_Briefing_Portfolio_Carbon.pdf.

UNEP FI. (2006). Global climate change: Risk to bank loans. Retrieved from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/global_climate_change_risk.pdf.

Wang, L., Li, S., & Gao, S. (2013). Do greenhouse gas emissions affect financial performance? An empirical examination of Australian public firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, Early View,. doi:10.1002/bse.1790.

Weber, O. (2012). Environmental credit risk management in banks and financial service institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 248–263.CrossRef

Weber, O., Fenchel, M., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Empirical analysis of the integration of environmental risks into the credit risk management process of European banks. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 149–159.CrossRef

Zsoka, A. N. (2008). Consistency and awareness gaps in the environmental behaviour of Hungarian companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 322–329.CrossRef

Titel: Carbon Risk, Carbon Risk Awareness and the Cost of Debt Financing
verfasst von: Juhyun Jung
Kathleen Herbohn
Peter Clarkson
Publikationsdatum: 28.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3207-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

An Integrative Model of the Influence of Parental and Peer Support on Consumer Ethical Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Self-Esteem, Power, and Materialism

The Level of Sustainability Assurance: The Effects of Brand Reputation and Industry Specialisation of Assurance Providers

The Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance and Business Competitiveness: The Mediation of Green Information Technology Capital

Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?

The Effect of CEOs’ Turnover on the Corporate Sustainability Performance of French Firms

Corporate Sustainable Innovation and Employee Behavior

Premium Partner