Using hand-collected carbon emissions data for 2006 to 2008 that were voluntarily disclosed to the Carbon Disclosure Project by S&P 500 firms, we examine the effects on firm value of carbon emissions and of the act of voluntarily disclosing carbon emissions. Correcting for self-selection bias from managers' decisions to disclose carbon emissions, we find that, on average, for every additional thousand metric tons of carbon emissions, firm value decreases by $212,000, where the median emissions for the disclosing firms in our sample are 1.07 million metric tons. We also examine the firm-value effects of managers' decisions to disclose carbon emissions. We find that the median value of firms that disclose their carbon emissions is about $2.3 billion higher than that of comparable non-disclosing firms. Our results indicate that the markets penalize all firms for their carbon emissions, but a further penalty is imposed on firms that do not disclose emissions information. The results are consistent w...

Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures

We investigate how the Global 500 companies respond to the challenge of climate change with regard to their carbon disclosure strategies. This paper is motivated by a growing body of research that examines the role of large companies in carbon disclosure responsibility and practices. We consider the impact of social, financial market, economic, regulatory, and institutional factors on the motivation to voluntarily participate in the 2009 Carbon Disclosure Project. We find that economic pressure is significantly associated with the decision. That is, companies facing direct economic consequence are more likely to disclose. Companies in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive sectors show the same tendency. In addition, big companies have a higher propensity for disclosing, suggesting that social pressure plays an important role. We also provide possible explanations as to why a large proportion of our sample firms refuse to disclose. Furthermore, our results suggest that the proxies for information needs of investors are not associated with a higher propensity to disclose the amount of their emission footprints. In sum, it appears that the major driving force for climate change disclosure comes from the general public and government rather than from the other major stakeholders such as shareholders and debtholders. Our results are robust after controlling for other influences.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/jifm1055.pdf?abstractid=2094164&mirid=5

Corporate Incentives to Disclose Carbon Information: Evidence from the CDP Global 500 Report

Despite 40 years of research on the relationship between corporate environmental performance (CEP) and corporate financial performance (CFP), there is no generally accepted theoretical framework that explains the contradictory results that have emerged. This unsatisfactory status may be attributed to the fact that linear models dominate the research. Based on an international sample of 2361 firm-years from 2008 to 2012, we find empirical evidence of a non-linear, specifically a U-shaped, relationship between carbon performance and profitability as well as between waste intensity and profitability. The same result holds for the relationship between carbon performance and stock market performance, but solely for manufacturing industries. Our empirical findings provide evidence for the theoretical framework of a ‘too-little-of-a-good-thing’ (TLGT) effect, which indicates that the type of relationship (positive, negative) depends on the level of CEP. More precisely, there is a negative CEP–CFP relationship for companies with low CEP and a positive association for high CEP. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Too Little or too much? Exploring U‐shaped Relationships between Corporate Environmental Performance and Corporate Financial Performance

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.

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

Does voluntary carbon disclosure reflect underlying carbon performance

In March 2008, the Australian Government announced its intention to introduce a national Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), now expected to start in 2015 This impending development provides an ideal setting to investigate the impact an ETS in Australia will have on the market valuation of Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) firms This is the first empirical study into the pricing effects of the ETS in Australia Primarily, we hypothesize that firm value will be negatively related to a firm's carbon intensity profile That is, there will be a greater impact on firm value for high carbon emitters in the period prior (2007) to the introduction of the ETS, whether for reasons relating to the existence of unbooked liabilities associated with future compliance and/or abatement costs, or for reasons relating to reduced future earnings Using a sample of 58 Australian listed firms (constrained by the current availability of emissions data) which comprise larger, more profitable and less risky listed Australian firms, we first undertake an event study focusing on five distinct information events argued to impact the probability of the proposed ETS being enacted Here, we find direct evidence that the capital market is indeed pricing the proposed ETS Second, using a modified version of the Ohlson (1995) valuation model, we undertake a valuation analysis designed not only to complement the event study results, but more importantly to provide insights into the capital market's assessment of the magnitude of the economic impact of the proposed ETS as reflected in market capitalization Here, our results show that the market assesses the most carbon intensive sample firms a market value decrement relative to other sample firms of between 7% and 10% of market capitalization Further, based on the carbon emission profile of the sample firms we imply a ‘future carbon permit price’ of between AUD$17 per tonne and AUD$26 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted This study is more precise than industry reports, which set a carbon price of between AUD$15 to AUD$74 per tonne

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=1526895

The Cost of Carbon: Capital Market Effects of the Proposed Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

In March 2008, the Australian Government announced its intention to introduce a national Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), now expected to start in 2015. This impending development provides an ideal setting to investigate the impact an ETS in Australia will have on the market valuation of Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) firms. This is the first empirical study into the pricing effects of the ETS in Australia. Primarily, we hypothesize that firm value will be negatively related to a firm's carbon intensity profile. That is, there will be a greater impact on firm value for high carbon emitters in the period prior (2007) to the introduction of the ETS, whether for reasons relating to the existence of unbooked liabilities associated with future compliance and/or abatement costs, or for reasons relating to reduced future earnings. Using a sample of 58 Australian listed firms (constrained by the current availability of emissions data) which comprise larger, more profitable and less risky listed Australian firms, we first undertake an event study focusing on five distinct information events argued to impact the probability of the proposed ETS being enacted. Here, we find direct evidence that the capital market is indeed pricing the proposed ETS. Second, using a modified version of the Ohlson (1995) valuation model, we undertake a valuation analysis designed not only to complement the event study results, but more importantly to provide insights into the capital market's assessment of the magnitude of the economic impact of the proposed ETS as reflected in market capitalization. Here, our results show that the market assesses the most carbon intensive sample firms a market value decrement relative to other sample firms of between 7% and 10% of market capitalization. Further, based on the carbon emission profile of the sample firms we imply a ‘future carbon permit price’ of between AUD$17 per tonne and AUD$26 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. This study is more precise than industry reports, which set a carbon price of between AUD$15 to AUD$74 per tonne.

Daniel L. Gold

Papers

The Cost of Carbon: Capital Market Effects of the Proposed Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

The cost of carbon : capital market effects of the proposed emission trading scheme (ETS)