Summary:
Climate change is deeply affecting the global real economy. As a responsible major country, China attaches great importance to climate issues, not only elevating the achievement of the “dual carbon” goals and actively responding to climate change to the national strategic level, but also directly implementing a series of climate policies and achieving positive results. However, it is important to note that firms often cannot accurately predict whether, when, or to what extent government agencies will adjust climate policies. Therefore, climate policy carries a high degree of uncertainty. From an economic perspective, the macro-level climate policy uncertainty index has been rising sharply in recent years, suggesting that existing research on this issue remains limited. This paper examines the impact of climate policy uncertainty on the real economy by focusing on corporate financial asset allocation. The results show that a one standard deviation increase in climate policy uncertainty leads to a 6.66% standard deviation increase in the level of financial asset allocation. Mechanism analysis reveals that climate policy uncertainty increases the risks of both traditional physical assets and green physical assets, which drives firms to adjust their asset structures. Heterogeneity analysis further indicates that the effects of climate policy uncertainty are compounded by physical climate risks, especially in firms with weaker risk governance and limited external guidance. The economic consequences test demonstrates that the shift toward financial asset allocation caused by climate policy uncertainty is not conducive to firms' green transformation and high-quality development. The marginal contribution of this paper is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: First, this study finds that, similar to physical climate risks, climate policy uncertainty can also reduce the return on real investments, leading firms to increase their financial asset allocation. The finding adds useful evidence to the growing literature on how climate risks affect the real economy. Second, as China moves into a key stage of green and low-carbon transition, the influence of climate policy on the economy has become more important. This paper adds to the literature on policy uncertainty and corporate investment by focusing on the specific uncertainty related to climate policy, rather than using general economic policy uncertainty indicators. Finally, this paper clarifies the inherent mechanism of climate policy uncertainty leading to corporate financial asset allocation, that is, climate policies with high uncertainty are not only not conducive to the green transformation of corporate physical assets, but also increase the risk of traditional physical assets. This paper provides the following policy implications. First, for climate policymakers, it is important to consider not only the strictness or flexibility of individual climate policies but also the consistency and coordination among newly introduced and existing policies. Improving policy coherence can help reduce uncertainty and ease the investment challenges faced by firms in the real economy. Second, it is essential to recognize the diverse and systemic nature of climate risks, as well as the interconnections among different types of specific climate risks. Policymakers should make full use of the guiding role of long-term institutional investors and government-led environmental policies to build a multi-level governance framework that involves government, markets, and enterprises. Finally, for firms, it is necessary to adopt a long-term perspective, continuously strengthen their resilience to climate risks, and build a solid foundation for a low-carbon transition. This can help reduce short-term speculative behavior, such as excessive reliance on financial asset allocation, and support more sustainable business strategies.
[1] 蔡海静、谢乔昕和章慧敏,2021,《权变抑或逐利:环境规制视角下实体企业金融化的制度逻辑》,《会计研究》第4期,第78～88页。 [2] 陈诗一、张建鹏和刘朝良,2021,《环境规制、融资约束与企业污染减排——来自排污费标准调整的证据》,《金融研究》第9期,第51～71页。 [3] 陈胜蓝、王鹏程、马慧和刘晓玲,2023,《中小企业促进法的稳就业效应——基于政府信用体系建设视角》,《管理世界》第9期,第52～88页。 [4] 杜勇、谢瑾和陈建英,2019,《CEO金融背景与实体企业金融化》,《中国工业经济》第5期,第136～154页。 [5] 方红星和陈作华,2015,《高质量内部控制能有效应对特质风险和系统风险吗？》,《会计研究》第4期,第77～96页。 [6] 冯永琦、张浩琳和倪娟,2024,《实体企业金融资产投资动机:货币政策异质性影响与数字金融调节效应》,《中国工业经济》第2期,第118～136页。 [7] 何朝林、涂蓓和王鹏,2021,《动态均值—方差资产组合的有效性:时变风险容忍度视角》,《中国管理科学》第1期,第1～11页。 [8] 姜广省、卢建词和李维安,2021,《绿色投资者发挥作用吗？——来自企业参与绿色治理的经验研究》,《金融研究》第5期,第117～134页。 [9] 刘贯春、段玉柱和刘媛媛,2019,《经济政策不确定性、资产可逆性与固定资产投资》,《经济研究》第8期,第53～70页。 [10] 刘贯春、刘媛媛和张军,2020,《经济政策不确定性与中国上市公司的资产组合配置——兼论实体企业的“金融化”趋势》,《经济学(季刊)》第5期,第65～86页。 [11] 聂辉华、阮睿和沈吉,2020,《企业不确定性感知、投资决策和金融资产配置》,《世界经济》第6期,第77～98页。 [12] 宋全云、李晓和钱龙,2019,《经济政策不确定性与企业贷款成本》,《金融研究》第7期,第57～75页。 [13] 王红建、曹瑜强、杨庆和杨筝,2017,《实体企业金融化促进还是抑制了企业创新——基于中国制造业上市公司的经验研究》,《南开管理评论》第1期,第155～166页。 [14] 汪顺、余璐、雷玲,2024,《气候政策不确定性与中国企业升级困境》,《财经研究》第2期,第123～138页。 [15] 杨胜刚和阳旸,2018,《资产短缺与实体经济发展——基于中国区域视角》,《中国社会科学》第7期,第59～80页。 [16] 于连超、张卫国和毕茜,2021,《产业政策与企业“脱实向虚”:市场导向还是政策套利》,《南开管理评论》第4期,第128～142页。 [17] 张成思和张步昙,2016,《中国实业投资率下降之谜:经济金融化视角》,《经济研究》第12期,第32～46页。 [18] 张成思和郑宁,2020,《中国实体企业金融化:货币扩张、资本逐利还是风险规避？》,《金融研究》第9期,第1～19页。 [19] 周泽将、汪顺和张悦,2022,《知识产权保护与企业创新信息困境》,《中国工业经济》第6期,第136～154页。 [20] Asante-Appiah, B., and T. A. Lambert, 2023. “The Role of the External Auditor in Managing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Reputation Risk”, Review of Accounting Studies, 28(4) , pp. 2589～2641. [21] Baker, S. R., N. Bloom, and S. J. Davis, 2016. “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4) , pp. 1593～1636. [22] Breuer, M., and E.D. DeHaan, 2024. “Using and Interpreting Fixed Effects Models”, Journal of Accounting Research, 62(4) , pp. 1183～1226. [23] Faiella, I., and F. Natoli, 2019. “Climate Change and Bank Lending: The Case of Flood Risk in Italy”, Working Paper. [24] Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., I. Sorkin, and H. Swift, 2020. “Bartik Instruments: What, When, Why, and How”, American Economic Review, 110(8) , pp. 2586～2624. [25] Huang, H. H., J. Kerstein, and C. Wang, 2017. “The Impact of Climate Risk on Firm Performance and Financing Choices: An International Comparison”, Journal of International Business Studies, 49, pp.633～656. [26] Huynh, T. D., and Y. Xia, 2023. “Panic Selling When Disaster Strikes: Evidence in the Bond and Stock Markets”, Management Science, 69(12) , pp. 7448～7467. [27] Ilhan, E., Z. Sautner, and G. Vilkov, 2021. “Carbon Tail Risk”, The Review of Financial Studies, 34(3) , pp. 1540～1571. [28] Ilhan, E., P. Krueger, Z. Sautner, and L. T. Starks, 2023. “Climate Risk Disclosure and Institutional Investors”, The Review of Financial Studies, 36(7) , pp. 2617～2650. [29] Krueger, P., Z. Sautner, and L. T. Starks, 2020. “The Importance of Climate Risks for Institutional Investors”, The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3) , pp. 1067～1111. [30] Lee, K., and J. Cho, 2023. “Measuring Chinese Climate Uncertainty”, International Review of Economics & Finance, 88 (11) , pp.891-901. [31] Pankratz, N., R. Bauer, and J. Derwall, 2023. “Climate Change, Firm Performance, and Investor Surprises”, Management Science, 69(12) , pp. 7352～7398. [32] Pankratz, N. M.C., and C. M. Schiller, 2024. “Climate Change and Adaptation in Global Supply-Chain Networks”, The Review of Financial Studies, 37(6) , pp. 1729～1777. [33] Ren, X., X. Zhang, C. Yan, and G. Gozgor, 2022. “Climate Policy Uncertainty and Firm-Level Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from China”, Energy Economics, 113, pp. 106209. [34] Zhang, P., O. Deschenes, K. Meng, and J. Zhang, 2018. “Temperature Effects on Productivity and Factor Reallocation: Evidence from A Half Million Chinese Manufacturing Plants”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 88(3) , pp. 1～17.
