Summary:
In recent years, the tension between human economic activities and the degradation of the natural environment has become increasingly pronounced. Balancing economic development with environmental protection has emerged as a critical concern for most economies. To address this, targeted climate policies are implemented to establish a green, low-carbon, and circular economic and social system. Green and low-carbon development are pivotal to achieving high-quality growth. Within this transition, commercial banks, as key participants and intermediaries in the financial market, play an essential role in ensuring the efficient allocation of social resources. Consequently, enhancing banks' green responsiveness is not only crucial in the short term for overcoming green project financing bottlenecks and improving the quality and efficiency of real economy transformation, but also represents a necessary long-term pathway for deepening financial supply-side structural reform and strengthening the financial system's resilience to climate change and its capacity for sustainable development. In proactive response to climate change and to foster a green and low-carbon transition, China has progressively established a climate governance and green finance policy system guided by its “dual carbon” goals. However, the inherent unpredictability of climate change, combined with numerous uncertainties across various stages of climate policy formulation, has significantly heightened the instability of the policy environment. International academic research has demonstrated that climate risks and policy adjustments are increasingly becoming key factors influencing the decisions of financial institutions, particularly commercial banks. Climate risks can propagate through the financial system via bank-firm credit channels, significantly impacting banks' asset quality, performance, and risk-taking, while also creating spillover effects on monetary policy transmission and the effectiveness of macroprudential policies. Regarding climate policy adjustments, scholars have examined their impact on banks' micro-level performance, including their risk-taking levels, liquidity creation, and behavioral decisions. While existing literature provides a crucial foundation for understanding the link between climate policy and bank behavior, certain limitations remain. On one hand, most studies adopt a passive perspective focused on risk aversion, relatively neglecting the proactive, strategic, and complex nature of bank decision-making. On the other hand, the discussion tends to concentrate on core business activities, with insufficient research dedicated to banks' green information disclosure and communication. Following this research trajectory, this paper empirically examines the impact of climate policy uncertainty (CPU) on banks' green responsiveness using a sample of A-share listed banks from 2012 to 2023. It fills a gap in the literature by shifting focus from macro-level climate risks towards the transmission of climate policy risks. The study reveals two key findings regarding the “actions” and “words” of banks' green responsiveness. Regarding “actions”, CPU is found to inhibit banks' green credit allocation. As for “words”, this paper constructs a theoretical framework based on the additive mechanism of the cost-benefit effect, following Haans et al. (2016). The empirical tests reveal an inverted U-shaped relationship between CPU and banks' green information disclosure. These conclusions remain consistent across a series of robustness checks. Mechanism analysis indicates that CPU suppresses green credit allocation by intensifying information friction between banks and enterprises and by tightening banks' resource constraints. Conversely, the inverted U-shaped effect of CPU on green disclosure operates through changes in banks' allocation of attention resources to green governance. Drawing on the attention-based view, the study finds that management's trade-off between the marginal benefits and marginal costs of attention allocation forms the micro-level cognitive basis driving their disclosure strategies. Furthermore, the paper constructs an indicator of “words-actions deviation” in green responsiveness, discovering that high levels of CPU tend to make banks' green responsiveness prone to “actions lagging behind words”. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that in banks located in areas affected by natural disasters, those with executives possessing environmental protection backgrounds, and those with higher ESG ratings, the inhibitory effect of CPU on green credit allocation is significantly mitigated, and the inverted U-shaped relationship with green disclosure also becomes insignificant. This research holds significant policy implications for stabilizing expectations and enhancing the effectiveness of bank actions during the climate policy transition period. Based on the findings, corresponding policy recommendations are proposed. The government, regulatory agencies, banks, and firms should collaboratively build a climate finance support system characterized by “stable policy expectations, regulatory incentive compatibility, and positive bank-firm interaction”, guiding financial resources to be precisely channeled into green sectors and injecting lasting momentum into high-quality economic development.
[1]陈国进、丁赛杰和赵向琴,2023,《气候政策、银行风险与宏观审慎监管创新》,《金融研究》第9期,第38~57页。 [2]陈国荣、王苏萨、邓晶、侯浩一和尹书琪,2024,《中国气候政策不确定性指数:构建、分析与应用前景》,《气候变化研究进展》第3期,第361~372页。 [3]丁宁、任亦侬和左颖,2020,《绿色信贷政策得不偿失还是得偿所愿?——基于资源配置视角的PSM-DID成本效率分析》,《金融研究》第4期,第112~130页。 [4]丁鑫和周晔,2024,《数字化转型与银行信贷配置——基于银行贷款投向实体经济的视角》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第3期,第193~216页。 [5]顾海峰和于家珺,2019,《中国经济政策不确定性与银行风险承担》,《世界经济》第11期,第148~171页。 [6]何凌云、吴晨、钟章奇和祝婧然,2018,《绿色信贷、内外部政策及商业银行竞争力——基于9家上市商业银行的实证研究》,《金融经济学研究》第1期,第91~103页。 [7]胡丽宁,2024,《气候政策不确定性、投资者气候风险感知与系统性金融风险》,《世界经济研究》第8期,第29~43,135~136页。 [8]黄远标和李金磊,2024,《商业银行数字化转型与绿色信贷供给:赋能还是挤出?》,《现代经济探讨》第12期,第62~72页。 [9]雷玉桃和彭文祥,2025,《数字化转型与企业碳排放——基于“倒U”型关系的实证》,《统计与决策》第9期,第179~183页。 [10]李哲和王文翰,2021,《“多言寡行”的环境责任表现能否影响银行信贷获取——基于“言”和“行”双维度的文本分析》,《金融研究》第12期,第116~132页。 [11]刘志洋、平晁凡和解瑶姝,2025,《银行业气候风险对“双支柱”政策的溢出影响研究——基于分位数向量自回归模型的“时频域”分析》,《现代金融研究》第8期,第88~98页。 [12]王辉、林伟芬和谢锐,2022,《高管环保背景与绿色投资者进入》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第12期,第173~194页。 [13]王遥、潘冬阳、彭俞超和梁希,2019,《基于DSGE模型的绿色信贷激励政策研究》,《金融研究》第11期,第1~18页。 [14]严春晓、袁晓冬和朱迪星,2025,《气候政策调整强度与商业银行系统性风险》,《金融监管研究》第6期,第35~52页。 [15]严韶俊和林斌,2024,《CEO言行一致与股价崩盘风险:基于子公司负责人坏消息隐藏的机制检验》,《会计研究》第2期,第38~52页。 [16]曾庆生、周波、张程和陈信元,2018,《年报语调与内部人交易:“表里如一”还是“口是心非”?》,《管理世界》第9期,第143~160页。 [17]张勇、陈嘉敏和李铭杰,2025,《监管政策不确定性、银行监管规避与脱实向虚》,《经济学家》第6期,第98~108页。 [18]赵胜民、彭馨漫和王超,2025,《气候物理风险如何向金融部门传染——基于银企借贷联系渠道的分析》,《金融监管研究》第5期,第31~53页。 [19]周泽将、汪顺和董丰,2025,《气候政策不确定性应对与实体企业金融资产配置》,《金融研究》第4期,第95~113页。 [20]Andries., A. M. and N. Sprincean, 2023, “ESG Performance and Banks’ Funding Costs”, Finance Research Letters, 54, 103811. [21]Berger, A. N. and J. Sedunov, 2017, “Bank Liquidity Creation and Real Economic Output”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 81, pp.1~19. [22]Bernanke, B. S., 1983, “Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Cyclical Investment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(1), pp.85~106. [23]Galan, J. E. and Y. Tan, 2024, “Green Light for Green Credit? Evidence from Its Impact on Bank Efficiency”, International Journal of Finance & Economics, 29(1), pp.531~550. [24]Giannetti, M., M. Jasova and M. Loumioti, 2023, “‘Glossy Green’ Banks:The Disconnect between Environmental Disclosures and Lending Activities”, ECB Working Paper, No.2882. [25]Haans, R. F. J., C. Pieters and Z. L. He, 2016, “Thinking about U: Theorizing and Testing U-and Inverted U-Shaped Relationships in Strategy Research”, Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), pp.1177~1195. [26]Hengge, M., U. Panizza and M. R. Varghese, 2023, “Carbon Policy and Stock Returns: Signals from Financial Markets”, International Monetary Fund. [27]Huang, S., Y. Wang and Y. Liang, 2025, “Impact and Transmission Mechanism of China's Climate Policy Uncertainty on Bank Risk-taking”, Energy Economics, 108214. [28]Koetter, M., F. Noth and O. Rehbein, 2020, “Borrowers under Water! Rare Disasters, Regional Banks, and Recovery Lending”, Journal of Financial Intermediation, 100811. [29]Li, S. and Z. Pan, 2022, “Climate Transition Risk and Bank Performance: Evidence from China”, Journal of Environmental Management, 116275. [30]Li, S. and X. Wu, 2023, “How Does Climate Risk Affect Bank Loan Supply? Empirical Evidence from China”, Economic Change and Restructuring, 56(4), pp.2169~2204. [31]Ma, Y. R., Z. Liu and D. Ma, 2023, “A News-based Climate Policy Uncertainty Index for China”, Scientific Data, 10(1), pp.881. [32]Wang, Y., F. Hu and Y. Wang, 2025, “Climate Policy Uncertainty and Corporate Greenwashing: Developing a New Metric for Selective Investment Practices”, Research in International Business and Finance, 103202. [33]Xu, X., X. Ren and F. He, 2024, “Climate Policy Uncertainty and Bank Liquidity Creation”, Finance Research Letters, 105403.
