Summary:
With climate change becoming a social and development issue of great concern, carbon emission peak and carbon neutrality have become critical tasks in China at this stage. How to promote green transformation and achieve high-quality development has received broad discussion. Strong protection of environmental rule of law is indispensable to facilitate green orientation in financial markets under the “market-led and government-guided” principle. Moreover, bringing capital vitality to green transformation is an important embodiment of improving the level of financial servicing entity economy. Hence, to explore the coordinated development of economy and ecology and improve the functions of financial markets in the new era, it is of great practical significance to examine the real effects of the environmental rule of law construction in enterprises and financial markets. Based on a quasi-natural experiment on the establishment of specialized environmental courts (EC) in China's Intermediate People's Courts, we exploit the staggered difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) method to examine the impact of the environmental rule of law on the cost of bond financing, utilizing a data set of corporate bonds, enterprise bonds and medium-term notes issued from 2008 to 2019. We find that after the establishment of the intermediate EC, local firms in high-pollution industries face higher transition risks due to environmental policies. Their credit spreads significantly increase by about 28.4 basis points (about 12% of the average credit spreads) in our sample, indicating that improved regional environmental justice capacity promotes the capital market pricing of the transition risks induced by environmental policy. We then propose and empirically test the underlying mechanisms of the effect of EC establishment on bond financing cost. We find that the environmental rule of law enhanced by EC raises the bond financing cost of firms in high-pollution industries by aggravating the exposure of environmental litigation risks, strengthening external environmental monitoring, increasing operating costs, and sub-optimizing resources allocations in operating activities. Further analysis finds that the impact of EC establishment on bond financing costs is greater in the sample with better legal environments and stronger government incentives for environmental governance. To address the endogeneity of EC establishment, we adopt the propensity score matching method, control for more regional characteristics, add more fixed effects, and investigate the dynamic impacts of EC establishment. In addition, the conclusions remain robust to the use of alternative measures of high-pollution firms, the use of two-way clusters, and the consideration of bond types. This paper contributes to several strands of literature. First, based on prior literature on the economic effects of environmental regulation, this study provides empirical evidence on how regional environmental justice capacity enhancement promotes the green-oriented function of capital markets. Second, this paper supplements the pricing mechanisms of firms' transition risks under the construction of environmental rule of law. Third, the paper contributes to the literature on law and finance from the perspective of promoting environmental justice efficiency. This paper has important policy implications in the pricing of transition risks and the construction of environmental justice under the process of carbon emission peak and carbon neutrality. Strong protection of environmental rule of law plays an important role in promoting long-term coordination of policy guidance and financial markets' operation, and cultivating green investment philosophy and ability. Under advanced regional environmental rule of law represented by the establishment of EC, firms need to promptly prevent and resolve transition risks and improve environmental performance to achieve comparative competitive advantages in the new era of high-quality development. In the future, the effects of environmental rule of law on improving ecological governance and accelerating the green transformation of the economy should be further strengthened in the joint efforts of legislation, justice, law enforcement, government, and public concerns.
高昊宇, 温慧愉. 生态法治对债券融资成本的影响——基于我国环保法庭设立的准自然实验[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 498(12): 133-151.
GAO Haoyu, WEN Huiyu. The Impact of Environmental Rule of Law on Bond Financing Cost: Evidence from Environmental Courts in China. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 498(12): 133-151.
[1]常延龙、龙小宁和孟磊,2020,《异地审理、司法独立性与法官裁决——基于广东省江门市司法制度改革的实证研究》,《经济学 (季刊) 》第1期,第101～120页。 [2]范子英和赵仁杰,2019,《法治强化能够促进污染治理吗?——来自环保法庭设立的证据》,《经济研究》第3期,第21～37页。 [3]郭武,2017,《论环境行政与环境司法联动的中国模式》,《法学评论》第2期,第183～196页。 [4]胡珺、黄楠和沈洪涛,2020,《市场激励型环境规制可以推动企业技术创新吗?——基于中国碳排放权交易机制的自然实验》,《金融研究》第1期,第171～189页。 [5]黎文靖和路晓燕,2015,《机构投资者关注企业的环境绩效吗?——来自我国重污染行业上市公司的经验证据》,《金融研究》第12期,第97～112页。 [6]刘慧龙、王成方和吴联生,2014,《决策权配置、盈余管理与投资效率》,《经济研究》第8期,第93～106页。 [7]潘爱玲、刘昕、邱金龙和申宇,2019,《媒体压力下的绿色并购能否促使重污染企业实现实质性转型》,《中国工业经济》第2期,第174～192页。 [8]彭俞超、韩珣和李建军,2018,《经济政策不确定性与企业金融化》,《中国工业经济》第1期,第137～155页。 [9]唐松、施文和孙安其,2019,《环境污染曝光与公司价值——理论机制与实证检验》,《金融研究》第8期,第133～150页。 [10]田宏杰,2020,《立法扩张与司法限缩:刑法谦抑性的展开》,《中国法学》第1期,第166～183页。 [11]王小龙和陈金皇,2020,《省直管县改革与区域空气污染——来自卫星反演数据的实证证据》,《金融研究》第11期,第76～93页。 [12]王馨和王营,2021,《绿色信贷政策增进绿色创新研究》,《管理世界》第6期,第173～188+11页。 [13]王彦超、姜国华和辛清泉,2016,《诉讼风险、法制环境与债务成本》,《会计研究》第6期,第30～37+94页。 [14]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。 [15]王云、李延喜、马壮和宋金波,2020,《环境行政处罚能以儆效尤吗?——同伴影响视角下环境规制的威慑效应研究》,《管理科学学报》第1期,第77～95页。 [16]杨子晖和田磊,2017,《“污染天堂”假说与影响因素的中国省际研究》,《世界经济》第5期,第148～172页。 [17]张维迎和柯荣住,2002,《诉讼过程中的逆向选择及其解释——以契约纠纷的基层法院判决书为例的经验研究》,《中国社会科学》第2期,第31～43+205～206页。 [18]周宏、建蕾和李国平,2016,《企业社会责任与债券信用利差关系及其影响机制——基于沪深上市公司的实证研究》,《会计研究》第5期,第18～25+95页。 [19]Cai, X., Y.Lu, M.Wu, and L.Yu, 2016, “Does Environmental Regulation Drive Away Inbound Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence from a Quasi-natural Experiment in China”, Journal of Development Economics, 123: 73～85. [20]Chava, S., 2014, “Environmental Externalities and Cost of Capital”, Management Science, 60(9): 2223～2247. [21]Fernando, C.S., M.P.Sharfman, and V.B.Uysal, 2017, “Corporate Environmental Policy and Shareholder Value: Following the Smart Money”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(5): 2023～2051. [22]Flammer, C., 2021, “Corporate Green Bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2):499～516. [23]He, G., S.Wang, and B.Zhang, 2020, “Watering Down Environmental Regulation in China”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(4): 2135～2185. [24]Krüger, P., Z.Sautner, and L.T.Starks, 2020, “The Importance of Climate Risks for Institutional Investors”, The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3): 1067～1111. [25]Kuang, C., Z.Liu, and W.Zhu, 2021, “Need for Speed: High-speed Rail and Firm Performance”, Journal of Corporate Finance, 66: 101830.doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101830. [26]Pedersen, L.H., S.Fitzgibbons, and L.Pomorski, 2021, “Responsible Investing: The ESG-efficient Frontier”, Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2): 572～597. [27]Porter, M.E., and C.Van der Linde, 1995, “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-competitiveness Relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4): 97～118. [28]Richardson, S., 2006, “Over-investment of Free Cash Flow”, Review of Accounting Studies, 11(2-3): 159～189. [29]Zhang, Q., Z.Yu, and D.Kong, 2019, “The Real Effect of Legal Institutions: Environmental Courts and Firm Environmental Protection Expenditure”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 98, 102254.doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102254.
