Does environmental justice influence corporate climate risk disclosures? Evidence from the environmental court
環境正義は企業の気候リスク開示に影響を与えるか？環境裁判所からの証拠 (AI 翻訳)
Zhang Bokai, Chengjie Huang, Xiao Qiang
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、中国上場企業の2012年から2022年のパネルデータを用い、環境裁判所の設立を自然実験として、企業の気候リスク開示への影響を多期間DIDで検証した。結果、環境裁判所の設立は気候リスク開示を有意に促進し、そのメカニズムとして機関投資家の監視強化と評判メカニズムの代替性を明らかにした。
English
Using panel data of Chinese listed firms from 2012-2022, this study exploits the establishment of environmental courts as a quasi-natural experiment with a multi-period DID approach. It finds that environmental courts significantly promote corporate climate risk disclosure, with mechanisms including enhanced monitoring by long-term institutional investors and a substitutive relationship with social reputation. The effect is stronger for firms with lower accounting quality, lower financing constraints, and fewer female executives.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ開示義務化が進む中、制度・規制が企業の気候開示行動に与える影響を示す本研究成果は、日本の政策立案や企業の開示戦略に示唆を与える。特に、規制強化が投資家の監視機能を高め、開示を促進するメカニズムは、日本の有報・統合報告書における気候情報開示の質向上に参考になる。
In the global GX context
This study contributes to global disclosure scholarship by demonstrating how formal environmental regulation (environmental courts) can drive corporate climate risk disclosure, complementing the TCFD/ISSB framework. It highlights the role of institutional investors and reputation in shaping disclosure behavior, offering insights for regulators and firms in jurisdictions implementing mandatory climate disclosure, such as the EU's CSRD and SEC's climate rules.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides causal evidence on how formal regulation influences climate disclosure, with novel mechanisms (governance and reputation).
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the importance of institutional investor monitoring and reputation management in enhancing climate risk disclosure.
🏛政策担当者:Suggests that strengthening environmental enforcement can improve corporate climate transparency, informing policy design.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This paper examines the impact of environmental justice on corporate climate risk disclosure. Using panel data of Chinese listed companies from 2012 to 2022, we treat the establishment of environmental courts as a quasi-natural experiment and employ a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) approach to estimate its effect on firms’ climate risk disclosure. The results show that the establishment of environmental courts significantly promotes corporate climate risk disclosure, and the findings remain robust after a series of tests, including parallel trend tests, placebo tests, and propensity score matching combined with DID. Mechanism analyses from a governance perspective indicate that the establishment of environmental courts attracts long-term institutional investors, strengthening monitoring and governance and thereby promoting firms’ climate risk disclosure; however, this effect is weakened when managerial ownership is high. From a reputation perspective, environmental courts as a formal institutional arrangement exhibit a substitutive relationship with informal regulation in the form of social reputation, such that the positive impact of environmental courts on climate risk disclosure becomes weaker for firms with higher social reputation. Further heterogeneity analyses reveal that the promoting effect of environmental courts is more pronounced among firms with lower accounting information quality, lower financing constraints, and a lower proportion of female executives. Overall, this study enriches the literature on the impact of formal environmental regulation on corporate climate-related information disclosure and provides new insights into the governance and reputation channels through which institutional arrangements influence corporate behavior.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07199-8first seen 2026-08-06 05:39:39
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。