Climate Finance, Environmental Risk Accounting and Firm Value: A Comparative Study of Nigeria and South Africa
気候ファイナンス、環境リスク会計と企業価値：ナイジェリアと南アフリカの比較研究 (AI 翻訳)
Michelle Doorasamy, O. Fapetu, Pelumi Abdulmalik Adewumi
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ナイジェリアと南アフリカの非金融上場企業を対象に、気候ファイナンス（CF）、環境リスク会計（ERA）、企業価値の関係を2010〜2022年のパネルデータで分析。AIを用いたテキスト分析で気候財務エクスポージャーとグリーンウォッシング・ギャップを測定し、CFはERAの質が高い場合にのみ企業価値を高めること、グリーンウォッシングは価値を毀損することを実証。南アのKing IVコード導入が評価プレミアムをもたらすことも示した。
English
Using panel data from Nigeria and South Africa (2010-2022), this study examines how climate finance (CF) and environmental risk accounting (ERA) affect firm value. Employing AI-powered textual analysis to measure climate financial exposure and greenwashing gap, it finds CF creates value only with high-quality ERA, greenwashing reduces value, and South Africa's King IV code adoption yields a valuation premium.
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開示義務化が迫る中、開示の質と企業価値の関連を示す本研究成果は、単なる開示遵守ではなく質の高い環境リスク会計が資本市場で評価されることを示唆。日本企業の統合報告書や有報における気候関連開示の質向上に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This study contributes to global disclosure scholarship by empirically linking climate finance, environmental risk accounting quality, and firm value in emerging markets. It highlights the role of institutional frameworks (King IV) in enhancing the value relevance of climate disclosures, relevant for ISSB and CSRD implementation in developing economies.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides robust evidence on the conditional value of climate finance and the negative impact of greenwashing, with methodological rigor (IV, GMM, PSM).
🏢実務担当者:Highlights that high-quality environmental risk accounting can amplify the benefits of climate finance and mitigate greenwashing risks, informing disclosure strategies.
🏛政策担当者:Demonstrates that governance codes like King IV can enhance firm value through better environmental risk accounting, supporting similar regulatory initiatives.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The study examined the relationship among climate finance (CF), Environmental Risk Accounting (ERA), and firm value for publicly listed non-financial firms in Nigeria and South Africa between 2010 and 2022. Using a carefully balanced panel sample consisting of 520 observations, we construct our independent variables as follows: Climate Finance (CF); Climate Financial Exposure (CFEI), using an AI-powered textual analysis approach; and Greenwashing Gap (GWG). Through fixed-effects panel regression, our results indicate that while climate finance does not directly influence firm value, CF and the quality of ERA practices interact positively, showing that CF only creates value conditional on high-quality ERA. Greenwashing risk is negatively associated with firm value, while environmental-risk-accounting quality is separately associated with higher firm value. Institutional differences across countries have consequences for the role of ERA. These results are examined using a double-theoretic approach that integrates institutional theory to justify how the regulation pressure leads to differences in accounting disclosures in different countries, and the resource-based theory, to justify how these differences influence firm value. The application of difference-in-difference analysis through the adoption of the King IV code by South African firms provides evidence consistent with an appreciable valuation premium by firms in South Africa after the intervention. The findings are broadly consistent across methods such as IV-2SLS, System GMM, Propensity Score Matching, and the Heckman Selection Model. There are important ramifications of the findings for accounting practice and environmental policy within sub-Saharan Africa.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19080598first seen 2026-08-12 05:30:51 · last seen 2026-08-13 05:38:26
🔔 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。