Asian Economic Policy Review最新文献_第2页

Comment on “Inclusive Wealth and ESG Practices: Financial Impacts in a Global Context” 《包容性财富与ESG实践：全球背景下的金融影响》评论

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70012

Yuxia Zou

Xie et al. (2026) revisit the longstanding question of how corporate sustainability relates to financial performance and introduce inclusive wealth (IW)—a composite measure of produced, human, and natural capital—as a country-level moderator. Their study highlights the heterogeneity across countries and empirically documents that the association between sustainability and financial performance is positively moderated by IW. Below, I discuss how this study contributes to the literature, how prior analytical models help interpret the empirical findings, and several empirical caveats, as well as potential ways to address these concerns.The most noteworthy contribution of this paper is the introduction of IW as a moderating factor in the sustainability–financial performance relationship. This adds to the growing empirical evidence that the financial implications of sustainability performance are contingent on the macro environment. Prior studies show, for instance, that abnormal returns to corporate sustainability performance depend on market sentiment (Naughton et al. 2018), that the financial payoffs to corporate social responsibility are evident during the financial crisis (Lins et al. 2017), and that socially responsible investing outperforms during economic booms but underperforms during recessions (Bansal et al. 2022). By proposing IW as a moderator, Xie et al. (2026) add a novel construct that captures long-term resources and complements existing macro conditioning factors of the sustainability–financial performance relationship.Analytical models suggest that the extent to which more sustainable firms deliver superior financial performance depends on the overall sustainability concerns and preferences in the market (Pedersen et al. 2020; Pástor et al. 2021). These analytical insights help interpret the different results for the return on assets (ROA) and Tobin's Q in Xie et al. (2026).The association between sustainability performance and ROA can be read as reflecting customers' sustainability preferences. In economies with a high IW, especially those rich in natural capital, customers are more likely to favor sustainable products, hence raising the profitability of firms with superior sustainability performance. However, this does not apply to produced capital, which does not reflect customers' sustainability preferences and may even be negatively correlated with public sustainability awareness.In comparison, the relationship between sustainability performance and Tobin's Q is more complex because market valuations aggregate several forces. A firm's share price not only reflects investors' sustainability preferences, but also the extent to which sustainability performance translates into profitability and the non-monetary utility investors derive from holding high sustainability firms. When IW im

Xie等人（2026）重新审视了企业可持续性如何与财务绩效相关的长期问题，并引入了包容性财富（IW）——生产资本、人力资本和自然资本的综合衡量标准——作为国家层面的调节因素。他们的研究强调了各国之间的异质性，并通过实证证明，可持续性和财务绩效之间的关系受到IW的积极调节。下面，我将讨论本研究对文献的贡献，先前的分析模型如何帮助解释实证结果，以及几个实证警告，以及解决这些问题的潜在方法。本文最值得注意的贡献是引入了IW作为可持续性-财务绩效关系的调节因素。这增加了越来越多的经验证据，表明可持续性绩效的财务影响取决于宏观环境。例如，先前的研究表明，企业可持续发展绩效的异常回报取决于市场情绪（Naughton et al. 2018），企业社会责任的财务回报在金融危机期间很明显（Lins et al. 2017），社会责任投资在经济繁荣期间表现优异，但在经济衰退期间表现不佳（Bansal et al. 2022）。通过提出IW作为调节因子，Xie等人（2026）增加了一个新的结构，该结构捕捉了长期资源，并补充了可持续性与财务绩效关系的现有宏观调节因素。分析模型表明，更具可持续性的公司提供卓越财务绩效的程度取决于市场对整体可持续性的关注和偏好（Pedersen et al. 2020; Pástor et al. 2021）。这些分析见解有助于解释Xie等人（2026）对资产收益率（ROA）和托宾Q的不同结果。可持续性绩效与ROA之间的关联可以理解为反映了客户的可持续性偏好。在IW高的经济体中，特别是那些自然资本丰富的经济体，消费者更倾向于可持续产品，从而提高了可持续发展绩效优异的公司的盈利能力。然而，这并不适用于生产资本，它不能反映客户的可持续发展偏好，甚至可能与公众的可持续发展意识负相关。相比之下，可持续性绩效与托宾Q之间的关系更为复杂，因为市场估值汇总了几种力量。公司的股价不仅反映了投资者的可持续性偏好，还反映了可持续性绩效转化为盈利能力的程度，以及投资者从持有高可持续性公司中获得的非货币效用。当IW改善时，这三种力量可能同时发生变化，从而使托宾Q的含义变得模糊。在这个意义上，Xie et al.（2026）的实证结果与宏观条件共同塑造经营和估值结果的观点是一致的。这些结果突出了IW调节作用的复杂性，值得在未来的研究中进一步探索。虽然Xie等人（2026）的实证设计非常适合记录跨国异质性，但有几个问题值得注意，以提高解释和促进推广。第一个问题与企业可持续发展绩效的衡量有关。这项研究依赖于穆迪（Moody’s）提供的可持续性评分。这就提出了一些关于国外市场信息劣势的问题（Chen et al. 2025），由于商业关系造成的评级偏差（Li et al. 2024），以及不同评级机构之间的分歧（例如，Chatterji et al. 2016; Berg et al. 2022）。由于数据收集和评分方法可能因语言和披露制度的不同而不同，因此评级的质量可能与IW的水平有系统的关联。因此，使用替代代理对公司可持续发展绩效进行额外的测试将有助于提高结果的稳健性和普遍性。第二个问题涉及到模型规范。使用具有随机效应的多水平模型对于估计国家水平的差异是有用的；然而，它依赖于未观察到的国家效应与回归量不相关的假设（Wooldridge 2010）。这种外生性假设在当前情况下可能不成立。如Xie et al.（2026）的图1和图2所示，国家特征与企业可持续性评级相关。此外，IW较高的国家可能拥有更发达的金融市场、更进步的社会规范和更规范的可持续性披露，这些都可以将可持续性与财务绩效之间的联系转向同一个方向。因此，控制国家固定效应的额外测试，并将IW与其他国家级措施进行比较，可能有助于澄清IW的增量作用。最后一个需要进一步分析的领域是IW的不同组成部分及其相对于国内生产总值（GDP）的增量作用。如Managi等人（2024）所示，生产资本随时间的增长模式与GDP相似，人力资本增长更慢，而自然资本则减少。这些趋势表明，在调节企业可持续发展与财务绩效的关系中，每个组成部分及其不同的渠道扮演着不同的角色。自然资本可能反映公众对环境的关注，人力资本可能与社会规范进步相关，而生产资本可能捕获资源开发以促进经济增长。因此，进一步分解调节效应并检验其在控制GDP后的增量解释能力，将有助于理解不同的渠道和细微差别。综上所述，Xie等人（2026）通过强调IW如何制约企业可持续发展绩效的财务影响，做出了及时而有价值的贡献。他们的发现为未来的研究开辟了道路，以检验在追求可持续增长的过程中，更广泛的体系和私营部门之间微妙的相互依存关系，并提供相关的政策启示。

{"title":"Comment on “Inclusive Wealth and ESG Practices: Financial Impacts in a Global Context”","authors":"Yuxia Zou","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70012","url":null,"abstract":"Xie et al. (2026) revisit the longstanding question of how corporate sustainability relates to financial performance and introduce inclusive wealth (IW)—a composite measure of produced, human, and natural capital—as a country-level moderator. Their study highlights the heterogeneity across countries and empirically documents that the association between sustainability and financial performance is positively moderated by IW. Below, I discuss how this study contributes to the literature, how prior analytical models help interpret the empirical findings, and several empirical caveats, as well as potential ways to address these concerns.The most noteworthy contribution of this paper is the introduction of IW as a moderating factor in the sustainability–financial performance relationship. This adds to the growing empirical evidence that the financial implications of sustainability performance are contingent on the macro environment. Prior studies show, for instance, that abnormal returns to corporate sustainability performance depend on market sentiment (Naughton et al. 2018), that the financial payoffs to corporate social responsibility are evident during the financial crisis (Lins et al. 2017), and that socially responsible investing outperforms during economic booms but underperforms during recessions (Bansal et al. 2022). By proposing IW as a moderator, Xie et al. (2026) add a novel construct that captures long-term resources and complements existing macro conditioning factors of the sustainability–financial performance relationship.Analytical models suggest that the extent to which more sustainable firms deliver superior financial performance depends on the overall sustainability concerns and preferences in the market (Pedersen et al. 2020; Pástor et al. 2021). These analytical insights help interpret the different results for the return on assets (ROA) and Tobin's Q in Xie et al. (2026).The association between sustainability performance and ROA can be read as reflecting customers' sustainability preferences. In economies with a high IW, especially those rich in natural capital, customers are more likely to favor sustainable products, hence raising the profitability of firms with superior sustainability performance. However, this does not apply to produced capital, which does not reflect customers' sustainability preferences and may even be negatively correlated with public sustainability awareness.In comparison, the relationship between sustainability performance and Tobin's Q is more complex because market valuations aggregate several forces. A firm's share price not only reflects investors' sustainability preferences, but also the extent to which sustainability performance translates into profitability and the non-monetary utility investors derive from holding high sustainability firms. When IW im","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"39-40"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146002481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment on “Green Human Capital and Carbon Emissions of Asian Firms” 评《绿色人力资本与亚洲企业碳排放》

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-09-10 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70009

Charika Channuntapipat

引用次数: 0

Comment on “Beyond Green: Impacts of Green Bond Issuance on Conventional Bonds in China” 《超越绿色：中国绿色债券发行对传统债券的影响》评论

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-09-07 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70010

Konari Uchida

Using data from the Chinese bond market, Zhan et al. (2026) provide evidence that the yield spread on straight bonds significantly decreases following a firm's issuance of green bonds. This effect is particularly pronounced for firms headquartered in cities where the local government reports frequently employ environment-related terminology. Zhan et al. further show that green bond issuance increases the likelihood of bond rating upgrades. By carefully constructing a control sample—matching existing straight bonds of green bond issuers with comparable straight bonds of non-issuers—Zhan et al. (2026) offer compelling evidence that green bond issuance helps mitigate firms' environmental regulatory risks.Flammer (2021), a seminal study in green bond research, shows that firms experience positive stock price reactions upon issuing green bonds. Flammer interprets this as evidence that green bond issuance signals a commitment to environmental protection. However, the mechanism by which such commitments enhance firm value is not clearly identified. Zhan et al. (2026) advance the literature by clarifying the specific content of this signal. While both expected cash flows and risk affect stock prices, bond spreads are particularly sensitive to risk, given the fixed-claim nature of debt. Leveraging this feature, Zhan et al. (2026) demonstrate that green bond issuance conveys information about reduced firm risk. Their interpretation is reinforced by the finding that operating cash flows do not significantly change around green bond issuance. I also value this study for providing further evidence consistent with the view that socially responsible behavior lowers risk and reduces the cost of debt (e.g., Goss and Roberts 2011).However, the mechanism through which green bond issuance reduces the risk of straight bonds remains subject to debate. Zhan et al. (2026) argue that green bond issuance mitigates environmental regulatory risk, citing evidence that the effect is stronger for firms headquartered in cities where government reports frequently use environment-related terms. While the frequent use of such terms may indeed reflect heightened attention to environmental issues, it is not necessarily a direct indicator of regulatory risk, as the authors do not control for the presence of regulation-specific language. For example, cities may issue longer reports on environmental matters in response to rising public awareness, irrespective of the actual stringency or enforcement of regulations. In such cases, non-green bond issuers in these cities might face higher business risks from declining sales due to consumer concerns over supply-chain emissions, rather than green bond issuers experiencing a direct reduction in risk. Moreover, the frequency of environment-related words may correlate with other city-level characteristics (e.g., local GDP). For instance,

詹等人（2026）利用中国债券市场的数据提供了证据，证明企业发行绿色债券后，直接债券的收益率差显著下降。这种影响对于总部设在当地政府报告经常使用环境相关术语的城市的公司尤其明显。Zhan等人进一步表明，绿色债券的发行增加了债券评级上调的可能性。詹等人（2026）通过仔细构建对照样本——将绿色债券发行人的现有直接债券与非发行人的可比直接债券进行匹配——提供了令人信服的证据，证明绿色债券发行有助于减轻企业的环境监管风险。Flammer（2021）是绿色债券研究领域的一项开创性研究，表明企业在发行绿色债券后会经历积极的股价反应。弗拉默将此解释为绿色债券发行标志着对环境保护承诺的证据。然而，这种承诺提高企业价值的机制尚未明确。Zhan等人（2026）通过阐明该信号的具体内容，进一步完善了文献。虽然预期现金流和风险都会影响股价，但鉴于债务的固定债权性质，债券息差对风险尤为敏感。詹等人（2026）利用这一特征证明，绿色债券发行传达了企业风险降低的信息。在绿色债券发行前后，经营性现金流没有显著变化，这一发现强化了他们的解释。我也很重视这项研究，因为它提供了与社会责任行为降低风险和降低债务成本的观点一致的进一步证据（例如，Goss和Roberts 2011）。然而，绿色债券发行降低普通债券风险的机制仍存在争议。詹等人（2026）认为，绿色债券发行降低了环境监管风险，并引用证据表明，总部设在政府报告中经常使用环境相关术语的城市的公司，这种效果更强。虽然这些术语的频繁使用可能确实反映了对环境问题的高度关注，但它并不一定是监管风险的直接指标，因为作者没有控制监管特定语言的存在。例如，城市可能会发布较长的环境问题报告，以回应公众意识的提高，而不考虑法规的实际严格程度或执行情况。在这种情况下，这些城市的非绿色债券发行人可能会因消费者对供应链排放的担忧而面临更高的销售下降的商业风险，而不是绿色债券发行人的风险直接降低。此外，环境相关词汇的出现频率可能与其他城市层面的特征（如当地GDP）相关。例如，公民在国际上接触环境政策严格的国家，可能与债券息差较低以及城市报告中更频繁地使用环境术语有关。我也担心詹等人（2026）发现的普遍性。Zhan等人从样本中排除了非国有企业（non-SOEs），这提高了结果仅针对中国国有企业的可能性。这种排除似乎是由于只有两家非国有企业发行了绿色债券（Zhan et al. 2026，表S1），这限制了将它们纳入分析的可行性。然而，这一事实本身可能表明，政治关系是在中国发行绿色债券的先决条件。因此，对他们的结果的另一种解释是，绿色债券的发行表明了强大的政治联系，这反过来降低了公司债券的违约风险。詹等人（2026）发现，流动性越强的债券，绿色债券发行对收益率息差的影响越强。他们将这一结果解释为反对绿色债券发行通过提高流动性缩小利差的观点的证据。然而，另一种解释是，流动性较差的资产的价格吸收新信息的速度较慢，这可能会减弱观察到的效应。为了加强他们的论点，我想看看绿色债券发行后流动性措施是否有所改善。詹等人（2026）表6报告绿色债券发行后现金流量没有显著增加。然而，我担心这种不显著的治疗效果可能源于纳入盈利能力（ROA）作为控制变量。由于ROA与经营业绩高度相关，绿色债券发行后经营性现金流的任何变化都可能被ROA控制所吸收。此外，考虑到环境投资的长期性，绿色债券发行对现金流的影响只有在滞后的情况下才能实现，这似乎是合理的。尽管我有一些顾虑，但我承认詹等人。（2026）对越来越多的关于绿色债券的文献做出了重要贡献。他们的研究引入了一种创新的方法，通过检验绿色债券发行对同一家公司现有的直接债券的影响。实证分析是仔细执行的，并提供了有说服力的证据，证明绿色债券发行降低了企业风险。

{"title":"Comment on “Beyond Green: Impacts of Green Bond Issuance on Conventional Bonds in China”","authors":"Konari Uchida","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70010","url":null,"abstract":"Using data from the Chinese bond market, Zhan et al. (2026) provide evidence that the yield spread on straight bonds significantly decreases following a firm's issuance of green bonds. This effect is particularly pronounced for firms headquartered in cities where the local government reports frequently employ environment-related terminology. Zhan et al. further show that green bond issuance increases the likelihood of bond rating upgrades. By carefully constructing a control sample—matching existing straight bonds of green bond issuers with comparable straight bonds of non-issuers—Zhan et al. (2026) offer compelling evidence that green bond issuance helps mitigate firms' environmental regulatory risks.Flammer (2021), a seminal study in green bond research, shows that firms experience positive stock price reactions upon issuing green bonds. Flammer interprets this as evidence that green bond issuance signals a commitment to environmental protection. However, the mechanism by which such commitments enhance firm value is not clearly identified. Zhan et al. (2026) advance the literature by clarifying the specific content of this signal. While both expected cash flows and risk affect stock prices, bond spreads are particularly sensitive to risk, given the fixed-claim nature of debt. Leveraging this feature, Zhan et al. (2026) demonstrate that green bond issuance conveys information about reduced firm risk. Their interpretation is reinforced by the finding that operating cash flows do not significantly change around green bond issuance. I also value this study for providing further evidence consistent with the view that socially responsible behavior lowers risk and reduces the cost of debt (e.g., Goss and Roberts 2011).However, the mechanism through which green bond issuance reduces the risk of straight bonds remains subject to debate. Zhan et al. (2026) argue that green bond issuance mitigates environmental regulatory risk, citing evidence that the effect is stronger for firms headquartered in cities where government reports frequently use environment-related terms. While the frequent use of such terms may indeed reflect heightened attention to environmental issues, it is not necessarily a direct indicator of regulatory risk, as the authors do not control for the presence of regulation-specific language. For example, cities may issue longer reports on environmental matters in response to rising public awareness, irrespective of the actual stringency or enforcement of regulations. In such cases, non-green bond issuers in these cities might face higher business risks from declining sales due to consumer concerns over supply-chain emissions, rather than green bond issuers experiencing a direct reduction in risk. Moreover, the frequency of environment-related words may correlate with other city-level characteristics (e.g., local GDP). For instance, ","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"85-86"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

How Sovereign Sustainable Bond Issuance Shakes Up the Corporate Sustainable Bond Market?: Evidence From Asian Markets 主权可持续债券发行如何撼动企业可持续债券市场？：来自亚洲市场的证据

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-30 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70008

Seiwan Kim, Resi Ong Olivares, Donghyun Park, Shu (Grace) Tian, Sunjoo Yang

This study examines how sovereign sustainable bond issuance affects the yields and liquidity of corporate sustainable bonds in eight Asian markets. Using panel vector autoregression (VAR) and daily data from 2018 to 2024, we find that initial sovereign sustainable bond issuance improves corporate sustainable bond liquidity and reduces yield spreads in the medium term. We further find that this reduction is primarily driven by a persistent decline in greenium rather than a lower risk premium. Corporate sustainable bond issuance rises post-sovereign issuance, with more diverse issuers entering the market. Additionally, fund flows into ESG mutual funds increase, reflecting stronger demand for sustainable assets. Our findings highlight the positive role of sovereign issuance in scaling up private sustainable finance.

JEL Classification: G12, C33, E43, Q54.

本研究考察了八个亚洲市场的主权可持续债券发行如何影响企业可持续债券的收益率和流动性。利用面板向量自回归（VAR）和2018 - 2024年的日常数据，我们发现初始主权可持续债券发行提高了公司可持续债券的流动性，并在中期降低了收益率差。我们进一步发现，这种减少主要是由greenium的持续下降而不是较低的风险溢价驱动的。继主权债券发行之后，企业可持续债券的发行量上升，更多不同的发行人进入市场。此外，流入ESG共同基金的资金增加，反映出对可持续资产的需求增强。我们的研究结果强调了主权债券发行在扩大私人可持续融资方面的积极作用。JEL分类：G12， C33, E43, Q54。

引用次数: 0

Inclusive Wealth and ESG Practices: Financial Impacts in a Global Context 包容性财富和ESG实践：全球背景下的金融影响

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70006

Jun Xie, Kenichi Yoshida, Shuning Chen, Alexander Ryota Keeley, Hidemichi Fujii, Shunsuke Managi

This study explores the relationship between ESG practices and corporate financial outcomes across 38 economies from 2013 to 2022, with a focus on the moderating role of regional sustainability, proxied by inclusive wealth. The findings reveal significant disparities in ESG performance, with European firms leading globally while those in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, lag in ESG scores but exhibit stronger financial benefits from ESG engagement. Inclusive wealth plays a critical moderating role in the ESG-finance relationship, serving as key regional sustainability indicators. Specifically, human and natural capital positively moderate the financial impact of corporate environmental efforts. These results suggest that inclusive wealth captures structural conditions that shape ESG effectiveness and can inform region-specific sustainability strategies. This study highlights the importance of integrating long-term, multidimensional sustainability indicators into ESG evaluation frameworks to better align corporate strategies with economic and institutional contexts, thereby enhancing both firm performance and broader sustainable development outcomes.

本研究探讨了2013年至2022年38个经济体的ESG实践与企业财务结果之间的关系，重点关注以包容性财富为代表的区域可持续性的调节作用。研究结果显示，欧洲企业在ESG方面的表现存在显著差异，欧洲企业在ESG方面处于全球领先地位，而亚洲企业（尤其是东南亚企业）在ESG得分方面落后，但从参与ESG中获得了更大的财务效益。包容性财富作为关键的区域可持续性指标，在ESG-finance关系中起着关键的调节作用。具体而言，人力资本和自然资本正向调节企业环境努力的财务影响。这些结果表明，包容性财富反映了影响ESG有效性的结构性条件，可以为特定地区的可持续发展战略提供信息。本研究强调了将长期、多维可持续发展指标纳入ESG评估框架的重要性，以更好地将企业战略与经济和制度背景结合起来，从而提高企业绩效和更广泛的可持续发展成果。

{"title":"Inclusive Wealth and ESG Practices: Financial Impacts in a Global Context","authors":"Jun Xie, Kenichi Yoshida, Shuning Chen, Alexander Ryota Keeley, Hidemichi Fujii, Shunsuke Managi","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 This study explores the relationship between ESG practices and corporate financial outcomes across 38 economies from 2013 to 2022, with a focus on the moderating role of regional sustainability, proxied by inclusive wealth. The findings reveal significant disparities in ESG performance, with European firms leading globally while those in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, lag in ESG scores but exhibit stronger financial benefits from ESG engagement. Inclusive wealth plays a critical moderating role in the ESG-finance relationship, serving as key regional sustainability indicators. Specifically, human and natural capital positively moderate the financial impact of corporate environmental efforts. These results suggest that inclusive wealth captures structural conditions that shape ESG effectiveness and can inform region-specific sustainability strategies. This study highlights the importance of integrating long-term, multidimensional sustainability indicators into ESG evaluation frameworks to better align corporate strategies with economic and institutional contexts, thereby enhancing both firm performance and broader sustainable development outcomes.\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"24-38"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146007826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Beyond Green: Impacts of Green Bond Issuance on Conventional Bonds in China 超越绿色：中国绿色债券发行对传统债券的影响

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70005

Xintong Zhan, Junting Liu, Jie Cao, Ruijing Yang, Linyu Zhou

This paper investigates the impact of green bond issuance on the yield spreads of conventional bonds in China. Using a sample of 1468 corporate bonds and a difference-in-differences methodology, we document a significantly persistent reduction of 21 basis points in the yield spreads of existing conventional bonds after the green bond issuance. Our findings support a risk-based explanation: green bond issuance mitigates the environmental regulatory risks faced by the issuer, thereby reducing the perceived default risk of its conventional bonds. These results highlight the broader financial implications of green bond issuance, extending beyond the direct environmental benefits to influence the pricing and risk profile of conventional debt instruments.

本文研究了中国绿色债券发行对传统债券利差的影响。利用1468只公司债券的样本和差异中的差异方法，我们发现在绿色债券发行后，现有传统债券的收益率差持续下降了21个基点。我们的研究结果支持基于风险的解释：绿色债券的发行减轻了发行人面临的环境监管风险，从而降低了其传统债券的感知违约风险。这些结果突出了绿色债券发行的更广泛的金融影响，超出了直接的环境效益，影响了传统债务工具的定价和风险状况。

引用次数: 0

Sustainable Finance: Tools, Effectiveness, and Challenges 可持续金融：工具、有效性和挑战

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70007

Caroline Flammer

This article provides an overview of recent research on sustainable finance, focusing on the effectiveness, limitations, and challenges of key instruments used in green finance, biodiversity finance, blended finance, and impact investing. Drawing on empirical evidence and conceptual frameworks, this article highlights how these tools can contribute to environmental and social goals. It also examines the role of shareholders and corporate practices in advancing sustainability. In addition, this article discusses the Asian context, where institutional and economic conditions can create distinct opportunities and challenges for sustainable finance. Finally, the article concludes by emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary research given the complex nature of sustainability challenges.

JEL Classification: G30, G32, M14, Q01, Q56

本文概述了可持续金融的最新研究，重点关注绿色金融、生物多样性金融、混合金融和影响力投资中使用的关键工具的有效性、局限性和挑战。根据经验证据和概念框架，本文强调了这些工具如何有助于实现环境和社会目标。它还探讨了股东和企业实践在促进可持续发展中的作用。此外，本文还讨论了亚洲的背景，那里的制度和经济条件可以为可持续金融创造独特的机遇和挑战。最后，文章总结强调，鉴于可持续发展挑战的复杂性，需要进行跨学科研究。JEL分类：G30、G32、M14、Q01、Q56

引用次数: 0

Comment on “The Effects of Financing Green and Brown Sectors: What Do Theories and Evidence Say?” 评《绿色和棕色部门融资的影响：理论和证据怎么说？》

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-25 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70003

Qifei Zhu

Liang and Punzi (2026) argue that there are important distinctions between the strategy of “growing the green economy” and the strategy of “greening the economy” when it comes to the efficacy of the strategies and the financing tools supporting each strategy. Under the “growing the green economy” strategy, financial markets reallocate capital towards green companies and divert resources away from brown companies, typically through the cost-of-capital channel. Under the “greening the economy” strategy, financial markets develop tools to help brown companies transition their energy sources and production modes towards more sustainable ones. The relative efficacy of the strategies depends on things like the production functions of green and brown firms, their elasticities to financing costs, and the endowment of different economies.Liang and Punzi (2026) then use a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model to illustrate their points. In their model, firms raise external capital to transition from carbon-emitting energy sources to clean energy sources. Under the model's parameters, a reduction in green firms' cost of capital and an increase in brown firms' cost of capital do not necessarily reduce aggregate carbon emissions, as brown firms find it more difficult to raise capital to invest in transition. I see this DSGE exercise more as proof of concept for the theoretical framework laid out in the earlier part of the Liang and Punzi (2026), rather than a piece of corroborating evidence. As brown firms are set in the model to all be able to transition towards clean energy, the strategy of “greening the economy” is given a larger scope to be effective. I would encourage the Liang and Punzi to think more seriously about the model and to either calibrate the model using empirical moments or to provide some analysis under different sets of parametrizations. Under some parametrizations, costs of capital differences between green and brown firms may lower aggregate emissions; under other parametrizations, they may backfire.Liang and Punzi (2026) in this current form stays away from discussing brown firms' incentives in transitioning towards greener production functions. An important rationale of the existing green financing tools is that they provide “carrots and sticks” for firms' green activities while penalizing brown ones. In contrast, the transition finance framework discussed here appears more permissive towards companies currently engaged in pollution-generating activities. This permissiveness creates a fundamental implementation challenge: without proper constraints, transition financing risks channeling funds towards business-as-usual operations rather than genuine greening efforts. Such misallocation would undermine sustainability objectives by effectively subsidizing brown activities under the guise of transition finance.Liang and Punzi's (2026) pol

Liang和Punzi（2026）认为，“发展绿色经济”战略与“绿化经济”战略在战略效力和支持各自战略的融资工具方面存在重要区别。在“发展绿色经济”战略下，金融市场通常通过资本成本渠道，将资本重新配置给绿色公司，并将资源从棕色公司转移出去。在“绿色经济”战略下，金融市场开发工具，帮助棕色企业将能源来源和生产模式转变为更可持续的模式。这些策略的相对有效性取决于绿色和棕色企业的生产函数、它们对融资成本的弹性以及不同经济体的禀赋等因素。Liang和Punzi（2026）随后使用动态随机一般均衡（DSGE）模型来说明他们的观点。在他们的模型中，企业筹集外部资本，从碳排放能源转向清洁能源。在该模型的参数下，绿色企业资本成本的降低和棕色企业资本成本的增加并不一定会减少总碳排放量，因为棕色企业发现筹集资金投资转型更加困难。我认为这个DSGE练习更多的是作为梁和庞子（2026）前面部分提出的理论框架的概念证明，而不是一个确凿的证据。由于棕色企业在模型中都被设定为能够向清洁能源转型，“绿色经济”战略被赋予了更大的有效范围。我鼓励梁和庞子更认真地思考这个模型，或者使用经验矩来校准模型，或者在不同的参数化集合下提供一些分析。在某些参数化下，绿色企业和棕色企业之间的资本成本差异可能降低总排放量；在其他参数化情况下，它们可能适得其反。Liang和Punzi（2026）在当前的形式中没有讨论棕色企业向绿色生产职能过渡的激励。现有绿色融资工具的一个重要原理是，它们为企业的绿色活动提供“胡萝卜加大棒”，同时惩罚“棕色”行为。相比之下，这里讨论的过渡融资框架似乎对目前从事产生污染活动的公司更为宽容。这种放任给实施带来了根本性的挑战：如果没有适当的约束，转型融资可能会将资金引向“一切照旧”的运营，而不是真正的绿色努力。这种分配不当将破坏可持续性目标，因为它在转型融资的幌子下有效地补贴了棕色活动。Liang和Punzi（2026）的政策讨论强调了绿色转型的一个关键但未被充分探索的维度：亚洲经济体在其发展阶段和工业化轨迹下面临的独特挑战。这一微妙的现实在当代可持续性文献中没有得到充分解决，这些文献往往优先考虑发达市场，而没有充分考虑区域异质性。梁和庞子的分析填补了这一空白，展示了发展背景如何从根本上决定了转型融资需求和约束。这些见解应该为未来研究区域差异化的可持续金融方法提供参考，并指导政策制定者制定更适合亚洲绿色经济转型的融资机制。

{"title":"Comment on “The Effects of Financing Green and Brown Sectors: What Do Theories and Evidence Say?”","authors":"Qifei Zhu","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70003","url":null,"abstract":"Liang and Punzi (2026) argue that there are important distinctions between the strategy of “growing the green economy” and the strategy of “greening the economy” when it comes to the efficacy of the strategies and the financing tools supporting each strategy. Under the “growing the green economy” strategy, financial markets reallocate capital towards green companies and divert resources away from brown companies, typically through the cost-of-capital channel. Under the “greening the economy” strategy, financial markets develop tools to help brown companies transition their energy sources and production modes towards more sustainable ones. The relative efficacy of the strategies depends on things like the production functions of green and brown firms, their elasticities to financing costs, and the endowment of different economies.Liang and Punzi (2026) then use a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model to illustrate their points. In their model, firms raise external capital to transition from carbon-emitting energy sources to clean energy sources. Under the model's parameters, a reduction in green firms' cost of capital and an increase in brown firms' cost of capital do not necessarily reduce aggregate carbon emissions, as brown firms find it more difficult to raise capital to invest in transition. I see this DSGE exercise more as proof of concept for the theoretical framework laid out in the earlier part of the Liang and Punzi (2026), rather than a piece of corroborating evidence. As brown firms are set in the model to all be able to transition towards clean energy, the strategy of “greening the economy” is given a larger scope to be effective. I would encourage the Liang and Punzi to think more seriously about the model and to either calibrate the model using empirical moments or to provide some analysis under different sets of parametrizations. Under some parametrizations, costs of capital differences between green and brown firms may lower aggregate emissions; under other parametrizations, they may backfire.Liang and Punzi (2026) in this current form stays away from discussing brown firms' incentives in transitioning towards greener production functions. An important rationale of the existing green financing tools is that they provide “carrots and sticks” for firms' green activities while penalizing brown ones. In contrast, the transition finance framework discussed here appears more permissive towards companies currently engaged in pollution-generating activities. This permissiveness creates a fundamental implementation challenge: without proper constraints, transition financing risks channeling funds towards business-as-usual operations rather than genuine greening efforts. Such misallocation would undermine sustainability objectives by effectively subsidizing brown activities under the guise of transition finance.Liang and Punzi's (2026) pol","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"53-54"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Effects of Financing Green and Brown Sectors: What Do Theories and Evidence Say? 融资绿色和棕色部门的影响：理论和证据怎么说？

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-23 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70004

Hao Liang, Maria Teresa Punzi

This paper critically examines the economic and welfare implications of financing green and brown sectors. Drawing on a comprehensive review of recent theoretical and empirical literature, we highlight that while conventional green finance—allocating capital toward environmentally friendly (“green”) sectors and away from carbon-intensive (“brown”) sectors—can promote decarbonization, it may also produce unintended externalities. In particular, it can inadvertently incentivize higher emissions from brown firms and contribute to economic disruption. Using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model, we demonstrate that lowering the cost of capital for green sectors leads to only modest reductions in emissions, whereas raising it for brown sectors can paradoxically increase emissions. These findings underscore the importance of transition finance, which channels capital to support the decarbonization of brown sectors, especially in the context of Asia's carbon-intensive economies. We conclude with policy recommendations to strengthen transition finance markets across the region.

本文批判性地考察了绿色和棕色部门融资的经济和福利影响。通过对近期理论和实证文献的全面回顾，我们强调，虽然传统的绿色金融——将资本配置到环境友好型（“绿色”）部门，远离碳密集型（“棕色”）部门——可以促进脱碳，但它也可能产生意想不到的外部性。特别是，它可能在不经意间激励棕色企业增加排放，并导致经济混乱。利用动态随机一般均衡（DSGE）模型，我们证明了降低绿色部门的资本成本只会导致排放量的适度减少，而提高棕色部门的资本成本却会矛盾地增加排放。这些发现强调了转型融资的重要性，转型融资引导资金支持棕色行业的脱碳，特别是在亚洲碳密集型经济体的背景下。最后，我们提出了加强整个地区转型金融市场的政策建议。

{"title":"The Effects of Financing Green and Brown Sectors: What Do Theories and Evidence Say?","authors":"Hao Liang, Maria Teresa Punzi","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 This paper critically examines the economic and welfare implications of financing green and brown sectors. Drawing on a comprehensive review of recent theoretical and empirical literature, we highlight that while conventional green finance—allocating capital toward environmentally friendly (“green”) sectors and away from carbon-intensive (“brown”) sectors—can promote decarbonization, it may also produce unintended externalities. In particular, it can inadvertently incentivize higher emissions from brown firms and contribute to economic disruption. Using a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model, we demonstrate that lowering the cost of capital for green sectors leads to only modest reductions in emissions, whereas raising it for brown sectors can paradoxically increase emissions. These findings underscore the importance of transition finance, which channels capital to support the decarbonization of brown sectors, especially in the context of Asia's carbon-intensive economies. We conclude with policy recommendations to strengthen transition finance markets across the region.\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"43-52"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comment on “The Effects of Financing Green and Brown Sectors: What Do Theories and Empirical Evidence Say?” 评《绿色和棕色部门融资的影响：理论和实证怎么说？》

IF 7 3区经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS

Asian Economic Policy Review

Pub Date : 2025-08-13 DOI: 10.1111/aepr.70002

Olivier-David Zerbib

引用次数: 0