Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145854
|
| Title: | 臺灣企業碳排放量與碳溢酬之探討
Exploring the Relationship between Carbon Emissions and Carbon Premium in Taiwanese Corporations |
| Authors: | 毛慕耘
Mao, Mu-Yun |
| Contributors: | 楊曉文
Yang, Sharon
毛慕耘
Mao, Mu-Yun |
| Keywords: | 碳排放
低碳
綠色轉型
股價報酬
超額報酬
Carbon emission
Low-carbon trend
Green economy transition
Stock return
Alpha |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-07-06 16:45:38 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著全球氣候暖化加劇，許多政府將減碳視為重要任務，而相關政策對於
企業的影響必定有所增加。投資人也開始意識到氣候風險，並試圖將其納入投資流程。而過去企業碳排放量與股價表現的相關研究，範圍多著重於歐美地區，因此本研究目的在於衡量在臺灣企業的碳排放量對該企業股價之影響，以及探索企業碳排放量與股價超額報酬的關聯，和綠色行動方案 1.0 對低碳轉型的影響。
研究分析結果顯示，臺灣企業的碳排放總量與股價報酬呈現正相關，而碳
排放密度與股價報酬呈現負相關。此外，碳排密度對報酬的負面影響是近年才出現的，而碳排總量對報酬的正向影響則趨弱。接著本文在全產業或高碳排產業中，將公司以碳排放量排序並區分高低碳排組別，並發現高碳總量組與低碳密度組均發現了超額報酬。而且在高碳產業中，低密度組的正向超額報酬在後期轉為顯著，高碳總量組的超額報酬則在後期消失。依據上述結果，本文肯定投資於低碳排公司的獲利能力，尤其在企業的碳密度指標上。隨著臺灣於近年加緊低碳轉型的腳步，本研究建議在引導綠色投資資金上，可從使用低碳密度指標為出發，有望在未來同時取得環境與投資人報酬的平衡。
As global climate change worsens, governments prioritize carbon reduction, impacting businesses. Investors recognize climate risks and seek to incorporate them into investments. This study evaluates the influence of carbon emissions on stock prices in Taiwanese companies and explores the relationship between carbon emissions and stock excess returns. The Green Action Plan 1.0`s impact on lowcarbon transformation is also considered.
Analysis shows a positive correlation between total carbon emissions of Taiwanese companies and stock returns. Conversely, carbon intensity has a negative correlation. The negative effect of carbon intensity on returns emerged recently, while the positive impact of total carbon emissions weakened. The study validates the hypothesis of low-carbon excess returns in Taiwan. Both high-sum and low-intensity groups achieved excess returns, regardless of industry. In high-carbon industries, the low-intensity group had significant positive excess returns later, while excess returns diminished for high-carbon groups. The study concludes that, compared to the carbon premium hypothesis, low-carbon excess returns partially hold true in Taiwan, especially considering the carbon intensity indicator. This study aims to balance environmental sustainability and investor returns and recommends using the low-carbon intensity indicator as a foundational metric for guiding green investments. |
| Reference: | 1. Ardia, David, Bluteau, Keven, Boudt, Kris, & Inghelbrecht, Koen. (2022). Climate change concerns and the performance of green versus brown stocks. SSRN.
2. The Companies Strategic Report- Climaterelated Financial Disclosure Regulations, (2022).
3. Bansal, Ravi, Kiku, Dana, & Ochoa, Marcelo. (2016). Price of long-run temperature shifts in capital markets.
4. Barber, Bead M, & Lyon, John D. (1997). Firm size, book-to-market ratio, and security returns: A holdout sample of financial firms. The Journal of Finance,52(2), 875-883.
5. Bolton, Patrick, & Kacperczyk, Marcin. (2020). Carbon Premium Around the World. SSRN.
6. Bolton, Patrick, & Kacperczyk, Marcin. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517-549. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
7. Commission, U.S. Securities and Exchange. (2022). Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures.
8. Convery, Frank J. (2009). Origins and development of the EU ETS. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43, 391-412.
9. Cucchiella, F, Gastaldi, M, & Miliacca, M. (2017). The management of greenhouse gas emissions and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Cleaner production, 167, 1387-1400.
10. Disclosures, Task Force on Climate-Related Financial. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
11. Fama, Eugene F, & French, Kenneth R. (1995). Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns. The Journal of Finance, 50(1), 131-155.
12. Görgen, Maximilian, Jacob, Andrea, Nerlinger, Martin, Riordan, Ryan, Rohleder, Martin, & Wilkens, Marco. (2020). Carbon Risk. SSRN.
13. Garvey, Gerald T, Iyer, Mohanaraman, & Nash, Joanna. (2018). Carbon footprint and productivity: does the “E” in ESG capture efficiency as well as environment.Journal of Investment Management,16(1), 59-69.
14. Group, European Financial Reporting Advisory. (2022). EFRAG delivers the first 38 set of draft ESRS to the European Commission.
15. Hsu, Po Hsuan, Li, Kai, & Tsou, Chi Yang. (2022). The Pollution Premium. Journal of Finance, Forthcoming.
16. In, Soh Young, Park, Ki Young, & Monk, Ashby. (2017). Is “being green” rewarded in the market? an empirical investigation of decarbonization risk and stock returns. International Association for Energy Economics (Singapore Issue),46(48).
17. Kahn, Matthew E., Mohaddes, Kamiar, Ng, Ryan N. C., Pesaran, M. Hashem, Raissi, Mehdi, & Yang, Jui-Chung. (2019). Long-Term Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Change: A Cross-Country Analysis.
18. Krueger, Philipp, Sautner, Zacharias, & Starks, Laura T. (2020). The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1067-1111.
19. Liese, Peter. (2023). Revision of the EU emission trading system (ETS).
20. Matsumura, Ella Mae, Prakash, Rachna, & Vera-Munoz, Sandra C. (2014). Firmvalue effects of carbon emissions and carbon disclosures. The accounting review, 89(2), 695-724.
21. Millischer, Laurent, Evdokimova, Tatiana, & Fernandez, Oscar. (2023). The carrot and the stock: In search of stock-market incentives for decarbonization. Energy Economics, 120, 106615.
22. Nguyen, Justin Hung, & Phan, Hieu V. (2020). Carbon risk and corporate capital structure. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64, 101713.
23. Oestreich, A. Marcel, & Tsiakas, Ilias. (2015). Carbon emissions and stock returns: Evidence from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Journal of Banking & Finance 58, 294–308.
24. Programme, The United Nations Environment. (2022). The Closing Window -Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies.
25. Radu, Camélia, & Maram, Samaneh. (2021). The value relevance of reported carbon emissions.Journal of Management and Governance, 25, 347-377.
26. Santikarn, Marissa, Churie Kallhauge, Angela Naneu, Bozcaga, Mustafa Ozgur, Sattler, Leyla, Mccormick, Michael Stephen, Ferran Torres, Ana,Mikolajczyk, Szymon. (2021). State and trends of carbon pricing.
27. Shefrin, Hersh, & Statman, Meir. (1995). Making sense of beta, size, and book-39
to-market. Journal of Portfolio Management, 21(2), 26.
28. The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, NGFS. (2022). Final Report on Bridging Data Gaps-Network for Greening the Financial System Technical Document.
29. Trinks, Arjan, Mulder, Machiel, & Scholtens, Bert. (2020). An efficiency perspective on carbon emissions and financial performance. Ecological Economics, 175, 106632.
30. Wang, Mao-Chang, & Chen, Zhe. (2021). The relationship among environmental performance, R&D expenditure and corporate performance: Using simultaneous equations model. Quality & Quantity, 1-15.
31. Witkowski, Pawel, Adamczyk, Adam, & Franek, Slawomir. (2021). Does Carbon Risk Matter? Evidence of Carbon Premium in EU Energy-Intensive Companies.
energies, 14. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
金融學系
110352003 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110352003 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [金融學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 200301.pdf | | 1761Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
