IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chieco/v87y2024ics1043951x24001251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does climate regulatory risk influence labor employment decisions? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Mbanyele, William
  • Huang, Hongyun
  • Muchenje, Linda T.
  • Zhao, Jun

Abstract

We exploit a green lending mandate as a quasi-natural experiment and estimate its effect on labor investment inefficiency of firms with high carbon risk. We document that heightened climate regulatory risk through mandatory green lending requirements motivates firms with higher carbon risk to adjust their labor investments to levels supported by economic fundamentals. We especially show that climate regulatory risk lowers labor investment inefficiency by curbing overinvestment in labor. This impact is more concentrated among firms that are more dependent on banks for liquidity, firms with severe financial constraints, and those with more institutional investors. After the green credit policy, we also observe an increase in bank lending costs and a reduction in loan maturities for carbon-intensive firms. Overall, our findings suggest that climate bank lending regulation is one of the major channels through which climate risks get embedded in labor employment decisions. In particular, green lending regulatory costs can have significant effects on corporate labor investment efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Mbanyele, William & Huang, Hongyun & Muchenje, Linda T. & Zhao, Jun, 2024. "How does climate regulatory risk influence labor employment decisions? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:87:y:2024:i:c:s1043951x24001251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X24001251
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102236?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chieco:v:87:y:2024:i:c:s1043951x24001251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chieco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.