Impact of ESG performance on the cost of capital in the energy, utilities, and basic materials sectors

IF 4.4 3区 经济学 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Sindre Wilberg , Vibeke Kjellevoll , Franziska Holz , Anne Neumann
{"title":"Impact of ESG performance on the cost of capital in the energy, utilities, and basic materials sectors","authors":"Sindre Wilberg ,&nbsp;Vibeke Kjellevoll ,&nbsp;Franziska Holz ,&nbsp;Anne Neumann","doi":"10.1016/j.jup.2025.102016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper explores the presence of an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) premium for firms operating in the energy, utilities, and basic materials sectors. Specifically, we examine the influence of ESG performance on firms’ cost of capital in both debt and equity markets. We apply a measure of the ex ante implied cost of equity and the cost of debt to a global sample of over 24,000 firm-year observations spanning the period from 2010 to 2021. We also investigate the financial impact of each component of the aggregated ESG score. We employ a pooled ordinary least squares with robust standard errors, controlling for firm-specific and macroeconomic factors.</div><div>Contrary to the prevailing view in recent literature, our results indicate no evidence supporting an ESG premium for energy, utilities, and basic materials firms. However, we find an inverse relationship between environmental performance and the cost of capital. This finding supports the existence of a “green premium,” which can be attributed to green investor preferences and sustainable operations, reducing regulatory and other environmental risks. In contrast, the social score is positively related to the cost of debt, suggesting that lenders view investments in social efforts as risk-enhancing or a waste of resources. We argue that the aggregated ESG score is too broad, but its components adequately capture investors’ risk-return preferences. Firms can benefit from reduced financing costs by improving their environmental efforts, although social investments may result in higher borrowing costs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23554,"journal":{"name":"Utilities Policy","volume":"97 ","pages":"Article 102016"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilities Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178725001316","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores the presence of an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) premium for firms operating in the energy, utilities, and basic materials sectors. Specifically, we examine the influence of ESG performance on firms’ cost of capital in both debt and equity markets. We apply a measure of the ex ante implied cost of equity and the cost of debt to a global sample of over 24,000 firm-year observations spanning the period from 2010 to 2021. We also investigate the financial impact of each component of the aggregated ESG score. We employ a pooled ordinary least squares with robust standard errors, controlling for firm-specific and macroeconomic factors.
Contrary to the prevailing view in recent literature, our results indicate no evidence supporting an ESG premium for energy, utilities, and basic materials firms. However, we find an inverse relationship between environmental performance and the cost of capital. This finding supports the existence of a “green premium,” which can be attributed to green investor preferences and sustainable operations, reducing regulatory and other environmental risks. In contrast, the social score is positively related to the cost of debt, suggesting that lenders view investments in social efforts as risk-enhancing or a waste of resources. We argue that the aggregated ESG score is too broad, but its components adequately capture investors’ risk-return preferences. Firms can benefit from reduced financing costs by improving their environmental efforts, although social investments may result in higher borrowing costs.
ESG绩效对能源、公用事业和基础材料行业资本成本的影响
本文探讨了在能源、公用事业和基础材料行业经营的公司存在的环境、社会和治理(ESG)溢价。具体而言,我们考察了ESG绩效对债务市场和股票市场公司资本成本的影响。我们对2010年至2021年期间超过24,000家公司的全球样本进行了事前隐含股权成本和债务成本的测量。我们还研究了ESG总得分的每个组成部分的财务影响。我们采用具有稳健标准误差的汇总普通最小二乘,控制了企业特定因素和宏观经济因素。与最近文献中的流行观点相反,我们的研究结果表明,没有证据支持能源、公用事业和基础材料公司的ESG溢价。然而,我们发现环境绩效与资本成本之间呈反比关系。这一发现支持了“绿色溢价”的存在,这可以归因于绿色投资者的偏好和可持续运营,减少了监管和其他环境风险。相反,社会得分与债务成本呈正相关,这表明贷款人认为社会努力的投资增加了风险或浪费了资源。我们认为,综合ESG评分过于宽泛,但其组成部分充分反映了投资者的风险回报偏好。虽然社会投资可能导致借贷成本上升,但企业可以通过改善其环境努力来降低融资成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Utilities Policy
Utilities Policy ENERGY & FUELS-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Utilities Policy is deliberately international, interdisciplinary, and intersectoral. Articles address utility trends and issues in both developed and developing economies. Authors and reviewers come from various disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, law, finance, accounting, management, and engineering. Areas of focus include the utility and network industries providing essential electricity, natural gas, water and wastewater, solid waste, communications, broadband, postal, and public transportation services. Utilities Policy invites submissions that apply various quantitative and qualitative methods. Contributions are welcome from both established and emerging scholars as well as accomplished practitioners. Interdisciplinary, comparative, and applied works are encouraged. Submissions to the journal should have a clear focus on governance, performance, and/or analysis of public utilities with an aim toward informing the policymaking process and providing recommendations as appropriate. Relevant topics and issues include but are not limited to industry structures and ownership, market design and dynamics, economic development, resource planning, system modeling, accounting and finance, infrastructure investment, supply and demand efficiency, strategic management and productivity, network operations and integration, supply chains, adaptation and flexibility, service-quality standards, benchmarking and metrics, benefit-cost analysis, behavior and incentives, pricing and demand response, economic and environmental regulation, regulatory performance and impact, restructuring and deregulation, and policy institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信