绿色价格:分类与绿色债券溢价

IF 3.1 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
David Dekker , Chih-Yueh Huang , Dimitrios Christopoulos
{"title":"绿色价格:分类与绿色债券溢价","authors":"David Dekker ,&nbsp;Chih-Yueh Huang ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Christopoulos","doi":"10.1016/j.qref.2025.102054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Financial markets allow a premium to green bond issuers (a.k.a. greenium), which incentivises the transition to green projects. This premium also absorbs costs associated with green bond certification, necessary to prevent greenwashing, and aimed at reducing investors’ uncertainty. Several taxonomies have been created to classify bonds to that end. A question is to what extend are such classifications an effective means as traditional credit ratings serve a similar, more generic purpose? And what is the possible effect on market efficiency of these classifications? An observed variance in green bond premiums across different bond classes would also suggest that charges for the certification of green bonds should vary. Difference in greeniums reveal differences in the way the markets assess distinctive classes of green bonds. Especially, when bond classifications change, or taxonomies are ambiguous this could lead to adverse selection or invite greenwashing. Here we compare 858 pairs of matched green and non-green bonds and use a mixed effects model to estimate how bonds’ greenium differ over credit ratings and ‘Use of Proceeds’ categories. Results show that lower-rated bonds reach higher levels of green premiums, controlling for categorical random effects. Similar effects are found for ‘Use of Proceeds’ classes. However, compared to either of the two other classifications a cross-classification model provides significant improvement, demonstrating the added value of green bond taxonomies for investors. This solves a paradox in the literature that found that high score ESG bonds, but also low credit rated bonds receive a higher premium. The other implication is that market inefficiencies may occur due to segmentation since it is common practice for certification costs to be flat and independent from greenium levels. Counterintuitively, creating a green taxonomy could lead to more uncertainty and adverse selection for “true” green project financing, which would delay the green transition and the desired shift to a low-carbon economy. An implied remedy is to implement differentiated verification charges for green bonds across bond credit ratings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47962,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102054"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Price of greenness: Classifications and green bond premiums\",\"authors\":\"David Dekker ,&nbsp;Chih-Yueh Huang ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Christopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.qref.2025.102054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Financial markets allow a premium to green bond issuers (a.k.a. greenium), which incentivises the transition to green projects. This premium also absorbs costs associated with green bond certification, necessary to prevent greenwashing, and aimed at reducing investors’ uncertainty. Several taxonomies have been created to classify bonds to that end. A question is to what extend are such classifications an effective means as traditional credit ratings serve a similar, more generic purpose? And what is the possible effect on market efficiency of these classifications? An observed variance in green bond premiums across different bond classes would also suggest that charges for the certification of green bonds should vary. Difference in greeniums reveal differences in the way the markets assess distinctive classes of green bonds. Especially, when bond classifications change, or taxonomies are ambiguous this could lead to adverse selection or invite greenwashing. Here we compare 858 pairs of matched green and non-green bonds and use a mixed effects model to estimate how bonds’ greenium differ over credit ratings and ‘Use of Proceeds’ categories. Results show that lower-rated bonds reach higher levels of green premiums, controlling for categorical random effects. Similar effects are found for ‘Use of Proceeds’ classes. However, compared to either of the two other classifications a cross-classification model provides significant improvement, demonstrating the added value of green bond taxonomies for investors. This solves a paradox in the literature that found that high score ESG bonds, but also low credit rated bonds receive a higher premium. The other implication is that market inefficiencies may occur due to segmentation since it is common practice for certification costs to be flat and independent from greenium levels. Counterintuitively, creating a green taxonomy could lead to more uncertainty and adverse selection for “true” green project financing, which would delay the green transition and the desired shift to a low-carbon economy. An implied remedy is to implement differentiated verification charges for green bonds across bond credit ratings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance\",\"volume\":\"104 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102054\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S106297692500095X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S106297692500095X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

金融市场允许绿色债券发行人(又称greenium)获得溢价,这激励了向绿色项目的过渡。这种溢价还吸收了与绿色债券认证相关的成本,这是防止“漂绿”所必需的,旨在减少投资者的不确定性。为此,已经创建了几种分类法来对债券进行分类。一个问题是,这种分类在多大程度上是一种有效的手段,因为传统的信用评级服务于类似的、更通用的目的?这些分类对市场效率的可能影响是什么?观察到的不同债券类别之间绿色债券溢价的差异也表明绿色债券认证的收费应该有所不同。绿化率的差异揭示了市场对不同类别绿色债券评估方式的差异。特别是,当债券分类发生变化,或者分类不明确时,这可能导致逆向选择或引发“漂绿”。在这里,我们比较了858对匹配的绿色和非绿色债券,并使用混合效应模型来估计债券的greenium在信用评级和“收益使用”类别上的差异。结果表明,在控制类别随机效应的情况下,评级较低的债券获得较高的绿色溢价水平。在“收益使用”类中也发现了类似的效果。然而,与其他两种分类相比,交叉分类模型提供了显著的改进,证明了绿色债券分类对投资者的附加价值。这解决了文献中的一个悖论,即高信用评级的ESG债券,同时低信用评级的债券也会获得更高的溢价。另一个含义是,由于分割,市场效率低下可能会发生,因为通常的做法是认证成本是平坦的,独立于greenium水平。与直觉相反,创建绿色分类法可能会导致更多的不确定性和“真正的”绿色项目融资的逆向选择,这将推迟绿色转型和向低碳经济的预期转变。一种隐含的补救措施是对不同债券信用评级的绿色债券实行差异化的核查收费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Price of greenness: Classifications and green bond premiums
Financial markets allow a premium to green bond issuers (a.k.a. greenium), which incentivises the transition to green projects. This premium also absorbs costs associated with green bond certification, necessary to prevent greenwashing, and aimed at reducing investors’ uncertainty. Several taxonomies have been created to classify bonds to that end. A question is to what extend are such classifications an effective means as traditional credit ratings serve a similar, more generic purpose? And what is the possible effect on market efficiency of these classifications? An observed variance in green bond premiums across different bond classes would also suggest that charges for the certification of green bonds should vary. Difference in greeniums reveal differences in the way the markets assess distinctive classes of green bonds. Especially, when bond classifications change, or taxonomies are ambiguous this could lead to adverse selection or invite greenwashing. Here we compare 858 pairs of matched green and non-green bonds and use a mixed effects model to estimate how bonds’ greenium differ over credit ratings and ‘Use of Proceeds’ categories. Results show that lower-rated bonds reach higher levels of green premiums, controlling for categorical random effects. Similar effects are found for ‘Use of Proceeds’ classes. However, compared to either of the two other classifications a cross-classification model provides significant improvement, demonstrating the added value of green bond taxonomies for investors. This solves a paradox in the literature that found that high score ESG bonds, but also low credit rated bonds receive a higher premium. The other implication is that market inefficiencies may occur due to segmentation since it is common practice for certification costs to be flat and independent from greenium levels. Counterintuitively, creating a green taxonomy could lead to more uncertainty and adverse selection for “true” green project financing, which would delay the green transition and the desired shift to a low-carbon economy. An implied remedy is to implement differentiated verification charges for green bonds across bond credit ratings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
118
期刊介绍: The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance (QREF) attracts and publishes high quality manuscripts that cover topics in the areas of economics, financial economics and finance. The subject matter may be theoretical, empirical or policy related. Emphasis is placed on quality, originality, clear arguments, persuasive evidence, intelligent analysis and clear writing. At least one Special Issue is published per year. These issues have guest editors, are devoted to a single theme and the papers have well known authors. In addition we pride ourselves in being able to provide three to four article "Focus" sections in most of our issues.
×
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