MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366997711 · doi:10.5539/jms.v13n1p187

Carbon Costs and Credit Risk in a Resource-Based Economy: Carbon Cost Impact on the Z-Score of Canadian TSX 260 Companies

2023· article· en· W4366997711 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Adeboye Oyegunle, Olaf Weber, Amr F. Elalfy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSustainable Finance and Green Bonds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Greenhouse gasCredit riskClimate changeEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate risks and climate risk-related policies on carbon threaten the ability of economies to thrive and will impact the credit risk of many sectors, primarily high-emitting sectors. Higher credit risks will also affect lenders if their credit portfolios are exposed to climate change risks. The introduction of carbon pricing policies will exacerbate this threat in resource-based economies such as Canada. While some research exists on climate exposure and risks to lending portfolios, there is a knowledge gap on how carbon pricing impacts individual commercial credit risk. Consequently, this study analyzes the effect of different carbon pricing scenarios on Altman’s z-score. Using the Canadian TSX 260 data between 2010 and 2020 as a sample, this paper applied the costs of different carbon prices using the Canadian Government’s carbon price regime of $0 to $170 to analyze Altman’s z-score variables until 2030. The results suggest that carbon price will significantly impact the credit risk of companies in high-emitting industries, such as the energy sector. We conclude that climate policy exposure in the form of carbon costs will have a real impact on credit risk and that lenders must consider carbon emissions as part of their credit risk assessment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicSustainable Finance and Green BondsFrench-language works237,207