MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409513708 · doi:10.1108/mf-10-2024-0762

Does improved environmental and disclosure performance payoff? Not for CA 100+ companies

2025· article· en· W4409513708 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Cleary, Neal Willcott

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic gameBusinessEconomicsActuarial scienceEconometricsFinancial economicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study examines the financial performance and cost of equity estimates of firms included in Climate Action 100+ (CA 100+), a group comprising the largest global industrial emitters. The research explores how decarbonization plans and climate-related disclosures influence the cost of equity, offering insights into the complex relationship between climate risk and financial outcomes. Design/methodology/approach We analyze the stock performance of CA 100+ firms from 2016 to 2022, comparing their returns to well-known global indices. Cost of equity estimates are calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and Dividend Discount Model (DDM). The study adjusts for country and industry influences and evaluates the impact of CA 100+ benchmark scores and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) quality ratings on the cost of equity. Findings CA 100+ firms outperformed major global indices in both actual and risk-adjusted returns during the study period. These firms exhibited higher average returns with lower standard deviations, suggesting first-order stochastic dominance. The information ratio (IR) for the CA 100+ portfolio relative to benchmark indices was consistently large and positive, confirming superior risk-adjusted performance. After controlling for country and industry effects, cost of equity estimates for CA 100+ firms were virtually identical to those of a corresponding benchmark. Surprisingly, firms with lower CA 100+ scores and lower-quality TCFD disclosures had lower costs of equity than firms with superior performance, indicating that markets do not penalize poor environmental performance or disclosure quality. Originality/value This study challenges conventional assumptions that superior environmental performance correlates with lower cost of equity. The unexpected finding that poorly rated firms exhibit lower financing costs underscores the complexity of the relationship between environmental disclosure, decarbonization strategies and financial performance. The results provide essential insights for institutional investors, policymakers and corporate executives navigating the transition to a low-carbon economy.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagerial FinanceSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207