Author
Listed:
- Angie M Abdel Zaher
(Onsi Sawiris School of Business, American University in Cairo, Cairo 11835, Egypt)
- Abdulbaki Teniola Ubandawaki
(Onsi Sawiris School of Business, American University in Cairo, Cairo 11835, Egypt)
- Saheed Olanrewaju Issa
(School of Business and Economics, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia)
Abstract
Carbon-intensive firms face growing pressure to develop strong corporate climate risk management (CCRM), yet its firm-level and country-level antecedents remain unevenly understood. Drawing on stakeholder and institutional theory, this study examines three potential antecedents of CCRM: sustainability governance, voluntary climate-membership commitments, and regulatory quality. The data cover 1295 firm-year observations across 43 countries over 2018–2022. Ordered logistic regressions are estimated with lagged independent variables, supplemented by ordered probit, two-step system GMM, sample-selection corrections (Heckman two-step and inverse probability weighting), and sub-sample robustness checks. In the main specification, sustainability governance and regulatory quality are both positively and significantly associated with CCRM; climate membership exhibits a sector-conditional association concentrated in energy and basic materials. Sub-sample analyses reveal that internal governance is the stronger correlate among non-state-owned firms, while among state-owned firms (a sub-sample heavily concentrated in Chinese SOEs), regulatory quality is the stronger correlate. The latter is framed as suggestive of context-conditional institutional substitution rather than as a universal feature of state ownership, consistent with comparative-institutional arguments that strong country-level institutions and firm-level governance can act as functional substitutes. CCRM is highly persistent, suggesting that climate risk management is best understood as a path-dependent organizational capability built incrementally over time. Firms seeking to strengthen CCRM should prioritize establishing a board-level sustainability committee with a clear climate mandate; regulators should treat regulatory-quality reform as complementary to direct climate mandates.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
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:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:16:p:8490-:d:2019167. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.