Author
Listed:
- Bilal Haider Subhani
- Shen Zunhuan
- An Pengbei
Abstract
This study explores the supporting dynamics of the trade‐off notion and Porter's win–win hypothesis by conducting an empirical analysis between corporate climate investments (CCI) and strategic financial management approaches. For this purpose, we consider Chinese A‐shares listed corporations from 2010 to 2022. Utilizing a two‐step system generalized method of moment (GMM) for regression analysis; the findings reveal an inverse relationship between CCI and debt financing approach (DFA) because financial institutions incorporate environmental risks into their lending decisions, leading to higher interest rates that deter corporations from leveraging debt. However, a notable and positive correlation exists between the CCI and the equity financing approach (EFA). This relationship arises because investments in climate‐related initiatives significantly enhance a corporation's public image, demonstrating its commitment to environmental sustainability and social responsibility. Such actions foster investor goodwill and trust, aligning with broader sustainable development goals. Consequently, this alignment renders the EFA increasingly appealing to investors. These findings highlight the strategic importance of CCI in contemporary corporate finance, underlining their twofold capacity to foster corporate and environmental sustainability. Moreover, this study challenges the traditional Trade‐off paradigm, which posits that companies must choose between environmental sustainability and economic performance. In contrast, it supports Porter's win–win hypothesis, advocating for an integrated corporate strategy that aligns environmental and economic sustainability, highlighting the potential for businesses to achieve both objectives simultaneously.
Suggested Citation
Bilal Haider Subhani & Shen Zunhuan & An Pengbei, 2025.
"Corporate Climate Investments and Their Impact on Financing Decisions: Evidence From Leading Firms in the Brown Economy,"
Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(7), pages 3895-3913, October.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:7:p:3895-3913
DOI: 10.1002/mde.4561
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:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:7:p:3895-3913. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.