Green Bonds vs Regular Bonds: Debt Level and Corporate Performance

Abstract

This paper compares the effectiveness of traditional and green bonds on corporate performance among global companies issuing these types of bonds. Our research represents a first attempt to provide an original empirical contribution with a specific focus on the influence of green debt levels on corporate performance.

We develop a framework to analyze the influence of debt levels on corporate performance and compare the effects of issuing various types of bonds on several indicators of corporate performance.

Our data cover 118 companies from various industries and countries, including 17 companies issuing green bonds during the period from 2013 to 2017. We study the impact of debt levels on standard corporate performance indicators such as ROA, ROE, Revenue/Assets, EBITDA/Assets, and EBIT/Assets.

Our results show that bond issuance has a positive effect on corporate performance. In particular, the relationship between debt levels and corporate performance follows a nonlinear pattern (an inverse U-shape), meaning that as debt levels increase, corporate performance improves up to a certain point where the largest positive effect is reached. Moreover, we find that issuing green bonds has a larger positive impact on corporate efficiency than traditional bonds, and growth in the share of green financing in the company’s total debt positively affects corporate performance.

This study opens avenues for further research in the field. Combining our approach to evaluating the effect of green bonds on corporate performance with an examination of companies categorized by their life cycle stage would be particularly intriguing. However, at the current stage of development of the green bonds market, it is impossible to study their influence on corporate performance in depth due to the small sample size and the recent emergence of this market.

About the authors

E. Agliardi

Author for correspondence.
Email: elettra.agliardi@unibo.it

V. Chechulin

Email: vitalii.chechulin@ru.ey.com

References

  1. Agliardi E. How can we "Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact" (UN SDG N. 13) under ambiguity aversion? European Journal of Sustainable Development Research. 2018;2(2):21. doi: 10.20897/ejosdr/85339.
  2. ESG factors in investing. PwC. 2019. URL: https://www.pwc.ru/ru/sustainability/assets/pwc-responsible-investment.pdf (In Russ.).
  3. Green bond market summary. Climate Bonds Initiatives. Feb. 2020. URL: https://www.climatebonds.net/system/tdf/reports/2019_annual_highlights-final.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=46731&force=0.
  4. Popova S., Karlova N., Ponomarenko A., Deryugina E. Analysis of the debt burden in the sectors of the Russian economy. Bank of Russia. Economic Research Report Series. 2018;(29). URL: https://publications.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/direct/229577174.pdf (In Russ.).
  5. Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976;3(4):305-360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
  6. Dybvig P. H., Ross S. A. Arbitrage, state prices and portfolio theory. In: Constantinides G. M., Harris M., Stulz R. M., eds. Handbook of the economics of finance. 2003;1(Pt. B):605-637.
  7. Harris M., Raviv A. Capital structure and the informational role of debt. The Journal of Finance. 1990;45(2):321-349. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb03693.x.
  8. Vijayakumaran R., Vijayakumaran S. Leverage, debt maturity and corporate performance: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Asian Economic and Financial Review. 2019;9(4):491-506. doi: 10.18488/journal.aefr.2019.94.491.506.
  9. Abor J. The effect of capital structure on profitability: An empirical analysis of listed firms in Ghana. Journal of Risk Finance. 2005;6(5):438-445. doi: 10.1108/15265940510633505.
  10. Vijayakumaran R. Capital structure decisions, agency conflicts and corporate performance: Evidence from Sri Lankan listed manufacturing firms. International Journal of Accounting & Business Finance. 2015;1(1):1-14. URL: http://www.maco.jfn.ac.lk/ijabf/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/vol1_issue1_1.pdf.
  11. Flammer C. Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science. 2015;61(11):2549-2568. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038.
  12. Hart S. L., Ahuja G. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 1996;5(1):30-37. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199603)5:1<30::AID-BSE38>3.0.CO;2-Q.
  13. Christmann P. Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy. The Academy of Management Journal. 2004;47(5):747-760. doi: 10.5465/20159616.
  14. Darnall N., Jolley G. J., Ytterhus B. Understanding the relationship between a facility's environmental and financial performance. In: Johnstone N., ed. Environmental policy and corporate behaviour. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.; 2007:213-259.
  15. Bansal P. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal. 2005;26(3):197-218. doi: 10.1002/smj.441.
  16. Della Croce R., Kaminker C., Stewart F. The role of pension funds in financing green growth initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions. 2011;(10). URL: http://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/49016671.pdf.
  17. Zerbib O. D. Is there a green bond premium? The yield differential between green and conventional bonds. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2016:2889690. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2889690.
  18. Agliardi E., Agliardi R. Financing environmentally sustainable projects with green bonds. Environment and Development Economics. 2019;24(6):608-623. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X19000020.
  19. Strebulaev I. A. Do tests of capital structure theory mean what they say? The Journal of Finance. 2007;62(4):1747-1787. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01256.x.
  20. Myers S. C., Majluf N. S. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics. 1984;13(2):187-221. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0.
  21. Baskin J. An empirical investigation of the pecking order hypothesis. Financial Management. 1989;18(1):26-35. doi: 10.2307/3665695.
  22. Calomiris C. W., Hubbard R. G. Internal finance and investment: Evidence from the undistributed profits tax of 1936-1937. NBER Working Paper. 1993;(4288). URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4288.pdf.
  23. Datta D. K., Guthrie J. P., Wright P. M. Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? The Academy of Management Journal. 2005;48(1):135-145. doi: 10.2307/20159645.
  24. Pagano M., Volpin P. F. Managers, workers, and corporate control. The Journal of Finance. 2005;60(2):841-868. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00748.x.
  25. Mina A., Lahr H., Hughes A. The demand and supply of external finance for innovative firms. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2013;22(4):869-901. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtt020.
  26. Tian L., Estrin S. Debt financing, soft budget constraints, and government ownership: Evidence from China. Economics of Transition. 2007;15(3):461-481. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0351.2007.00292.x.
  27. King A. A., Lenox M. J. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2001;5(1):105-116. doi: 10.1162/108819801753358526.
  28. Lassala C., Apetrei A., Sapena J. Sustainability matter and financial performance of companies. Sustainability. 2017;9(9):1498. doi: 10.3390/su9091498.
  29. Miroshnychenko I., Barontini R., Testa F. Green practices and financial performance: A global outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;147:340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.058.
  30. Aguilera-Caracuel J., Ortiz-de-Mandojana N. Green innovation and financial performance: An institutional approach. Organization & Environment. 2013;26(4):365-385. doi: 10.1177/1086026613507931.
  31. Van der Laan G., Van Ees H., Van Witteloostuijn A. Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008;79(3):299-310. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2020 Agliardi E., Chechulin V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.