中国绿色信贷政策落实了吗——基于“两高一剩”企业贷款规模和成本的分析
|
摘要
以原银监会2012年出台的《绿色信贷指引》为准自然实验,利用2007-2017年间A股上市公司数据,采用双重差分模型,从企业视角考察了中国商业银行是否落实了绿色信贷政策。实证研究结果表明:《绿色信贷指引》出台后,相比其他企业,"两高一剩"企业的贷款规模显著降低了,同时贷款成本显著提高了。进一步的调节效应检验表明:相比国有企业,非国有"两高一剩"企业受《绿色信贷指引》的抑制作用更大;在市场化水平越低的地区,"两高一剩"企业的贷款规模受《绿色信贷指引》的抑制作用更大;融资需求越高的企业,《绿色信贷指引》对其贷款规模的抑制作用越大,但削弱了对贷款成本的提高作用。
Taking the"Green Credit Guidelines"issued by the former China Banking Regulatory Commission in 2012 as the quasi-natural experiment, this paper makes use of the data of A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2017 and employs the double-difference model to examine from a corporate perspective whether Chinese commercial banks have implemented green credit policies. The results of the empirical research show that after the introduction of the" Green Credit Guidelines",compared with other enterprises, the loan scale of the" two high and one surplus" enterprises has been significantly reduced, while the loan cost has increased significantly. The results of further adjustment effect test show that compared with the state-owned enterprises, the non-state-owned" two high and one surplus" enterprises are more inhibited by the"Green Credit Guidelines"; in areas with lower marketization levels, the loan scale of the"two high and one surplus"enterprises is even more inhibited by the"Green Credit Guidelines"; the higher the financing demand, the greater the inhibition of the"Green Credit Guidelines"on its loan size, but it weakens the effect of the loan cost.
Taking the"Green Credit Guidelines"issued by the former China Banking Regulatory Commission in 2012 as the quasi-natural experiment, this paper makes use of the data of A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2017 and employs the double-difference model to examine from a corporate perspective whether Chinese commercial banks have implemented green credit policies. The results of the empirical research show that after the introduction of the" Green Credit Guidelines",compared with other enterprises, the loan scale of the" two high and one surplus" enterprises has been significantly reduced, while the loan cost has increased significantly. The results of further adjustment effect test show that compared with the state-owned enterprises, the non-state-owned" two high and one surplus" enterprises are more inhibited by the"Green Credit Guidelines"; in areas with lower marketization levels, the loan scale of the"two high and one surplus"enterprises is even more inhibited by the"Green Credit Guidelines"; the higher the financing demand, the greater the inhibition of the"Green Credit Guidelines"on its loan size, but it weakens the effect of the loan cost.
引文
[1]史丹.中国工业绿色发展的理论与实践———兼论十九大深化绿色发展的政策选择[J].当代财经, 2018,(1):3-11.
[2]唐国平,李龙会,吴德军.环境管制、行业属性与企业环保投资[J].会计研究, 2013,(6):83-89.
[3]沈洪涛,马正彪.地区经济发展压力、企业环境表现与债务融资[J].金融研究, 2014,(2):153-166.
[4]Labatt S., White R. R.. Environmental Finance:A Guide to Environmental Risk Assessment and Financial Products[M]. New Jersey:John Wiley&Sons, Inc., 2002.
[5]叶勇飞.“绿色信贷”的“赤道”之旅[J].环境保护, 2008,(7):46-48.
[6]张秀生,李子明.“绿色信贷”执行效率与地方政府行为[J].经济问题, 2009,(3):87-90.
[7]蔡海静,许慧.市场化进程、环境信息披露与绿色信贷[J].财经论丛, 2011,(5):79-85.
[8]连莉莉.绿色信贷影响企业债务融资成本吗?———基于绿色企业与“两高”企业的对比研究[J].金融经济学研究,2015,(5):83-93.
[9]蒋先玲,徐鹤龙.中国商业银行绿色信贷运行机制研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境, 2016,(5):490-492.
[10]王凤荣,王康仕.“绿色”政策与绿色金融配置效率———基于中国制造业上市公司的实证研究[J].财经科学, 2018,(5):1-14.
[11]Thompson P., Cowton C. J.. Bringing the Environment into Bank Lending:Implications for Environmental Reporting[J].British Accounting Review, 2004, 36(2):197-218.
[12]Aintablian S., Mcgraw P. A., Roberts G. S.. Bank Monitoring and Environmental Risk[J]. Journal of Business Finance&Accounting, 2007, 34(1-2):389-401.
[13]叶康涛,张然,徐浩萍.声誉、制度环境与债务融资———基于中国民营上市公司的证据[J].金融研究, 2010,(8):171-183.
[14]倪娟,孔令文.环境信息披露、银行信贷决策与债务融资成本——来自我国沪深两市A股重污染行业上市公司的经验证据[J].经济评论, 2016,(1):147-156.
[15]石大千,丁海,卫平.智慧城市建设能否降低环境污染[J].中国工业经济, 2018,(6):117-135.
[16]孟庆玺,宫晓云,林恺.“限房令”可以促进企业技术创新吗?———基于中央企业的准自然实验[J].财经研究,2018,(9):95-108.
[17]谭劲松,陈艳艳,谭燕.地方上市企业数量、经济影响力与企业长期借款———来自我国A股市场的经验数据[J].中国会计评论, 2010,(1):31-52.
[18]孙铮,刘凤委,李增泉.市场化程度、政府干预与企业债务期限结构———来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J].经济研究, 2005,(5):52-63.
[19]朱晨赫,杨筝,程晨.地方政府债务与企业创新———基于省级面板数据和国务院43号文件的实证研究[J].当代财经, 2018,(8):77-89.
[2]唐国平,李龙会,吴德军.环境管制、行业属性与企业环保投资[J].会计研究, 2013,(6):83-89.
[3]沈洪涛,马正彪.地区经济发展压力、企业环境表现与债务融资[J].金融研究, 2014,(2):153-166.
[4]Labatt S., White R. R.. Environmental Finance:A Guide to Environmental Risk Assessment and Financial Products[M]. New Jersey:John Wiley&Sons, Inc., 2002.
[5]叶勇飞.“绿色信贷”的“赤道”之旅[J].环境保护, 2008,(7):46-48.
[6]张秀生,李子明.“绿色信贷”执行效率与地方政府行为[J].经济问题, 2009,(3):87-90.
[7]蔡海静,许慧.市场化进程、环境信息披露与绿色信贷[J].财经论丛, 2011,(5):79-85.
[8]连莉莉.绿色信贷影响企业债务融资成本吗?———基于绿色企业与“两高”企业的对比研究[J].金融经济学研究,2015,(5):83-93.
[9]蒋先玲,徐鹤龙.中国商业银行绿色信贷运行机制研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境, 2016,(5):490-492.
[10]王凤荣,王康仕.“绿色”政策与绿色金融配置效率———基于中国制造业上市公司的实证研究[J].财经科学, 2018,(5):1-14.
[11]Thompson P., Cowton C. J.. Bringing the Environment into Bank Lending:Implications for Environmental Reporting[J].British Accounting Review, 2004, 36(2):197-218.
[12]Aintablian S., Mcgraw P. A., Roberts G. S.. Bank Monitoring and Environmental Risk[J]. Journal of Business Finance&Accounting, 2007, 34(1-2):389-401.
[13]叶康涛,张然,徐浩萍.声誉、制度环境与债务融资———基于中国民营上市公司的证据[J].金融研究, 2010,(8):171-183.
[14]倪娟,孔令文.环境信息披露、银行信贷决策与债务融资成本——来自我国沪深两市A股重污染行业上市公司的经验证据[J].经济评论, 2016,(1):147-156.
[15]石大千,丁海,卫平.智慧城市建设能否降低环境污染[J].中国工业经济, 2018,(6):117-135.
[16]孟庆玺,宫晓云,林恺.“限房令”可以促进企业技术创新吗?———基于中央企业的准自然实验[J].财经研究,2018,(9):95-108.
[17]谭劲松,陈艳艳,谭燕.地方上市企业数量、经济影响力与企业长期借款———来自我国A股市场的经验数据[J].中国会计评论, 2010,(1):31-52.
[18]孙铮,刘凤委,李增泉.市场化程度、政府干预与企业债务期限结构———来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J].经济研究, 2005,(5):52-63.
[19]朱晨赫,杨筝,程晨.地方政府债务与企业创新———基于省级面板数据和国务院43号文件的实证研究[J].当代财经, 2018,(8):77-89.