The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 80 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Importance of Climate Risks for Institutional Investors
Open accessAbstract
Abstract According to our survey about climate risk perceptions, institutional investors believe climate risks have financial implications for their portfolio firms and that these risks, particularly regulatory risks, already have begun to materialize. Many of the investors, especially the long-term, larger, and ESG-oriented ones, consider risk management and engagement, rather than divestment, to be the better approach for addressing climate risks. Although surveyed investors believe that some equity valuations do not fully reflect climate risks, their perceived overvaluations are not large.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
203 Own result · 33 Own interpretation · 32 Sources not found · 28 Own method · 20 No basis given · 19 No full text of the sources · 6 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These results are also similar to the typical anatomy of the engagement sequences analyzed in Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2015), in which engagements most often start with discussions between management and shareholders and then potentially escalate depending on how the initial discussions are received.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 (page unavailable) describes engagement sequences involving Raising Awareness—informing or warning target companies—and Requests for Change, a more stringent step. Section 3.3 (page unavailable) also characterizes Requests for Change as more aggressive. These passages support possible escalation, but they do not establish that engagements most often begin with management–shareholder discussions or that escalation depends on how those initial discussions are received. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“are therefore anticipated to be more involved in monitoring management”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferreira and Matos (2008) source
- Partly supportedcites Dyck et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 says institutional investors can engage with management, and Section 4.2 identifies private engagement as a likely way they push for environmental and social changes. Table 7 separately examines independent institutional investors, but the copy does not say they are expected to monitor management more than other investors. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“have fewer potential business relationships with portfolio firms”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferreira and Matos (2008) source
- Could not verifycites Dyck et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Section 5.6 discuss independent institutional investors’ financial incentives and exposure to social norms, but do not compare their potential business relationships with portfolio firms to those of other institutions. Searches for business relationships, business ties, and conflicts of interest did not locate a passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“independent institutions are more likely to collect information”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ferreira and Matos (2008) source
- Could not verifycites Dyck et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Table 7 discuss independent institutional investors’ effects on firms’ environmental and social performance, not whether those investors collect more information. Searches for “collect information” and related terms found no passage in our copy addressing that comparison; the data-collection description in Section 2.1 concerns the researchers’ data sources. (LLM, conf=0.75)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“institutional investors believe climate risks have financial implications for their portfolio firms”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“The investors believe that climate risks have significant financial implications for portfolio firms.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
boostedn = 439- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our respondents do not view climate risks as a theme of the distant future.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the investors, especially the long-term, larger, and ESG-oriented ones, consider risk management and engagement, rather than divestment, to be the better approach for addressing climate risks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these risks, particularly regulatory risks, already have begun to materialize”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“50% state that climate risks related to regulation have already started to materialize”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that investors that are more concerned about the financial effects of climate risks engage firms along more dimensions.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find the largest percentages of respondents (25% and 21%) consider this stranded asset risk to be very high in the coal and unconventional oil producer sectors, respectively.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 78
- It may state two separate claims as one. 75
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2015) show that engagement on climate risks can enhance shareholder value”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2015) source
Section 6.2 reports positive abnormal returns following successful climate-change engagements and says investors expect the environmental changes to increase firm value. That supports the claim that such engagement can enhance shareholder value; the result is specifically about successful engagements. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“surveyed investors believe that some equity valuations do not fully reflect climate risks, their perceived overvaluations are not large”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Our respondents believe that equity valuations do not fully reflect the risks from climate change, although the overvaluations are not perceived as being very large.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our respondents deem traditional financial risks to be the most important risks they face, followed by operating, governance, and social risks.Climate risks and environmental risks are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plainn = 439- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the vast majority of investors expect a rise in global temperature by the end of this century, and four in ten even predict an increase that exceeds the Paris 2C target.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having discussions with management is cited as the most frequently used channel (43% of respondents used this approach, with 32% proposing specific actions to management on climate risk issues).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“investors take a wide variety of approaches to managing climate risks, with only a small percentage (7%) having chosen no approach to manage their climate risks during the 5 years preceding the survey.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all respondents, only 3% do not expect any temperature increase, 16% expect an increase by up to one degree, and 30% by up to 2C.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.1 Expectations about climate change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most firms responded to the investors' engagements, although a number of the firms simply acknowledged an issue rather than successfully resolving it.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the percentage of relatively confident respondents varies between 36% and 51% with confidence levels being highest among North American respondents.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.1 Expectations about climate change
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Investors also use other forms of climate risk management, such as incorporating climate risks into their valuation models (26%) or hedging against climate risks (25%).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, investors with longer horizons, and institutions with a higher fraction of holdings subject to ESG analysis, also engage in more climate risk management.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“four in ten respondents expect a temperature rise that exceeds the Paris 2C target, with 12% expecting an increase of more than 3C.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.1 Expectations about climate change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the oil sector is considered as the most overvalued sector overall, followed by traditional car manufacturers and electric utilities.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(the differences are statistically significant at the 1% level but relatively small in magnitude)”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Close to 30% of the investors submitted shareholder proposals on climate risk issues, and a similar fraction voted against management on proposals because of climate risk concerns.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the list of 12 possible approaches, the least frequently used tool is to divest problematic portfolio firms, which is employed by 20% of the investors.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fewer than 10% believe that climate risks will materialize only in 10 years or more, whereas 50% state that climate risks related to regulation have already started to materialize.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the two major approaches are to conduct analyses of portfolio firms' carbon footprints and stranded asset risks, which are employed by 38% and 35% of the respondents, respectively.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the investor types that view more underpricing of climate risks are those with a larger share of their portfolios oriented to ESG standards and those that engage portfolio firms along more dimensions”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate risks are ranked fifth, with only other environmental risks, such as air pollution placing sixth.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Purely financial motives also score relatively high, especially the idea that incorporating climate risks is beneficial to returns (25% strongly agree) and reducing portfolio risk (24%) or tail risk (21%).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The table shows that agreement is strongest for two motives: the protection of the investor's reputation (30% strongly agree), which can arise from both financial and nonfinancial motives, and moral/ethical reasons to consider climate risks (27.5%), which would be a purely nonpecuniary motive.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The least frequently used approach is divestment, although there still exists a significant minority of investors (20%) who take this approach.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“29% (23%) of respondents strive to reduce the carbon footprint (stranded asset risk) of their portfolios”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most frequently used current techniques have been analyses of firms' carbon footprints and stranded asset risks, employed by 38% and 35% of the investors, respectively.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The willingness to file a lawsuit because of climate issues is higher among larger institutions but otherwise unrelated to investor characteristics.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.2 Climate risk engagement and investor characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The decision to divest is unrelated to investor characteristics, with the exception that investors with high ESG shares are more likely to exit due to climate concerns.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.2 Climate risk management and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining investors either initiated the next level of engagement (21%) or tried to hedge the risk (23%).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 8 shows that screening is more frequently used by smaller investors and by investors with higher ESG shares”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.2 Climate risk management and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once we use a more complete specification in Column 5, we find that some of the effects weaken, but most of the conclusions remain valid.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.2 Climate risk management and investor characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, the estimates imply that investors with a medium (long) horizon use 0.8 (1) more approaches, a large number relative to the median of three approaches.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.2 Climate risk management and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another important finding is that investors' answers do not reflect precise estimates as substantial uncertainty exists around the mean estimates (standard deviations range between 0.9 and 1.1).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other 1 406 1-8, 10”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In panel A we find only small differences across the subsamples in terms of the importance of climate risks (high-ESG institutions rank climate risks only slightly higher than low-ESG institutions).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 6. Direction of Response Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that stranded asset risks are largest among coal producers, followed by unconventional oil producers (tar sands or fracking).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural gas producers 11.9 2.46 3 370 *** 1-3, 5”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the respondents have taken at least first steps toward managing climate risks, although the two most common approaches (analyses of carbon footprints and stranded asset risks) have been used by less than half of them.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 7. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These beliefs are also reflected in the respondents' climate expectations: the vast majority expect a significant rise in global temperature by the end of this century.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 7. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most common motives provided by the investors are to protect their reputations, moral/legal considerations, and the belief that climate risks affect portfolio risk and returns.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 7. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the magnitude of sector-level mispricing is surprisingly low: the misvaluation of the three most overpriced sectors is around 0.5 only, while the mean across all sectors is 0.38.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Iron and steel producers 11.7 2.40 5 369 *** 1-4”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the responses for most sectors are around 0.4, indicating that although investors believe in widespread overvaluations, they are only modest overvaluations.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional oil producers 16.7 2.64 4 371 *** 1, 4-6”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coal producers 25.1 2.78 3 371 *** 2-6”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our respondents identify opportunities mostly in renewable energy, but also in the areas of water (including water supplies and management), electric vehicles, and technology.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other 3.7 410 1-13 n/a”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unconventional oil producers 21.3 2.69 3 371 *** 1, 4-6”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passive share (x100) | 0.02 | -0.00 | -0.01 | -0.03 | 1.23*** | 0.28 | 0.30”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Oil | 0.52 | 1.03 | 37% | 17 | 3 | 0.59 | 352”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Climate risk engagement 0.13 0.14* 0.18** 0.22* 0.22** 0.27***”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ESG share (x100) -0.30 1.38*** 0.61 1.06 1.78*** 1.57***”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HQ country norms | -0.18* | -0.19* | -0.29 | -0.31* | 0.50 | -0.07 | -0.25”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Renewable energy | 0.31 | 0.98 | -17% | 11 | 3 | 0.30 | 351”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passive share (x100) 2.10*** 2.36*** 1.79*** 2.22*** 0.86 1.39**”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional electricity producers 10.5 2.42 4 371 *** 1-3”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some companies face direct costs related to changes in the climate, originating from extreme weather events or a general rise in sea levels.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ramelli et al. (2019) provide evidence that investors react to political events related to firms' climate strategies.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ramelli et al. (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“archival studies show that better environmental policies are related to lower downside and overall portfolio risk (Hoepner et al. 2019;Gibson Brandon and Krueger 2018).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hoepner et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gibson Brandon and Krueger 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“greater climate risk leads to lower firm leverage with firms decreasing their demand for debt and lenders reducing their lending to firms with the greatest risk (Ginglinger and Moreau 2019)”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ginglinger and Moreau 2019 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 439 survey respondents should be knowledgeable about the role of climate risks for their institutions, as one-third hold executive-level positions in their institutions.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaindirectn = 439- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“studies conclude that firms can lower their cost of capital and increase value by improving their environmental policies (Sharfman and Fernando 2008;Chava 2014;El Ghoul et al. 2018).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, climate change also provides investment opportunities for the portfolio companies and their institutional investors, for instance, in the areas of renewable energy or energy storage.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other companies can be negatively affected from policies and regulations implemented to combat climate change.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A nascent literature in finance provides theoretical and empirical evidence that institutional investors should consider climate risks in their investment decisions.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many market participants, including institutional investors, find climate risks difficult to price and hedge, possibly because of their systematic nature, a lack of disclosure by portfolio firms, and challenges in finding suitable hedging instruments.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“integrating climate risks into the investment process can prove to be challenging, with investment tools and best practices not yet well established.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technological innovations related to climate change also threaten the business models of some portfolio firms that operate in traditional industries.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Jagannathan, Ravikumar, and Sammon (2019) argue that investors can reduce portfolio risk by incorporating climate criteria into their investment processes”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jagannathan, Ravikumar, and Sammon (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then programmed an online version with random orderings of response choices.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we revised the survey based on the feedback from two referees, several academics, and practitioners.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the ranking across risks appears in line with the focus on traditional investment risks in most of the finance literature.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our respondent group is likely biased toward investors with a relatively high awareness of climate risks, and possibly with higher credentials in climate risk management.”
- Also stated in: § 1.4 Response bias · hedged
“Overall, our respondent group is potentially biased toward investors with a relatively high awareness of ESG topics and relatively higher credentials in climate risk management.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1.4 Response bias · hedged
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet Appendix Table 3 shows that respondents that expect a stronger increase in temperatures also believe that climate change will have larger consequences for firms, which indicates internal validity across responses for some of the key climate variables we collected.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.1 Expectations about climate change
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We use distribution-type fixed effects in all of our subsequent regression analyses to account for systematic differences in the responses across the four distribution channels.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3235190
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We then presented the survey instrument at a conference at Columbia University. After this event, we further revised the survey based on feedback by a discussant and conference participants.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“understanding the views and actions of such investors is particularly important, because they are more likely to shape corporate climate policies and to guide future practices of integrating climate issues into investment management.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used an iterative process for developing the survey.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To mitigate this concern, we guaranteed anonymity, did not ask for names or employers, and collected only limited information on the respondents' institutions.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.4 Response bias
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Painter (2019) shows that climate change considerations affect municipal bond prices.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Painter (2019) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The large heterogeneity across investors suggests that the industry is still in the process of finding the most effective ways to manage climate risks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The latter reduces free-rider concerns and implies stronger engagement incentives (Dimson, Karakaş, and Li 2018).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dimson, Karakaş, and Li 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although Murfin and Spiegel (2019) reach the opposite conclusion in their analysis.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Murfin and Spiegel (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitations of this approach are that we are unable to link the survey responses to the institutions' portfolio holdings and that some of the collected investor characteristics may be too coarse to allow us to obtain significant results in our cross-sectional tests.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.4 Response bias
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recent asset pricing models highlight the importance of climate risks as a long-run risk factor (Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku 2017).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also have an oversampling of large investors.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.4 Response bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We compare the FactSet population of institutional investors to our sampled population and find that pension funds and banks are somewhat overrepresented in our sample (see Internet Appendix Figure 1).In contrast, mutual funds and asset managers are somewhat underrepresented.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.4 Response bias
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These expectations suggest that many of our respondents view very damaging climate scenarios to be likely, which implies that at least some of our respondents should have deep concerns about the effects of climate change on their portfolios.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.1 Expectations about climate change
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we had a professional survey designer review the wording, the ordering of the questions, and the length of the survey.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This potential sampling bias is reflected in our respondents' high average ESG share of 41%, which exceeds the percentages reported in other studies.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.4 Response bias
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Amel-Zadeh and Serafeim (2018) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such investors are probably more disposed to participate in a climate risk survey.In addition, some of our responses were obtained at ESG conferences.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“green bonds have become increasingly important (Baker et al. 2018;Flammer 2018;Tang and Zhang 2018;Zerbib 2019).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We eliminated 90 responses in this process leaving 320 responses of good quality.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.2 Survey delivery
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also ran beta tests with practitioners to ensure the wording and questions would be clear.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 1.1 Survey development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gibson Brandon and Krueger (2018) find that institutional investors' environmental policies change after extreme weather events”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gibson Brandon and Krueger (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Another form of risk management would be to avoid problematic firms as pointed out theoretically by Heinkel, Kraus, and Zechner (2001) and empirically tested by Fernando, Sharfman, and Uysal (2017).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“although others argue that they are difficult to hedge in practice (CISL 2015).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CISL 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“possibly because such investors are more exposed to externalities from climate change.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.3 Investors' climate risk perceptions and investor characteristics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) and Engle et al. (2019) show that in principle investors can hedge climate risks”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Engle et al. (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relatively small number of investors who choose divestment informs the debate regarding whether divestment or engagement is the more effective method for reducing climate risk.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which could be influenced to some extent by our sample selection.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Hong and Kostovetsky (2012), for instance, show that political preferences of investment managers predict their investments in socially responsible stocks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hong and Kostovetsky (2012) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hedging against climate risks requires not only understanding the fundamentally long-lived risk of climate change, but also dealing with the difficulty of identifying shocks, the proper horizon, and identifying the assets that correlate with the outcomes”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings support the implication that long-term investors should be more concerned about climate risks than shorter-term investors.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.3 Investors' climate risk perceptions and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Bénabou and Tirole (2010) propose several views on firm managements' motivations to engage in corporate social responsibility.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bénabou and Tirole (2010) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“One view is that institutional investors take a long-term view and seek to maximize inter-temporal profits.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bénabou and Tirole (2010) source
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A related view posits that investment managers consider climate risks because it benefits them at the expense of their beneficiaries (Bénabou and Tirole 2010).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bénabou and Tirole 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that there does not exist an overwhelming dominant approach could reflect the immaturity of the developed approaches to climate risks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which is consistent with the main investment thesis of ESG oriented investors.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.3 Investors' climate risk perceptions and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which is consistent with the idea that such investors bear greater costs related to climate change.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.3 Investors' climate risk perceptions and investor characteristics
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As Giglio et al. (2018) point out, climate change constitutes “a rare event with potentially devastating consequences for the economy.””
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Giglio et al. (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With regard to climate risks, this view implies that incorporating these risks into the investment process is beneficial, because of higher returns or lower risks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, our numbers indicate that the respondents consider climate risks to matter for their institutions' short-term as well as their long-term assets.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.2 Importance of climate risks
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Gibson Brandon and Krueger (2018) and Hoepner et al. (2019) use archival data in support of this view”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 2.4 Motives for incorporating climate risks
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gibson Brandon and Krueger (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Hoepner et al. (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2018) study coordination in shareholder engagement on ESG issues.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dimson, Karakaş, and Li (2018) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As Marcel Jeucken, managing director of responsible investment at PGGM observed, “if we divest, other investors will buy the stock and nothing will change” (see Nicholls 2015).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nicholls 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) source
boosteddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Litterman (2011) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Litterman (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The measure passed in 2017 with 62% of the vote.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A proposal at Exxon Mobil, for example, asked management to examine and disclose how climate risks would affect the company in the future.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) source
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These costs include reduced diversification, ongoing compliance costs, and transaction costs.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 3.1 Approaches to climate risk management
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bessembinder's (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These numbers are consistent with a recent trend of successful shareholder proposals at oil companies.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.1 Approaches to and success rates of climate risk engagements
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While investors have already started to integrate climate risks, the industry as a whole is still at early stages of incorporating these risks into their investment processes.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 7. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“McGlade and Ekins (2015), for example, estimate that one-third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves, and over 80% of coal reserves must remain unused until 2050 if countries are to meet the targets stipulated in the Paris climate agreement.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McGlade and Ekins (2015) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such expectations indicate that at least a significant proportion of our respondents should have deep concerns about the effects of climate change on their portfolios.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 7. Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we directly asked about misvaluations related to climate change, a caveat to our approach is that some respondents' opinions might reflect their views of general industry misvaluations at the time of the survey.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather the scores indicate that investors believe valuations are somewhat too high, which suggests an aggregate investor belief of climate risk underpricing.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries Recent research suggests that climate risks can significantly affect equity markets.In Bansal, Ochoa, and Kiku (2017) rising temperatures negatively affect the economy by increasing economic risk and reducing growth.Daniel, Litterman, and Wagner (2017) calibrate the price of climate risk and suggest that potentially large deadweight costs exist from delays in climate change mitigation.In a similar spirit, Litterman (2011) argues that carbon emissions should be priced at high levels immediately, primarily due to the risk of catastrophic damages.In line with these approaches, Andersson, Bolton, and Samama (2016a) assume that markets overvalue carbon-intensive assets to derive hedging strategies.Empirical evidence supporting the mispricing of climate risks exists as well.For example, Hong, Li, and Xu (2019) conclude that the exposure of food stocks to drought risks are incorrectly valued by markets.Similarly, Kumar, Xin, and Zhang (2019) present evidence that firms' exposures to climate risks predict returns, which implies that stock markets misprice climate risks.On the other hand, through their theoretical analysis, Bansal, Kiku, and Ochoa (2017) show that equity portfolios have negative exposures to long-run temperature fluctuations, which suggests that financial markets may be able to price climate risks at least to some extent.13 We are able to contribute additional findings to this limited, and somewhat mixed, evidence through questioning our investors directly in order to understand the extent to which they believe that stock markets price climate risks correctly.To examine investor beliefs on this issue, we asked the participants whether they believe that current equity valuations correctly reflect the risks and opportunities related to climate change (Question C1).As the exposure to climate risks likely varies across the economy, we asked for their beliefs across a range of industries.This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.The degree to which climate risks are not recognized in valuations could vary by sector with some sectors expected to be overvalued (e.g., the oil or coal sectors) and other sectors expected to be undervalued (e.g., battery producers or water utilities).This approach is supported by the prior research that indicates climate risks are likely to vary across industries, depending on factors such as carbon emissions or stranded assets (see Krueger 2015).Because of space and time constraints for our participants, the survey does not cover all industries but only those for which prior analysis indicates that climate change is likely to have a large effect (Mercer 2015).As estimates about mispricing are uncertain, we take a Bayesian approach and allow respondents to specify the confidence in their estimates (Question C2).This enables us to 13 See Hjort (2016) for a review of earlier climate risk papers. evaluate how results change once we put more weight on the responses accompanied with higher confidence levels.That is, some respondents may provide more informed estimates given their level of information.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondent position FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes”
- Also stated in: § about ECGI · plain
“Distribution channel FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § about ECGI · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“t-statistics (reported in parentheses) are based on standard errors that are clustered at the investor-country level.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 10 (continued)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“T-statistics (reported in parentheses) are based on standard errors that are clustered at the investor-country level.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean misvaluation score across all sectors of the economy is likely to be lower, as the sectors we selected for our survey are probably more affected by climate change than the sectors that we did not include.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sectors selected for the survey are more affected by climate change than the sectors not included.
The paper relies on this without support.
Institutional investors act as marginal investors and thereby affect equity prices.
“Understanding institutional investors' perceptions of any potential mispricing is particularly relevant as they likely act as marginal investors, thereby affecting equity prices.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Survey respondents answered truthfully and their responses accurately reflect their institutions' beliefs and actions.
“Any survey faces the risk that respondents answer strategically or untruthfully.”
“We are unable to fully assess the potential response bias in our sample, such as how our responses would change if we had a random set of investors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Climate risks may cause some sectors to be overvalued and others to be undervalued.
“To achieve meaningful responses, we employ a sector-level approach including both directions of mispricing, as climate risks may cause some sectors to be overvalued and others to be undervalued.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is unclear to what extent investors consider climate risks important relative to other risks, and whether they incorporate climate risks into investment decisions at all.
“However, it is unclear to what extent investors consider climate risks to be important in their investment decisions relative to other risks, and even whether they incorporate climate risks into those decisions at all.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Managing climate risks poses challenges to institutional investors because of difficulties in pricing and hedging these risks.
“Managing climate risks poses challenges to institutional investors because of difficulties in pricing and hedging these risks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are few generally agreed upon methodologies as to how climate risks could and should be managed.
“In addition, there are few generally agreed upon methodologies as to how climate risks could and should be managed.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Although one usually assumes that physical risks mostly materialize over the longer term, regulatory risks can have a much shorter time frame.
“Although one usually assumes that physical risks mostly materialize over the longer term, regulatory risks can have a much shorter time frame.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Climate risks are increasingly a controversial topic at annual shareholder meetings.
“Climate risks are increasingly a controversial topic at annual shareholder meetings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The academic literature on climate risk management at this point is still in early stages.
“The academic literature on climate risk management at this point is still in early stages”
The paper relies on this without support.
Climate change is likely to generate winners as well.
“However, climate change is likely to generate winners as well.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many of those concerned about climate risks consider stranded assets to be a particularly significant risk for investors.
“Many of those concerned about climate risks consider stranded assets to be a particularly significant risk for investors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The direction of mispricing is not known.
“This sector approach, with both directions of mispricing, is critical because the direction of mispricing is not known.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Respondents with more sophisticated tools would have been more likely to participate in the survey.
“We note that respondents with more sophisticated tools would have been more likely to participate in the survey.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sectors selected for the survey are more affected by climate change than the sectors not included.
“the sectors we selected for our survey are probably more affected by climate change than the sectors that we did not include”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There is no single motivation that drives investors' choice of incorporating ESG considerations in their portfolio allocation decisions.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent empirical studies (such as Dimson et al., 2021;Krueger et al., 2020;Naaraayanan et al., 2020) provide support for engagement as a way to generate societal impact.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al., 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on a survey about climate risk perceptions, Krueger et al. (2020) document that institutional investors consider climate and environmental risks as having lower relative importance compared to traditional financial risks for their portfolio decisions, while at the same time having significant financial implications for the portfolio firms.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These investors have a general expectation that incorporating ESG issues in their investment decisions will result in lower risk or higher returns, whether through portfolio selection or firm engagement”
From Presidential Address: Sustainable Finance and ESG Issues— Value versus Values (2023) · cites this paper as Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As has been pointed out previously (e.g., Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2020)), climate risk is difficult to assess, primarily due to insufficient disclosure.”
From Presidential Address: Sustainable Finance and ESG Issues— Value versus Values (2023) · cites this paper as Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recently, institutions increasingly include explicit commitments to ESG issues in their mandates, often initiating ESG-related shareholder engagement and demanding higher standards on corporate ESG disclosure (see, e.g., Dyck, Lins, Roth, and Wagner (2019), Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2020), Barko, Cremers, and Renneboog (2021), Ilhan, Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2023), and Hoepner, Oikonomou,”
From Sustainability Preferences Under Stress: Evidence from COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as Krueger, Sautner, and Starks (2020)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Krueger et al. (2020) document in their survey on institutional investors that reputation, moral or ethical considerations, legal/fiduciary duties, as well as financial motives stand behind the decision to incorporate climate risk in portfolio decisions.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and that their actions can generate positive social impact through engagement”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al., 2020
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, recent empirical studies caution against its effectiveness in generating the intended impact.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Further, there is no dominating motive behind investors' perspectives on incorporating environmental concerns in their portfolio decisions.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“They argue that institutional investors appear to be guided by reputation protection incentives, moral or ethical considerations, and their fiduciary duties.”
From A review on ESG investing: Investors' expectations, beliefs and perceptions (2024) · cites this paper as Krueger et al. (2020)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 4.2 Climate risk engagement and investor characteristics
“Moreover, the investors that are more concerned about the financial effects of climate risks, and those that expect them to materialize earlier, are more likely to vote against management.”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > about ECGI
“| Climate risk horizon | | -0.25 | | | -0.15 | 0.01 | -0.22** | 0.21** | -0.09 |”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Question B1
“Active approaches This variable counts the number of active approaches used (shareholder proposals, negative/exclusionary screening, reducing carbon footprint, divestment, reducing stranded asset risk, and/or hedging).”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
“(9) Hedging against climate risk 24.6 410 1-4, 13-14 Passive”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > 5. Pricing of Climate Risks across Industries
“However, the average response is 2.73 (out of 4),”
§ The importance of climate risks for institutional investors > Table 2 (continued)
“(1) Coal producers 25.1 2.78 3 371 *** 2-6”
Citations
Cites
The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field
Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00044-7 · Cited by 5,951
WHAT'S IN A NAME? REPUTATION BUILDING AND CORPORATE STRATEGY.
Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. T. (1990) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256324 · Cited by 5,429
Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865
Do Investors Care about Carbon Risk?
Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. T. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3398441 · Cited by 3,380
Do Investors Care about Carbon Risk?
Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008 · Cited by 3,380
Flammer, C. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3125518 · Cited by 2,901
Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence
Dyck, A., Lins, K. V., Roth, L., & Wagner, H. F. (2019) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.08.013 · Cited by 2,547
Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility
BÉNABOU, R., & TIROLE, J. (2010) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.x · Cited by 2,237
The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world
Ferreira, M. A., & Matos, P. (2008) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.003 · Cited by 1,975
Environmental externalities and cost of capital
Chava, S. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1863 · Cited by 1,851
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Barko,, 2019, Shareholder engagement on environmental, social, and governance performance
- Bessembinder,, 2017, Fossil fuel divestment and its potential impacts on students, faculty and other university and pension stakeholders
- 2016, Adapting portfolios to climate change Implications and strategies for all investors
- 2017, How BlackRock Investment Stewardship engages on climate risk
- 2015, Unhedgeable risk: How climate change sentiment impacts investment
- Carney,, 2015, Breaking the tragedy of the horizon-climate change and financial stability
- 2016, Article 173-VI: Understanding the French regulation on investor climate reporting
- Karolyi,, 2017, The economic consequences of investor relations: A global perspective
- Litterman,, 2013, The other reason for divestment, Ensia Magazine
- 2015, Investing in a time of climate change
- 2017, Investing in climate, investing in growth
- 2017, Final report—Recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Do Investors Care about Carbon Risk?
Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008 · Cited by 3,380
Flammer, C. (2018) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010 · Cited by 2,907
Sustainable investing in equilibrium
Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2021) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.12.011 · Cited by 2,226
Firm‐Level Climate Change Exposure
Sautner, Z., van Lent, L., Vilkov, G., & ZHANG, R. (2023) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.13219 · Cited by 1,425
Self-citationSustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty
Avramov, D., Cheng, S., Lioui, A., & Tarelli, A. (2022) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.009 · Cited by 1,349
Metadata
- Authors
- Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Frankfurt School of Finance & Management (DE)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sautner, Zacharias
- Venue
- The Review of Financial Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-02-14
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1067-1111
- ISSN
- 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7368
- OpenAlex
- W2906323621
- Cited by
- 3,034
- References
- 101
- Citations by year
- 2026: 820 · 2025: 699 · 2024: 534 · 2023: 403 · 2022: 279 · 2021: 185 · 2020: 63
- FWCI
- 167.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Review of Financial Studies (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Sustainable Finance and Green Bonds
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- climate risk, institutional investors, climate risk perception, regulatory risk, ESG investing, long-term investors, climate risk management, shareholder engagement, divestiture, stock valuation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
