Unraveling the ‘green-default paradox’: Assessing the influence of gender-diverse boards and socially responsible ratings

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

We investigate the 'green-default paradox' and its connection to gender-diverse boards and socially responsible ratings in influencing the relationship between corporate climate change exposure and distance-to-default. Our analysis uses data from 2004 to 2021 across 42 countries, yielding several significant findings. First, our research challenges the 'green-default paradox' by demonstrating that companies with higher climate exposure exhibit a greater distance to default, indicating reduced default risk. Second, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of internal governance factors and external ESG assessments plays a crucial role in moderating this relationship. Specifically, our primary results are more pronounced in firms with greater gender diversity on their boards and higher ESG ratings. Gender-diverse boards signify a company's increased commitment to addressing climate issues, reduced information asymmetry, and improved internal oversight. ESG ratings, serving as an external assessment, reflect a company's exposure to social capital, trust, and a culture focused on stakeholders, all of which suggest enhanced climate risk management. Third, our study reveals a non-linear relationship between climate exposure and distance to default, indicating diminishing benefits beyond a certain exposure threshold.