Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does market-based environmental regulation affect the equity return investors require from regulated firms? This study addresses this question using China’s 2007 SO 2 emissions trading pilot as a quasi-experimental policy setting. Using A-share listed firms in SO 2 -emitting industries from 2003 to 2023, we estimate a difference-in-differences model that compares firms in pilot and non-pilot provinces before and after policy implementation. The baseline results show that the pilot significantly reduces firms’ cost of equity capital, indicating that the policy is associated with a lower required equity return as reflected in . The effect emerges gradually after implementation and remains robust to alternative cost-of-equity measures, alternative policy timing, alternative inference procedures, province-level placebo assignments, an expanded-sample triple-difference specification, entropy-balanced DID estimation, and regional-condition adjustments. Channel tests show that the pilot is associated with lower analyst forecast dispersion and lower idiosyncratic volatility. These patterns are consistent with two parallel financial channels: reduced information uncertainty and lower firm-level risk exposure. Heterogeneity analyses further show that the decline in the cost of equity capital is stronger among firms with greater pre-policy information opacity and risk exposure, in regions with stricter environmental enforcement, and among non-state-owned enterprises. By combining established cost-of-capital, information-risk, and idiosyncratic-risk measures in a unified policy-evaluation framework, this study provides evidence on how a conventional pollutant-rights trading policy is reflected in capital-market pricing in an emerging economy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: