Revenue Alignment with the EU Taxonomy Regulation

Bassen, Alexander; Kordsachia, Othar; Tan, Weiqiang; Lopatta, Kerstin

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4100617

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, two working papers are worth mentioning in the context of this survey. Specific to revenue Alignment, Bassen, Kordsachia, Lopatta and Tan (2022) demonstrate that higher Alignment correlates with positive stock market effects, especially if the EU Taxonomy related performance is higher than existing ESG ratings. Complementarily, Sautner, Yu, Zhon and Zhou (2022) find that firms with higher revenue Alignment paid lower interest rates on the syndicated loan market.…”

Section: The First Data Vendor Survey: Designmentioning

confidence: 86%

EU Green Taxonomy Data – A First Vendor Survey

Hoepner

Schneider

2022

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The First Data Vendor Survey: Designmentioning

confidence: 86%

EU Green Taxonomy Data – A First Vendor Survey

Hoepner

Schneider

2022

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, commentators have speculated that the TCFD framework is likely to be impactful (in contrast to other sustainability related reporting frameworks) as it has “regulatory teeth” (Coen et al, 2022, p. 12). And scholars have called for widespread mandating of TCFD reporting (Bassen et al, 2022). However, organizational impediments associated to the production and dissemination of risk information are not easy to resolve.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symbol or substance? Scrutinizing the ‘risk transparency premise’ in marketized sustainable finance: The case of TCFD reporting

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary forms of “marketized” sustainable finance rely on the production, dissemination, and consumption of financialized ESG risk information. In this paper, we scrutinize this “risk transparency premise” in context of the TCFD's climate risk reporting framework. Adopting the lens of institutional theory and a mixed methods approach, we pursue two interrelated aims. First, we examine to which extent the climate risk disclosures of TCFD “supporters” from the European financial sector adhere to the information requirements spelled out in the TCFD framework. Second, we seek to uncover the organization level impediments that underlie substantive implementation of the TCFD framework and, in turn, the production and dissemination of the required climate risk information. Based on our findings, we argue that TCFD/climate risk reporting is prone to become a ‘ceremonial’ practice and that, at least as of now, the ‘institutional myth’ of risk transparency might rather serve to safeguard the ideals of the market as opposed to facilitate transformative change towards a more environmentally sustainable economy. Our findings complement research that has problematized contemporary forms of marketized sustainable finance as well as literature on climate risk reporting and TCFD more specifically.

show abstract