Determinants of coal exit strategy in the banking industry
- By Benoît Jamet,
- Julien Bousquet
- and Antoine Massé
Pages 41 to 59
Cite this article
- JAMET, Benoît,
- BOUSQUET, Julien
- and MASSÉ, Antoine,
- Jamet, Benoît.,
- et al.
- Jamet, B.,
- Bousquet, J.
- and Massé, A.
https://doi.org/10.54695/bmi.172.0041
Cite this article
- Jamet, B.,
- Bousquet, J.
- and Massé, A.
- Jamet, Benoît.,
- et al.
- JAMET, Benoît,
- BOUSQUET, Julien
- and MASSÉ, Antoine,
https://doi.org/10.54695/bmi.172.0041
Notes
-
[1]
The list, which is released annually, includes investments and financing provided to 1,031 coal companies. Of these, 503 companies are still planning to develop new power plants, mines or infrastructure: these projects would increase thermal coal production by 27% and coal-fired power generation by 23%. Only 49 of the 1,030 companies have announced a date for exiting coal.
-
[2]
Only financial risk is taken into account and not risk aversion, which is more difficult to measure.
-
[3]
Steckel & Jakob (2021) classify the 15 countries in their study into 4 families: eliminating countries (Germany, Bulgaria, Chile, the United States, and the United Kingdom), introducing countries (Kenya, The Philippines, Vietnam), established users (China, India, Turkey), and exporting countries (Australia, Colombia, Indonesia, South Africa).
-
[4]
Including all Brazilian, Chinese (except 1), and Indian banks.
-
[5]
The R script and the successive iterations of the PLS-PM model are available at: https://github.com/benoitjamet/BanksCoal.git
In recent years, an increasing number of major international banks have begun to announce their exit from the coal sector, in response to the trend initiated by public actors such as governments and related public sector financial institutions. This article examines the determinants of coal exit strategies of international banks. Using a sample of 111 banks from 31 countries and a PLS-PM methodology, the results show that: 1) the announced strategies are particularly partial in nature and the financing allocated to coal firms is still high, 2) external variables (i.e., national and institutional contexts) significantly influence exit scores, notably coal dependence, progress in the energy transition and the environmental performance of the home countries, 3) with the exception of size, internal variables (e.g., exposure to the sector, risk and profitability) have no impact on coal exit scores. Banks therefore adopt a defensive strategy: the managerial decision echoes national energy and environmental policies, which underlines the crucial political and regulatory role of governments in influencing bank strategies.
JEL Classification:
- G21
- Q48
- Q56
- Q58
Keywords:
- banking industry
- coal financing
- coal exit strategy
- institutional and national contexts
- energy policy
Publisher keywords: banking industry, coal exit strategy, coal financing, energy policy, G21, institutional and national contexts, Q48, Q56, Q58
This article is available in conditional access
Buy this article
€15.00