Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The effect of climate risks on the interactions between financial markets and energy companies


In recent years, the investment community has become increasingly aware of the investment risks from both the physical effects of climate change and the regulatory responses to facilitate the transition to a net-zero economy. The potential impact of climate transition risks is especially large for fossil energy companies, given their central role in producing carbon emissions. Here we discuss how concerns about climate risks influence the way investors allocate their capital and exercise their oversight of firms, and how this investor response affects companies in the energy sector. We then explore how different energy firms have responded to climate-related pressures from their investors and other stakeholders. We conclude by highlighting promising areas of research for understanding how climate risks affect the interaction between financial markets and the energy sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Climate risk implications for energy companies and investors.


  1. Coqueret, G., Perspectives in ESG equity investing. SSRN (2020).

  2. Stroebel, J. & Wurgler, J. What do you think about climate finance? J. Financ. Econ. 142, 487–498 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Giglio, S., Kelly, B. & Stroebel, J. 2021. Climate finance. Annu. Rev. Financ. Econ. 13, 15–36 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Engle, R. F., Giglio, S., Kelly, B., Lee, H. & Stroebel, J. Hedging climate change news. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1184–1216 (2020). The returns of portfolios of stocks sorted on environmental scores co-move with a measure of climate news, indicating that stock prices move in response to climate risk.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Giglio, S., Maggiori, M., Rao, K., Stroebel, J. & Weber, A. Climate change and long-run discount rates: evidence from real estate. Rev. Financ. Stud. 34, 3527–3571 (2021). The prices of houses exposed to sea-level rise risk drop in value (relative to houses not exposed) when real estate participants pay more attention to climate risks, indicating that real estate prices reflect those risks.

  6. Keys, B. J. & Mulder, P. Neglected No More: Housing Markets, Mortgage Lending, and Sea Level Rise Working Paper No. 27930 (NBER, 2020).

  7. Painter, M. An inconvenient cost: the effects of climate change on municipal bonds. J. Financ. Econ. 135, 468–482 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Krueger, P., Sautner, Z. & Starks, L. T. The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1067–1111 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Climate Leadership in the Eleventh Hour (United Nations Global Compact and Accenture, 2021);

  10. Gensler, G. Prepared remarks before the principles for responsible investment ‘Climate and global financial markets’ webinar. US Securities and Exchange Commission (2021).

  11. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F. & Rigobon, R. Aggregate confusion: the divergence of ESG ratings. SSRN (2020).

  12. Billio, M., Costola, M., Hristova, I., Latino, C. & Pelizzon, L. Inside the ESG ratings: (dis)agreement and performance. SSRN (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flammer, C., Toffel, M. W. & Viswanathan, K. Shareholder activism and firms’ voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strateg. Manag. J. 42, 1850–1979 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bolton, P. & Kacperczyk, M. Carbon disclosure and the cost of capital. SSRN (2021). In a large international panel of firms, disclosures of carbon emissions are associated with a lower cost of capital, as well as higher valuations; a quasi-natural experiment, the 2013 mandate of carbon disclosure in the United Kingdom, suggests that the effect is at least partially due to lower uncertainty.

  15. Hertwich, E. G. & Wood, R. The growing importance of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 104013 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker, B. Scope 3 carbon emissions: seeing the full picture. MSCI (2020).

  17. Contreras, W. et al. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crude oil and natural gas from the Delaware Basin. J. Clean. Prod. 328, 129530 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2022);

  19. Hoepner, A. G., Oikonomou, I., Sautner, Z., Starks, L. T. & Zhou, X. ESG shareholder engagement and downside risk. SSRN (2021).

  20. Phillips, M. Exxon’s board defeat signals the rise of social-good activists. The New York Times (9 June 2021);

  21. Reenergize Exxon: Investor Presentation (Engine No. 1, 2021);

  22. Chevron investors back proposal for more emissions cuts. Reuters (26 May 2021);

  23. Hartzmark, S. M. & Sussman, A. B. Do investors value sustainability? A natural experiment examining ranking and fund flows. J. Finance 74, 2789–2837 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coal Divestment (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2021);

  25. Global Fossil Fuel Divestment Commitments Database (, 2022);

  26. Andersson, M., Bolton, P. & Samama, F. Hedging climate risk. Financ. Anal. J. 72, 13–32 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Engle, R. F., Giglio, S., Kelly, B., Lee, H. & Stroebel, J. Hedging climate change news. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1184–1216 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Alekseev, G., Giglio, S., Maingi, Q., Selgrad, J. & Stroebel, J. A Quantity-Based Approach to Constructing Climate Risk Hedge Portfolios Working Paper (2021);

  29. Plantinga, A. & Scholtens, B. The financial impact of fossil fuel divestment. Clim. Policy 21, 107–119 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ansar, A., Caldecott, B. & Tilbury, J. Stranded Assets and the Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign: What Does Divestment Mean for the Valuation of Fossil Fuel Assets? (SSEE and University of Oxford, 2013);

  31. Sanzillo, T., Hipple, K. & Williams-Derry, C. The Financial Case for Fossil Fuel Divestment (Sightline Institute and IEEFA, 2018);

  32. Pedersen, L. H., Fitzgibbons, S. & Pomorski, L. Responsible investing: the ESG-efficient frontier. J. Financ. Econ. 142, 572–597 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Berk, J. & van Binsbergen, J. H. The impact of impact investing. SSRN (2021).

  34. Broccardo, E., Hart, O. D. & Zingales, L. Exit vs. Voice Working Paper No. 694/202 (ECGI Finance, 2021). A theoretical analysis of the choice between divestment and engagement shows that engagement can be more effective than divestment in affecting firm environmental decisions.

  35. Report on Benchmarks (EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, 2019);

  36. Marathon Oil announces executive compensation changes and GHG emissions intensity reduction initiatives. News release. Marathon Oil Corporation (2021).

  37. Comfort, N. ECB says just 15% of banks disclose financed CO2 emissions. Bloomberg (14 March 2022);

  38. Greenstone, M. & Nath, I. Do renewable portfolio standards deliver cost-effective carbon abatement? SSRN (2021).

  39. Pastor, L., Stambough, R. F. & Taylor, L. A. Sustainable investing in equilibrium. J. Financ. Econ. 142, 550–571 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Energy Mix (Our World in Data, 2020);

  41. Stulz, R. Optimal hedging policies. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 19, 127–140 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Breeden, D. T. & Viswanathan, S. Why do firms hedge? An asymmetric information model. J. Fixed Income 25, 7–25 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Froot, K. A., Scharfstein, D. S. & Stein, J. C. Risk management: coordinating corporate investment and financing policies. J. Finance 48, 1629–1658 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. BP 2Q 2021 Results: Webcast Q&A Transcript (BP, 2021);

  45. BP completes entry into offshore Wind, with strategic partner Equinor. Press release. BP (2021).

  46. Topham, G. Shell aims to install 50,000 on-street EV charge points by 2025. The Guardian (1 September 2021);

  47. Iraq: TotalEnergies signs major agreements for the sustainable development of the Basra region natural resources. Press release. TotalEnergies (2021).

  48. Reed, S. & Moses, C. A Dutch court rules that Shell must step up its climate change efforts. The New York Times (26 May 2021);

  49. From international oil company to integrated energy company: BP sets out strategy for decade of delivery towards net zero ambition. Press release. BP (2020).

  50. Eni’s commitment to protecting and conserving forests. Eni (2021).

  51. van Benthem, A. A. & Kerr, S. Scale and transfers in international emissions offset programs. J. Public Econ. 107, 31–46 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kreibich, N. & Hermwille, L. Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Clim. Policy 21, 939–957 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Use of international credits. European Commission (2022).

  54. Stankiewicz, K. Chevron CEO explains why the oil giant’s lower-carbon investments look past wind and solar energy. CNBC (15 September 2021);

  55. Brandt, A. R. et al. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343, 733–735 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. ExxonMobil announces emission reduction plans; expects to meet 2020 goals. Press release. ExxonMobil (2020).

  57. ConocoPhillips adopts paris-aligned climate risk framework to meet net-zero operational emissions ambition by 2050. Press release. ConocoPhillips (2020).

  58. Crifo, P., Forget, V. D. & Teyssier, S. The price of environmental, social and governance practice disclosure: an experiment with professional private equity investors. J. Corp. Finance 30, 168–194 (2015). A field experiment in which professional private equity investors competed in closed auctions to acquire fictive firms demonstrates that ESG performance disclosure impacts firm valuation and investment decisions, with investors reacting more to bad ESG practice disclosure than to good ESG practice.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Private equity’s ESG journey: from compliance to value creation. Global private equity responsible investment survey 2021. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2021).

  60. Environment and climate change. Saudi Aramco (2022).

  61. Saudi Aramco joins World Bank’s initiative: ‘Zero Routine Flaring by 2030’. Press release. Saudi Aramco (2019).

  62. Lemoine, D. & Traeger, C. Watch your step: optimal policy in a clipping climate. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 6, 137–166 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Golosov, M., Hassler, J., Krusell, P. & Tsyvinski, A. Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica 82, 41–88 (2014).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shell scenarios. Shell (2022).

  65. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (World Bank, 2020);

  66. Perino, G., Ritz, R. A. & van Benthem, A. A. Overlapping Climate Policies Working Paper No. 25643 (NBER, 2020).

  67. Goulder, L. H. & Morgenstern, R. D. China’s rate-based approach to reducing CO2 emissions: attractions, limitations, and alternatives. AEA Pap. Proc. 108, 458–462 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Borenstein, S., Bushnell, J., Wolak, F. A. & Zaragoza-Watkins, M. Expecting the unexpected: emissions uncertainty and environmental market design. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 3953–3977 (2019). Large uncertainty in business-as-usual emissions implies that the market price in an emissions-trading system is very likely to be determined by an administrative price floor or ceiling.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Perino, G. New EU ETS Phase 4 rules temporarily puncture waterbed. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 262–264 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Gerlagh, R., Heijmans, R. J. R. K. & Rosendahl, K. E. An endogenous emissions cap produces a green paradox. Econ. Policy 36, 485–522 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lamont, O. Cash flow and investment: evidence from internal capital markets. J. Finance 52, 83–109 (1997). During the 1986 oil price decrease, oil companies significantly reduced their non-oil investment, providing evidence that a decrease in cash/collateral decreases investment, holding fixed the profitability of investment, and that the finance costs of different parts of the same corporation are interdependent.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gertner, R., Powers, E. & Scharfstein, D. Learning about internal capital markets from corporate spin-offs. J. Finance 57, 2479–2506 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Baker, M., Bergstresser, D., Serafeim, G. & Wurgler, J. Financing the Response to Climate Change: The Pricing and Ownership of US Green Bonds Working Paper No. 25194 (NBER, 2018).

  74. Lombardo, C. & McFarlane, S. Third Point has big Shell stake, urges energy giant to break up. The Wall Street Journal (27 October 2021);

  75. Aldy, J. E., Bento, N. & Gianfrate, G. National climate policies and corporate internal carbon pricing. Energy J. 42, 1944–1989 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  76. French, D. & Resnick-ault, J. Shell exits Permian with $9.5 bln Texas shale sale to ConocoPhillips. Reuters (21 September 2021);

  77. Dai, R., Duan, R., Liang, H. & Ng, L. Outsourcing Climate Change Working Paper No. 723/2021 (ECGI, 2022).

  78. Fowlie, M. L. Incomplete environmental regulation, imperfect competition, and emissions leakage. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 1, 72–112 (2009). The incomplete, market-based regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in California’s electricity sector that exempted out-of-state producers achieved approximately one-third of the total emissions reductions that could have been achieved under complete regulation at more than twice the cost per ton.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Goulder, L. H., Jacobsen, M. R. & van Benthem, A. A. Unintended consequences from nested state and federal regulations: the case of the Pavley greenhouse-gas-per-mile limits. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63, 187–207 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Greenstone, M. The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Amendments and the Census of Manufacturers. J. Polit. Econ. 110, 1175–1219 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Martin, R., Muuls, M., de Preux, L. B. & Wagner, U. J. Industry compensation under relocation risk: a firm-level analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 2482–2508 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Fowlie, M., Petersen, C. & Reguant, M. Border carbon adjustments when carbon intensity varies across producers: evidence from California. AEA Pap. Proc. 111, 401–405 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Perino, G., Willner, M., Quemin, S. & Pahle, M. The European Union emissions trading system market stability reserve: does it stabilize or destabilize the market? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 16 (2022).

  84. Colmer, J., Calel, R., Dechezleprêtre, A. & Glachant, M. Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon? Working Paper (2022);

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Giglio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.A.v.B. holds mutual funds that invest in publicly traded clean energy companies and related industries. E.S. is currently a Sustainability Risk Manager within BlackRock’s Risk and Quantitative Analysis (RQA) group. E.C. is vice-chair, Americas, at Wood Mackenzie. S.G. has received compensation in excess of US$10,000 from D. E. Shaw over the past three years. J.S. is also a member of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee at the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), an unpaid position. He also holds mutual funds that invest in publicly traded energy companies and related industries.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks Paul Griffin and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Benthem, A.A., Crooks, E., Giglio, S. et al. The effect of climate risks on the interactions between financial markets and energy companies. Nat Energy 7, 690–697 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing