This paper conducts a textual analysis of earnings call transcripts to quantify climate risk exposure at the firm level. We construct dictionaries that measure physical and transition climate risks separately and identify firms that proactively respond to climate risks. Our validation analysis shows that our measures capture firm-level variations in respective climate risk exposure. Firms facing high transition risk, especially those that do not proactively respond, have been valued at a discount in recent years as aggregate investor attention to climate-related issues has been increasing. We document differences in how firms respond through investment, green innovation, and employment when facing high climate risk exposure.

文章在测度2012—2021年中国数字化和绿色化（“双化”）发展水平的基础上,运用耦合协调度模型、Dagum基尼系数方法、相对发展度模型及障碍度模型分析了数字化绿色化协同（“双化协同”）的时空演变特征及障碍因素。研究发现：①考察期内“双化”协调度逐年攀升,整体协调等级由初级协调提升至良好协调,“双化协同”取得实质性进展。②随着区域协调发展战略的贯彻落实,中国“双化协同”水平呈现“东部引领,西部地区快速发展”的区域格局,区域协调性有所增强,但东部地区始终处于绝对领先地位,东高西低格局固化,缩小区域间差异仍是推动“双化协同”区域协调的关键路径。③除北京、广东、上海及江苏4省域外,其余省域均属数字落后型,“双化”发展同步性亟需加强。④培养数字人才、加强技术创新、提高数字效益、降低能耗水平是新发展阶段推动数字化绿色化协同转型发展的重要着力点;进一步分析发现,不同区域和不同类型省域“双化协同”水平提升的障碍因子具有异质特征,分区指导、分类调控是“双化协同”高质量发展的必然路径。

This article measures the development level of China's digitalization and greenization from 2012 to 2021,and then examines the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of the collaborative development between digitalization and greenization and its obstacles with the help of the methods of coupling coordination degree model,Dagum Gini coefficient method,relative development degree model and obstacle degree mode. The study finds that: 1) The coordination degree between digitalization and greenization has been rising year by year during the study period,with the overall coordination level raising from primary coordination to good coordination,and substantial progress has been made in the collaborative development of digitalization and greenization. 2) With the implementation of regional coordinated development strategy,the level of the collaborative development between digitalization and greenization in China has shown a regional pattern of "the east of China leading and the west of China developing rapidly",and regional coordination has been enhanced. However,the east of China has always been in the absolute lead. The spatial pattern phenomenon has solidified,which is higher in the east of China than that in the west of China. Narrowing the differences between regions is still the key path to promoting regional collaborative development of digitalization and greenization. 3) Except for four provincial-level regions,namely Beijing,Guangdong,Shanghai and Jiangsu,the rest of them are digitally lagging behind,and the development synchronization of digitalization and greenization is in urgent need of enhancement. 4) Cultivating digital talents,strengthening technological innovation,improving digital efficiency,and reducing energy consumption are the important focuses of the new development stage to promote the synergistic transformation and development of digitization and greening. The obstacles to the enhancement of the collaborative development level of digitalization and greenization are heterogeneous across different provincial-level regions,regional guidance and classified regulation are the key paths to the collaborative development of digitalization and greenization.

This paper investigates the long‐term stock price effects and equity risk effects of supply chain disruptions based on a sample of 827 disruption announcements made during 1989–2000. Stock price effects are examined starting one year before through two years after the disruption announcement date. Over this time period the average abnormal stock returns of firms that experienced disruptions is nearly –40%. Much of this underperformance is observed in the year before the announcement, the day of the announcement, and the year after the announcement. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that firms do not quickly recover from the negative effects of disruptions. The equity risk of the firm also increases significantly around the announcement date. The equity risk in the year after the announcement is 13.50% higher when compared to the equity risk in the year before the announcement.