Article, 2022

Clean at home, polluting abroad: the role of the Chinese financial system’s differential treatment of state-owned and private enterprises

Climate Policy, ISSN 1752-7457, 1469-3062, Volume 23, 1, Pages 57-70, 10.1080/14693062.2022.2040409

Contributors

Larsen, Mathias Lund 0000-0002-0442-7066 (Corresponding author) [1] [2] Oehler, Lars [1] [2] [3]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Copenhagen Business School
  2. [NORA names: CBS Copenhagen Business School; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. [NORA names: China; Asia, East];
  5. [3] Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (DEG), Köln, Germany
  6. [NORA names: Germany; Europe, EU; OECD]

Abstract

Although China is the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, its overseas energy investments are primarily in fossil fuels. This is a cause of major concern as countries across the globe need to transition toward low-carbon development trajectories to meet the 1.5-degree warming target of the Paris Agreement. In this paper, we present data up until and including 2019 showing that power generation investment in renewables domestically (excluding medium and large hydro) is 77% while only 22% overseas. We add to the literature on the institutional environment surrounding Chinese overseas investment by finding that in addition to general barriers to renewables, such as higher up-front costs and different income cycles, Chinese renewable firms face significant structural financing disadvantages vis-à-vis conventional energy firms. We find that the underlying reason is that Chinese fossil fuel companies are largely state-owned while renewable companies are largely private-owned. The disadvantage then materializes through the Chinese financial system’s preference for state-owned enterprises. Lastly, we identify concrete policy options to overcome the disadvantage by addressing five types of actors: 1) policy banks that can emphasize their development focused mandate, 2) state-owned commercial banks currently financing the majority of Chinese overseas energy projects, 3) smaller financial institutions currently not involved in this type of financing overseas, 4) Sinosure, currently focusing on insuring fossil fuel projects, and 5) Chinese energy, utility, and construction companies that would benefit from further diversifying into renewables. Key policy insights The proportion of renewables in Chinese power generation investment is 77% domestically while only 22% overseas. Chinese fossil fuel companies are largely state-owned, while renewable companies are largely private-owned. The key barrier for Chinese renewable energy companies going overseas is their lack of access to finance. Chinese financial institutions favor state-owned over privately-owned organizations, both domestically and overseas. Consequently, a key reason for renewable/fossil disproportions is that Chinese renewable energy companies are largely private-owned. The favoritism can be overcome through policies targeting 1) policy banks, 2) state-owned commercial banks, 3) smaller financial institutions, 4) Sinosure, or 5) Chinese energy, utility, and construction companies. The proportion of renewables in Chinese power generation investment is 77% domestically while only 22% overseas. Chinese fossil fuel companies are largely state-owned, while renewable companies are largely private-owned. The key barrier for Chinese renewable energy companies going overseas is their lack of access to finance. Chinese financial institutions favor state-owned over privately-owned organizations, both domestically and overseas. Consequently, a key reason for renewable/fossil disproportions is that Chinese renewable energy companies are largely private-owned. The favoritism can be overcome through policies targeting 1) policy banks, 2) state-owned commercial banks, 3) smaller financial institutions, 4) Sinosure, or 5) Chinese energy, utility, and construction companies.

Keywords

China, Chinese energy, Chinese financial institutions, Chinese overseas investment, Paris, Paris Agreement, actors, agreement, banks, barriers, commercial banks, companies, concrete policy options, construction, construction companies, cost, countries, cycle, data, development, development trajectories, differential treatment, disadvantages, disproportion, energy, energy companies, energy firms, energy investment, energy projects, enterprises, environment, favoritism, finance, financial institutions, firms, fossil fuel companies, fossil fuel projects, fossil fuels, fuel, fuel companies, fuel projects, generation investment, globe, globe need, home, income, income cycle, institutional environment, institutions, investment, investors, lack, largest investors, literature, needs, options, organization, overseas investment, policy, policy banks, policy options, power, power generation investments, preferences, private enterprises, project, proportion, proportion of renewables, renewable companies, renewable energy, renewable energy companies, renewable firms, renewal, state-owned, state-owned commercial banks, state-owned enterprises, system preferences, target, trajectory, treatment, up-front, up-front costs, warming, warming targets, world, world’s largest investors

Data Provider: Digital Science