Yeşil finansman, yeşil getiri olmadan mı? Karbon uyumu, üretim ölçeği ve Avrupa çelik sektörünün ihracat rekabet gücü

Abstract

Amaç – Bu çalışma, yeşil tahvil ihraçlarıyla ölçülen ülke düzeyindeki yeşil finansmanın, AB'nin gelişen iklim düzenleyici mimarisi kapsamında en karbon yoğun ve ticarete açık sektörlerden biri olan Avrupa çelik sektörünün ihracat performansında ölçülebilir iyileşmelere dönüşüp dönüşmediğini incelemektedir. Tasarım/Veri/Yöntem – Analiz, 2015–2024 döneminde 17 Avrupa ekonomisini kapsamaktadır (N = 170, dengeli panel). Panel Kantil Regresyonu (PQR), en zayıf ihracatçılardan en rekabetçi olanlara kadar ihracat performansının tüm dağılımındaki heterojenliği yakalamak amacıyla kullanılmaktadır. Bulgular – Yeşil tahvil ihraçlarının hiçbir kantil düzeyinde çelik ihracatı üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamakta olup bu sonuç yapısal bir zamansal uyumsuzluk hipotezi çerçevesinde yorumlanmaktadır. Üretim kapasitesi, Q10'da 2,33'ten Q90'da 0,75'e monoton biçimde azalan bir esneklikle baskın ihracat belirleyicisi olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Karbon yoğunluğu ihracatı sürekli olarak baskılamakta olup Q90'da keskin biçimde güçlenen bir etki gözlemlenmektedir. Ortalamaya dayalı EKK tahmin edicileri üretim-ihracat ilişkisinin işaretini tersine çevirmekte ve kantil regresyonunun yapısal olarak heterojen panellerde metodolojik bir zorunluluk olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Özgünlük/Değer – Bu çalışma, sürdürülebilir finans, ticaret ekonomisi ve sanayi politikasının kesişimindeki bir boşluğu ele alarak büyük bir enerji yoğun sektörde yeşil finansman ile ihracat rekabet gücü arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik özgün kantil panel kanıtları sunmaktadır. Zamansal uyumsuzluk mekanizmasının teorileştirilmesi, belgelenen EKK işaret terselmesi ve farklılaştırılmış kantile dayalı politika önerileri, hem yeşil finansman literatürüne hem de AB karbon piyasası mimarisinin ekonomisine katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• yesil finansman
• yesil tahviller
• celik ihracati
• panel kantil regresyonu
• SKDM
• AB EST
• ihracat rekabet gucu
• Karbon yogunlugu

Green finance without green returns? Carbon compliance, production scale and European steel export competitiveness

Abstract

Purpose – This study examines whether country-level green finance, measured by green bond issuances, translates into measurable improvements in the export performance of the European steel sector, one of the most carbon-intensive and trade-exposed industries under the EU's evolving climate regulatory architecture. Design/data/methodology – The analysis covers 17 European economies over 2015–2024 (N = 170, balanced panel). Panel Quantile Regression (PQR) is employed to capture distributional heterogeneity across the full range of export performance, from the weakest to the most competitive exporters. Findings – Green bond issuances exert no statistically significant effect on steel exports at any quantile, interpreted through a structural temporal mismatch hypothesis. Production capacity is the dominant export driver, with a monotonically declining elasticity from 2.33 at Q10 to 0.75 at Q90. Carbon intensity consistently depresses exports, with a sharply amplified effect at Q90. Mean-based OLS estimators reverse the sign of the production-export relationship, confirming that quantile regression is a methodological necessity in structurally heterogeneous panels. Originality/value – This study provides original quantile panel evidence on the green finance, export competitiveness nexus for a major energy intensive sector, addressing a gap at the intersection of sustainable finance, trade economics, and industrial policy. The theorization of the temporal mismatch mechanism, the documented OLS sign reversal, and the differentiated quantile-based policy recommendations constitute contributions to both the green finance literature and the economics of EU carbon market architecture

Keywords

• Green finance
• green bounds
• steel exports
• panel quantile regression
• CEBAM
• EU EST
• export competitivness
• carbon intencity

References

1. Algers, J., Ahman, M., & Nilsson, L. J. (2025). Steel decarbonization - from optimization to transformation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 50, 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-101851
2. Bargaoui, S. A., Trabelsi, M. A., & Oueslati, M. (2024). Green bond issuance and corporate environmental and financial performance: A meta-analysis. International Review of Financial Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.004769
3. Bassanini, A., Scarpetta, S., & Hemmings, P. (2015). Economic growth and export dynamics: Revisiting the production–export relationship. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-014-0385-8
4. Berman, N., Martin, P., & Mayer, T. (2012). How do different exporters react to exchange-rate changes? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 437–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr057
5. Björnsdóttir, K., Lindroos, T., Moe, I., & Sørgard, L. (2025). EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism -industrial effects. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2557236
6. Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World. ISBN: 978-0190088583, Oxford University Press.
7. Climate Bonds Initiative (2022). A green future for steel. Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/A-Green-Future-for-Steel.pdf
8. Costantini, V., & Mazzanti, M. (2012). On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Research Policy, 41(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.004

9. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (2000). Bootstrap tests: How many bootstraps? Econometric Reviews, 19(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930008800459
10. De Haas, R., Martin, R., Muûls, M., & Schweiger, H. (2024). Managerial and financial barriers to the green transition. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.00772
11. Dechezleprêtre, A., Nachtigall, D., & Venmans, F. (2023). The joint impact of the European Union emissions trading system on carbon emissions and economic performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 118, 102758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102758
12. Di Foggia, G., & Beccarello, M. (2024). Decarbonization in the European steel industry: Strategies, risks, and commitments. Environmental Challenges, 16, 100988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100988
13. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429246593
14. ElBannan, M. A., & Löffler, G. (2024). How effectively do green bonds help the environment? Journal of Banking and Finance, 158, 107051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.107051
15. European Commission (2025). Informal Expert Group on the CBAM - 2nd Meeting. Brussels: European Commission. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu (consulted on December 2025).
16. European Commission (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/956 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. OJ L 130. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R0956
17. Fatica, S., & Panzica, R. (2021). Green bonds as a tool against climate change? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2688–2701. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2757
18. Fatica, S., Panzica, R., & Rancan, M. (2021). The pricing of green bonds: Are financial institutions special? Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2021.100873
19. Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfinec.2021.01.010
20. Flori, A., Borghesi, S., & Marin, G. (2024). The environmental–financial performance nexus of EU ETS firms: A quantile regression approach. Energy Economics, 131, 107328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107328
21. Hunjra, A. I. (2025). The green intentions of capital: How green finance is changing the boundaries of corporate sustainability strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 390, 126362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126362
22. IEA (2020). Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/iron-and-steel-technology-roadmap
23. Johnson, C., Åhman, M., Nilsson, L., & Li, X. (2025). Emerging green steel markets surrounding the EU emissions trading system and carbon border adjustment mechanism. Nature Communications, 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64440-9
24. Júnior, G., Fialho, A., & Gabriel, M. P. (2015). On bootstrap inference for quantile regression panel data: A Monte Carlo study. Econometrics, 3(3), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics3030654
25. Kim, J., Sovacool, B. K., Bazilian, M., Griffiths, S., Lee, J., Yang, M., & Lee, J. (2022). Decarbonizing the iron and steel industry: A systematic review of sociotechnical systems, technological innovations, and policy options. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102565
26. Koenker, R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2004.05.006
27. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. Jr. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
28. Lamarche, C. (2010). Robust penalized quantile regression estimation for panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 157(2), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.03.042
29. Maihaiti, Z., Hunjra, A. I., Alharbi, S. S., & Zhao, G. (2025). Climate-resilient cities for green innovation in enterprises: New perspective based on fintech. International Review of Economics and Finance, 101, 104251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104251
30. Martin, R., Muûls, M., de Preux, L. B., & Wagner, U. J. (2014). Industry compensation under relocation risk: A firm-level analysis of the EU emissions trading scheme. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2482–2508. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.8.2482
31. Martins, P. S., & Yang, Y. (2009). The impact of exporting on firm productivity: A meta-analysis of the learning-by-exporting hypothesis. Review of World Economics, 145(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-009-0021-6
32. Nilsson, A. E., Söderström, S., Åhman, M., Johansson, D. J. A., & Andersson, F. N. G. (2025). Emerging green steel markets surrounding the EU emissions trading system and carbon border adjustment mechanism. Nature Communications, 16, 9328. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-64440-9
33. OECD (2024). Addressing steel decarbonization challenges for industry and policy. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 171. https://doi.org/10.1787/e6cb2f3c-en
34. OECD (2025). OECD Steel Outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/28b61a5e-en
35. Ordonez-Borrallo, A., Llena-Macarulla, F., & Portillo-Tarragona, P. (2024). Green bonds and environmental performance: The effect of management attention. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(4), 3225–3246. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2858
36. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. http://doi.org/10.125/jep.9.4.97 Rinaldi, L., Russo, M., Padella, M., Rocco, M. V., Bani, C., & Colombo, E. (2024). Assessing environmental and market implications of steel decarbonization strategies: A hybrid input-output model for the European Union. Environmental Research Letters, 19(7), 074059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad5bf1
37. Shuai, J., Wang, W., Liu, H., et al. (2024). The impact of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on the global iron and steel trade and emission reduction. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 21524–21544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32528-2
38. Tang, D. Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Do shareholders benefit from green bonds? Journal of Corporate Finance, 61, 101427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.12.001
39. Zerbib, O. D. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: Evidence from green bonds in the secondary market. Journal of Banking and Finance, 98, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.10.012