Undoubtedly, throughout the past half-century, environmental quality has emerged as a significant obstacle to both economic and social endeavors. Recent local and international policy debates have focused on environmental deterioration and global warming, but how governments balance economic growth and environmental sustainability is still enigmatic. For this reason, we have examined the determinants of environmental quality in India from 1972 to 2021. More specifically, we have investigated whether the fiscal deficit is ‘curse’ or ‘haven’ for environmental quality (CO2) in India. Moreover, this study deliberated four other predictors, comprising technological development (TIN), fossil fuel consumption (FFC), urbanization (Ub), and human capital index (HCI). In order to attain this objective, a range of econometric estimation techniques are employed to ensure the validity and reliability of the outcomes. For instance, we have employed a battery of ARDL approaches, such as standard ARDL, nonlinear ARDL, and multiple threshold NARDL approaches. In light of our research findings, we will be focusing directly on the examination of the NARDL and MTNARDL outcomes. This is due to the empirical evidence indicating the existence of asymmetric effects resulting from FD on CO2 emissions in India. The NARDL approach reveals that the consequence of fiscal deterioration is more pronounced, and the influence of fiscal progress is mild in terms of CO2 emission growth. Further, the outcomes of the MTNARDL approach revealed that the size of the extremely low changes in FD is much higher than the extremely high changes in FD in both models. This implies that as the FD rises, CO2 ascends more significantly, and when the FD lowers, CO2 declines progressively. In a nutshell, FD has a long-run positive and asymmetric impact on CO2 in India; thus, we may conclude that FD is considered the ‘curse’ for CO2 in India. Furthermore, TIN, HCI, and Ub have detrimental effects on CO2, whereas FFC stimulates CO2 in India. This research work provides some important policy implications for environmentalists, economists and macroeconomic policymakers to promote a green and healthy environment.

We investigate the association between CEO power and firm risk at the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007 and the COVID-19 pandemic health crisis in 2020. Examining an international sample of publicly listed firms in the G7 nations between 2006 and 2021, we show that firms led by CEOs with greater power are exposed to higher risk than firms led by CEOs with lesser power. The result is primarily driven by the impact of CEO power on idiosyncratic risk rather than systematic risk. Further, we find that powerful CEOs tend to be more cautious and conservative during crises that they have no reference for or experience of, as in the case of the pandemic, during which the positive power–risk associations are less pronounced. Nevertheless, the power–risk association remains relatively unchanged during the more familiar financial crisis. This study has important implications for firms, investors, regulators, and policymakers.

This study examines the impact of the adoption of nonmarket strategies in domestic markets that drive the internationalization of emerging multinationals (EMNCs) from the MENA and sub‐Saharan African regions. In this study, we consider corporate political activity (CPA) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) of EMNCs and examine their role in the degree of internationalization. Using data from 219 non‐financial multinational firms from 15 countries belonging to the MENA and sub‐Saharan African regions for the period from 2012 to 2021, we find a positive effect of CSR (0.84%) and CPA (13.57%) on the degree of internationalization when both strategies are used individually. This effect is stronger when both strategies are used simultaneously (the complementary effect, i.e., 24.86%). Moreover, the individual and complementary effects are more pronounced in the presence of a lower domestic institutional development level. Our study highlights that the adoption of nonmarket strategies domestically helps firms to enhance their internationalization and overcome their liability of origin.

Despite growing emphasis on financial firms’ engagement in environmental project financing (EPF), its impact on insolvency risk remains underexplored. Drawing on signaling theory, this study investigates how EPF influences financial institutions’ insolvency risk and examines the moderating roles of the existence of a public relations function and global climate policy uncertainty. By analyzing data of 291 financial firms from major developed economies over 2014–2023, this study finds that environmental project financing reduces insolvency risk. Furthermore, the presence of a public relations function strengthens this effect, while the rising global climate policy uncertainty weakens it. This study contributes to existing literature while offering both strategic insights and practical implications.

This paper investigates the influence of CEO power on corporate stock price crash risk in developed market context, and further examines the moderating impact of corporate environmental practices. Two environmental practices are examined: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Sustainable Development Goal 13 (SDG-13 supporting climate action). Analysing data from publicly listed firms in the G7 nations from 2006 to 2021, empirical results show that firms led by more powerful CEOs are generally exposed to lower crash risks. Additionally, results show that companies implementing stronger environmentally friendly practices, particularly, supporting climate actions - SDG-13, see a further reduced crash risk. This pattern is especially evident in non-crisis period, non-financial firms, and firms with high environmental and social (ES) scores, i.e., Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance. The findings are validated by various robustness tests using alternative estimation models, alternative measures, and additional tests. Our findings provide practical implications for firms, investors, regulators, and policymakers.