Climate in the 21st Century: A Macroeconomic Model of Fair Global Warming Benefits Distribution to Grant Climate Justice Around the World and Over Time

Climate justice accounts for the most challenging global governance goal. In the current post-COP21 Paris agreement climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, the financialization of the ambitious goals has leveraged into a blatant demand. In the weighting of the burden of global warming, the benefits of a warming earth have been neglected since recently. Following the introduction of the gains from climate change (Puaschunder, 2017), this article proposes a model to distribute the benefits of a warming earth in a fair way based on which countries are losing and which countries are winning from a warming earth until 2100. A macroeconomic cost-benefit analysis thereby aids to find the optimum solution on how to distribute climate change benefits and burden within society. When unidimensionally focusing on estimated GDP growth given a warmer temperature, over all calculated models assuming linear, prospect or hyperbolic gains and losses, the world will be gaining more than losing until 2100. Based on the WL index of 188 countries of the world, less countries (n=78) will gain more from global warming until 2100 than more countries (n=111) will lose from a warming earth. Based on the overall WLTT index factored by GDP per inhabitant, global warming benefits are demanded to be redistributed in a fair way to offset climate change loser countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts and to instigate a transition into renewable energy. Adding onto contemporary climate fund raising strategies ranging from emissions trading schemes (ETS) and carbon tax policies as well as financing climate justice through bonds as viable mitigation and adaptation strategies, climate justice is introduced to comprise of fairness within a country but also among different nation states in a unique and unprecedented tax-and-bonds climate change gains and losses distribution. Thereby, climate change winning countries should be using taxation to raise revenues to offset the losses incurred by climate change. Climate change losers could raise revenues by issuing bonds that have to be paid back by taxing future generations. Regarding taxation, within the winning countries, foremost the gaining GDP sectors should be taxed. Climate justice within a country should also pay tribute to the fact that low- and high-income households share the same burden proportional to their dispensable income, for instance enabled through a progressive carbon taxation. Those who caused climate change could be regulated to bear a higher cost through carbon tax in combination with retroactive billing through inheritance tax. Deriving respective policy recommendations for the wider climate change community in the discussion of the results is aimed at ensuring to share the burden but also the benefits of climate change within society in an economically efficient, legally equitable and practically feasible way

An Economics of Climate Stability Research Agenda Proposal

The implementation of climate stability accounts for the most challenging contemporary global governance predicament that seems to pit today’s generation against future world inhabitants. In a trade-off of economic growth versus sustainability, a broad-based international coalition could establish climate stability. As a novel angle towards climate justice, this paper proposes to search for a well-balanced climate mitigation and adaptation public policy mix guided by micro- and macroeconomic analysis results, and a new way of funding climate change mitigation and adaptation policies through broad-based climate stability bonds that also involve future enerations that complement taxation and emission trading system solutions. Contemporary climate stability financing strategies are discussed in order to derive recommendations how market economies can be brought to a path consistent with prosperity and sustainability. Finding innovative ways how to finance climate abatement over time coupled with future risk prevention as well as adaptation to higher temperatures appears as an innovative and easily-implementable solution to nudge overlapping generations towards climate justice in the sustainability domain

On the Emergence, Current State, and Future Perspectives of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)

In recent decades Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) emerged into an en vogue investment philosophy. Originating from religious and moral considerations, SRI evolved in the wake of socio-political deficiencies and corporate social conduct. In the global rise of financial social conscientiousness, differing national legislations and regulatory traditions have led to various SRI practices, which are harmonized by the United Nations (UN). Building on the historic advancement of Financial Social Responsibility in the wake of socio-ethical deficiencies, this paper highlights the future potential of SRI in the aftermath of the 2008/09 World Financial Crisis as a means to avert economic market downfalls. During the current financial market reform, additional micro- and macro-research on financial social conduct could foster the idea of Financial Social Responsibility and aid a successful implementation of SRI

COVID-19 and Comparative Corporate Governance

With the pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 raging around the world, many countries’ economies are at a crucial juncture. The COVID-19 external shock to the economy has the potential to affect corporate governance profoundly. This Article explores its possible impact on comparative corporate governance. For an economy to operate successfully, a society must first find a politically sustainable social equilibrium. In many countries, historical crises—such as the Great Depression and World War II—have resulted in a reconfiguration of corporate governance institutions that set the course for generations. While it is not yet clear whether COVID-19 will have a similar effect, it is possible that it will change patterns of what kind of firms are—from an evolutionary per-spective—likely to survive, and which ones are not. We argue that to some extent, it will accelerate ongoing trends, whereas in other areas it put corporations on an entirely new course. We observe three trends, namely the need for resilience, a growth of nationalist policies in corporate law, and an increasing orientation toward “stakeholder” interests. First, firms will have to become resilient to the crisis and consequently long-term oriented. Corporations that are not operating merely on an arm’s length capital market basis but are integrated into a network, generated by core shareholders, state ownership, or bank lending may be more likely to survive. In addition, firms are beginning to interact with their workforce differently in their attempts to maintain what could be called “healthy hu-man capital.” Second, we are likely to see a resurgence of nationalism in corporate gov-ernance to ensure that foreign ownership and interconnected supply chains do not put na-tional security at risk. Third, the existing critiques of inequality but also climate change awareness will accelerate the trend toward a broadening of corporate purpose toward “stakeholderism” and public policy issues. As in the past years, institutional investors act-ing as “universal owners” will play a role in shaping this trend

Trust and Reciprocity Drive Social Common Goods Contribution Norms

In the emergent field of tax psychology, the focus on regulating tax evasion recently shifted towards searching for situational cues that elicit common goals compliance. Trust and reciprocity are argued to steer a socially-favorable environment that supports social tax ethics norms. Experiments, in which 256 participants played an economic trust game followed by a common goods game, found evidence for trust and reciprocity leading to individuals contributing to common goals. The more trust and reciprocity was practiced and experienced, the more common goals were supported – leveraging trust and reciprocity as interesting tax compliance antecedents. The results have widespread implications for governmental-citizen relations. Policy makers and public servants are advised to establish a service-oriented customer atmosphere with citizens breeding trust and reciprocity in order to reach common societal goals