Abstract This paper examines regional differences in gender parity regarding firms’ access to finance in developing countries. The study employs data from 133,525 firms across 113 developing countries and six regions from 2006 to 2023 to analyze whether female-owned businesses experience greater financial constraints than their male counterparts, with particular attention to regional heterogeneity. The gender gap among firms in Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South Asia can be explained by observable firm characteristics. In contrast, there is a robust gender gap for businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa: all else equal, are approximately 3–4 percentage points more likely to experience a binding financial constraint. This gender gap persists even after controlling for a country’s level of development, the enforceability of contracts, and government involvement in credit markets. Furthermore, the gap remains consistent across various types of firms, including sole proprietorships, small firms, medium firms, manufacturing firms, and businesses in the service sector. We also investigate whether the gender gap narrows or disappears in countries with greater gender equality. We find that institutional gender equality does not close the financial access gap, indicating the presence of structural barriers to finance for female-owned businesses in SSA.

Abstract This paper distinguishes itself from previous studies and contributes to the literature by estimating a green premium using a factor model framework. Specifically, we propose a two-factor model, where bond returns are explained not only by a systemic market risk factor but also by a systemic green risk factor. Using the Fama and MacBeth regression approach on a sample of Euro-denominated green and conventional bonds over the period 06.11.2014–30.06.2021, we estimate the green premium disentangling its two components: the sensitivity to systemic greenness (i.e. magnitude of risk) and the price of green risk. Three main results emerge from our research. First, we find that the price of green risk is significant and positive albeit small. Second, the sign of the green premium is substantially driven by the issuer macro sector rather than by the green label, being on average negative for Financial bonds and positive for Government and Non-Financial ones, whereby this difference can be explained by a more direct exposure to green systemic risk in the latter two cases. Third, looking at the dynamics of the green risk price we find it decreases to almost zero as the bond market reaches a new normal, but it becomes negative during Covid-19 pandemic, suggesting greenness is considered a benefit in periods of financial distress caused by negative economic shocks.

Abstract We study a market with non-iid returns linked to an ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) and a market factor. Motivated by empirical evidence, we assume that the investor does not know which part of the return is due to the ESG component, unless he pays a cost. The approach is consistent with risk premia on green assets greater or lower than the ones on market-only related assets. We provide conditions on the persistence, weight and estimation error in the ESG factor, to optimally invest in ESG-assets. By calibrating the model to the German twin Govies 2020–2024, we separate the ESG from the market risk factor and provide conditions for the greenium to be negative. We show that it is rational to invest in green bonds if information costs are below 0.07 bps per day, to abstain if they are greater. Investing in the green German bond without getting informed is always suboptimal.