Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026)
Articles

Disruptive Crises, Institutional Pressures and Climate Action: Understanding Business Investment Decisions in Climate Technologies

pdf
  • Isabel-María García-Sánchez,
  • Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán,
  • Cristina Aibar-Guzmán,
  • Fátima David
Isabel-María García-Sánchez
Universidad de Salamanca
Bio
Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán
Universidad de Santiago Compostela
Bio
Cristina Aibar-Guzmán
Universidad de Santiago Compostela
Bio
Fátima David
Polytechnic Institute of Guarda
Bio

Published 2026-05-30

Keywords

  • climate change,
  • climate technology,
  • disruptive events

How to Cite

García-Sánchez, I.-M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & David, F. (2026). Disruptive Crises, Institutional Pressures and Climate Action: Understanding Business Investment Decisions in Climate Technologies. JOINETECH, 2(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.65479/joinetech.33

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract

Climate technologies aim to reduce CO2 emissions in order to mitigate the effects of global warming. In this paper, we analyse whether the disruptive events that we have been experiencing since 2020 (specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine) act as drivers of firms' investment in climate technologies, and whether the institutional environment of the European Union also does so. For a sample of 5,376 firms for the period 2016-2022, we find that firms' investment in climate technologies is higher in disruptive periods. Moreover, we observe that this effect is smaller than the driving effect of the EU institutional environment on firms' engagement in the fight against climate change and investment in climate technologies.

pdf

References

  1. Agovino, M., Matricano, D., & Garofalo, A. (2020). Waste management and competitiveness of firms in Europe: A stochastic frontier approach. Waste Management, 102, 528-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.021
  2. Agrawal, S., Agrawal, R., Kumar, A., Luthra, S., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2024). Can industry 5.0 technologies overcome supply chain disruptions? – a perspective study on pandemics, war, and climate change issues. Operations Management Research, 17(2), 453-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-023-00410-y
  3. Aibar-Guzmán, B., Aibar-Guzmán, C., Pineiro-Chousa, J. R., Hussain, N., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2023a). The benefits of climate tech: Do institutional investors affect these impacts?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122536
  4. Aibar-Guzmán, B., Monteiro, S., David, F., & Somohano-Rodríguez, F. M. (2023). The Waste Hierarchy at the Business Level: An International Outlook. Mathematics, 11(22), 4574. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11224574
  5. Allam, Z., Bibri, S. E., & Sharpe, S. A. (2022). The rising impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine war: energy transition, climate justice, global inequality, and supply chain disruption. Resources, 11(11), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11110099
  6. Anastasia, M., Georgia, B., Eleni, P., & Magdalini, K. (2023). Business Ethics Covid and War in the Center of Lignite Production. Journal of Finance & Investment Analysis, 12(1).
  7. Bapuji, H., De Bakker, F. G., Brown, J. A., Higgins, C., Rehbein, K., & Spicer, A. (2020). Business and society research in times of the corona crisis. Business & Society, 59(6), 1067-1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765032092117
  8. Bellora, C., & Fontagné, L. (2023). EU in search of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Energy Economics, 123, 106673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106673
  9. Berkhout, F., Dow, K., & Thomas, A. (2024). Delayed, abrupt and unjust: An institutionalist perspective on limits to climate change adaptation. Climate Risk Management, 44, 100611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2024.100611
  10. Busch, T., Bassen, A., Lewandowski, S., & Sump, F. (2022). Corporate carbon and financial performance revisited. Organization & Environment, 35(1), 154-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026620935638
  11. Chatterjee, S., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Measuring the productivity impacts of energy-efficiency: The case of high-efficiency buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318, 128535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128535
  12. Cheikh, N. B., & Zaied, Y. B. (2023). Renewable energy deployment and geopolitical conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118561
  13. Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2022). European Union policies and their role in combating climate change over the years. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 15(8), 1333-1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-022-01156-5
  14. da Costa, J. P., Silva, A. L., Barcelò, D., Rocha-Santos, T., & Duarte, A. (2023). Threats to sustainability in face of post-pandemic scenarios and the war in Ukraine. Science of the Total Environment, 164509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16450
  15. Daddi, T., Bleischwitz, R., Todaro, N. M., Gusmerotti, N. M., & De Giacomo, M. R. (2020). The influence of institutional pressures on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118879
  16. Damert, M., Paul, A., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Exploring the determinants and long-term performance outcomes of corporate carbon strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 160, 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.206
  17. Darko, A., Chan, A. P., Owusu-Manu, D. G., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2017). Drivers for implementing green building technologies: An international survey of experts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 386-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.043
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691229270-005
  19. Ebrahim, T. Y. (2020). Clean and sustainable technology innovation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 45, 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.11.004
  20. Erzurumlu, S. S., & Erzurumlu, Y. O. (2013). Development and deployment drivers of clean technology innovations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(2), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2013.09.001
  21. European Commission (2021). Forging a Climate-Resilient Europe—the New EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change. COM(2021) 82 final. Brussels: European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/adaptation-climate-change/eu-adaptation-strategy_en.
  22. Flammer, C., Toffel, M. W., & Viswanathan, K. (2021). Shareholder activism and firms' voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management Journal, 42(10), 1850-1879. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3313
  23. García-Sánchez, I. M., Aibar-Guzmán, B., Raimo, N., Vitolla, F., & Schiuma, G. (2024a). Climate governance, growth opportunities, and innovation in addressing climate change: Empirical evidence from emerging countries. Finance Research Letters, 70, 106328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106328
  24. García-Sánchez, I. M., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2020). The effect of institutional ownership and ownership dispersion on eco-innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120173
  25. García-Sánchez, I. M., & García-Sánchez, A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040126
  26. García‐Sánchez, I. M., Marín‐Hernández, S., Ortiz‐Martínez, E., & Aibar‐Guzmán, B. (2024b). Diversity, equity, and inclusion reporting in European Union companies: The role of female directors and the European regulatory framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(7), 7021-7040. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3854
  27. García-Sánchez, I. M., Monteiro, S., Piñeiro-Chousa, J. R., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2023a). Climate change innovation: Does board gender diversity matter?. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(3), 100372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100372
  28. García‐Sánchez, I. M., Ortiz‐Martínez, E., Marín‐Hernández, S., & Aibar‐Guzmán, B. (2023b). How does the European Green Deal affect the disclosure of environmental information?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(6), 2766-2782. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2514
  29. García-Sánchez, I. M., Piñeiro-Chousa, J. R., Aibar-Guzmán, C., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2024c). Environmental products and sustainability awards: The intangible benefits of sustainability strategies. ESIC Market, 55(1), e353-e353. https://doi.org/10.7200/esicm.55.353
  30. Geissdoerfer, M., Santa‐Maria, T., Kirchherr, J., & Pelzeter, C. (2023). Drivers and barriers for circular business model innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3814-3832. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3339
  31. Ghisetti, C., & Rennings, K. (2014). Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the German innovation survey. Journal of Cleaner production, 75, 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.097
  32. Hartley, K., Schülzchen, S., Bakker, C. A., & Kirchherr, J. (2023). A policy framework for the circular economy: Lessons from the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412, 137176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137176
  33. Hötte, K., & Jee, S. J. (2022). Knowledge for a warmer world: A patent analysis of climate change adaptation technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121879
  34. Hsieh, H. C., Claresta, V., & Bui, T. M. N. (2020). Green building, cost of equity capital and corporate governance: Evidence from US real estate investment trusts. Sustainability, 12(9), 3680. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093680
  35. Ilhan, E., Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. (2023). Climate risk disclosure and institutional investors. The Review of Financial Studies, 36(7), 2617-2650. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhad002
  36. Issa, A., & Hanaysha, J. R. (2023). Achieving sustainable business: The nexus between external sustainability assurance, CSR strategy and emission reduction. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(6), 3095-3109. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2540
  37. Johnson, M. P., Rötzel, T. S., & Frank, B. (2023). Beyond conventional corporate responses to climate change towards deep decarbonization: a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 921-954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00318-8
  38. Khan, S. A. R., Waqas, M., Honggang, X., Ahmad, N., & Yu, Z. (2022). Adoption of innovative strategies to mitigate supply chain disruption: COVID-19 pandemic. Operations Management Research, 15(3), 1115-1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00222-y
  39. Kuzemko, C., Blondeel, M., Dupont, C., & Brisbois, M. C. (2022). Russia’s war on Ukraine, European energy policy responses & implications for sustainable transformations. Energy Research & Social Science, 93, 102842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102842
  40. Lee, K. H., Min, B., & Yook, K. H. (2015). The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 167, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.018
  41. Li, Q., Sharif, A., Razzaq, A., & Yu, Y. (2022). Do climate technology, financialization, and sustainable finance impede environmental challenges? Evidence from G10 economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, 122095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122095
  42. Matos, S., Viardot, E., Sovacool, B. K., Geels, F. W., & Xiong, Y. (2022). Innovation and climate change: A review and introduction to the special issue. Technovation, 117, 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102612
  43. Mišík, M., & Nosko, A. (2023). Post-pandemic lessons for EU energy and climate policy after the Russian invasion of Ukraine: Introduction to a special issue on EU green recovery in the post-Covid-19 period. Energy Policy, 177, 113546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113546
  44. Nygaard, A. (2023). The geopolitical risk and strategic uncertainty of green growth after the Ukraine invasion: how the circular economy can decrease the market power of and resource dependency on critical minerals. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 3(2), 1099-1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00181-x
  45. Owjimehr, S., Meybodi, M. E., & Jamshidi, N. (2023). Can geopolitical risk improve energy efficiency in European countries?. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101145
  46. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row. New York.
  47. Rayner, T. (2023). Adaptation to climate change: EU policy on a Mission towards transformation?. npj Climate. Action 2(36). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00068-z
  48. Schipper, E. L. F., Eriksen, S. E., Fernandez Carril, L. R., Glavovic, B. C., & Shawoo, Z. (2021). Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal disruption and climate resilient development. Climate and Development, 13(6), 467-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1799738
  49. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493-511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392880
  50. Su, W., & Junge, S. (2023). Unlocking the recipe for organizational resilience: A review and future research directions. European Management Journal. Early view. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.03.002
  51. Subedi, M., & Zoet, E. (2024). The economic consequences of climate risk disclosures. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 9(1), 367-391. https://doi.org/10.2308/JFAR-2023-026
  52. Wang, D.D. (2017). Do United States manufacturing companies benefit from climate change mitigation technologies?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 821-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.172
  53. Wang, D.D. (2018). Unravelling the effects of the environmental technology portfolio on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(4), 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1472
  54. Wang, D., Li, S., & Sueyoshi, T. (2018). Determinants of climate change mitigation technology portfolio: An empirical study of major U.S. firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.025
  55. Wang, Q., Zhang, C., & Li, R. (2024). Impact of different geopolitical factors on the energy transition: The role of geopolitical threats, geopolitical acts, and geopolitical risks. Journal of Environmental Management, 352, 119962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119962
  56. Wesseling, J., Kieft, A., Fuenfschilling, L., & Hekkert, M. (2022). How socio-technical regimes affect low-carbon innovation: Global pressures inhibiting industrial heat pumps in the Netherlands. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102674
  57. You, Z., & Teirlinck, P. (2024). Specialization in climate technologies at the regional level in Europe: relatedness and the moderating role of policy direction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 203, 123348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123348
  58. Zakeri, B., Paulavets, K., Barreto-Gomez, L., Echeverri, L. G., Pachauri, S., Boza-Kiss, B., ... & Pouya, S. (2022). Pandemic, war, and global energy transitions. Energies, 15(17), 6114. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176114
  59. Zhou, S., Matisoff, D. C., Kingsley, G. A., & Brown, M. A. (2019). Understanding renewable energy policy adoption and evolution in Europe: The impact of coercion, normative emulation, competition, and learning. Energy Research & Social Science, 51, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.12.011