本文探討氣候風險的發生是否會影響企業的碳減量行為，進而影響分析師評價。氣候風險分為法規風險與實體風險，本文使用美國聯邦政府與州政府的碳政策做為法規風險之衡量變數，以及颶風事件做為實體風險之衡量變數，實證結果發現企業於州政府的碳政策發布後、以及颶風事件發生後將傾向從事碳減量行動，但企業於聯邦政府的碳政策發布後則未有顯著的碳減量行動。州政府的碳政策與颶風事件發生使企業減少約12.54%至13.67%的碳排放量。此外，氣候風險與企業碳排放量的負向關係於以下三種情境下愈顯著: (i)當聯邦層級的碳政策規定為Obama政府在任時期；(ii)當州層級的碳政策規定為民主黨州長在任時期；與(iii)當企業有較多的實質資產受到颶風事件的影響。另外，分析師亦給予企業碳減量行為是由於州政府的碳政策者較佳的評價，此結果在使用傾向分數配對法減緩內生性問題後仍然成立。

This study investigates whether climate risk affects corporate carbon mitigation, and how this causal effect influences analyst recommendation. Climate risks can be categorized into regulatory risks and physical risks. Using carbon control regulations announced by the U.S. federal government and state governments and hurricane events to measure regulatory risks and physical risks, this study shows that firms reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions following the state-level carbon regulations and the hurricane damage, but not the federal-level carbon regulations. The climate risks urge firms to reduce GHG emissions by about 12.54% to 13.67%. Additional evidence finds that the negative relation between climate risks and firms’ carbon emission is more pronounced (i) when the federal-level carbon regulations were declared by the Obama administration, (ii) when the state-level carbon regulations were announced by Democratic governors, and (iii) when the firms that are hit by hurricanes have more tangible assets. Furthermore, analysts are more favorable to firms’ emission reduction following the state-level regulatory risks. Results hold after using propensity score matching to mitigate the endogeneity concern.