Climate Risk in ESG Portfolios: Evidence from Indonesian Equity Markets
Abstract
We examine climate variables in a pipeline for dynamic Value-at-Risk (VaR) of the SRI-KEHATI ESG index and the IHSG (Jakarta Composite Index). Using 1,499 daily observations (2014–2025), we combine the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) over 50 candidate predictors, a quantile regression neural network (QRNN) for VaR at three quantile levels, and SHAP for attribution. LASSO removes all climate variables from both indices. For IHSG, the partial correlation of clean-energy returns falls from 0.121 to −0.0005 once domestic equity factors enter, consistent with domestic absorption, though constituent overlap cannot exclude a purely compositional explanation. A diagnostic quantile regression shows climate contributions rising 2.82-fold from VaR 90% to VaR 99%, but the pattern is flat under the QRNN itself (ratio 1.03). In the main backtest, QRNN has lower pinball loss than Historical Simulation and GARCH(1,1)-t in all 12 Diebold–Mariano comparisons (p < 0.001), although it uses same-day predictors the benchmarks lack and the advantage was not reproduced in the ablation. In a common-sample ablation (n = 249 of 300 nominal test days), LASSO pre-selection is associated with 4 of 6 Kupiec passes versus 0 of 6 without it, but IHSG still fails at two of three quantile levels. Whether SRI-KEHATI screening isolates climate risk was not tested; mediation covers IHSG only.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] World Bank. Indonesia Economic Quarterly, December 2019: Investing in People. Box “An economic analysis of the 2019 forest and land fires and haze”, p. 7. Washington, DC: World Bank, Dec. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/33033.
[2] BNPB. Kerugian Kebakaran Hutan dan Lahan Sepanjang 2019 Capai Rp 75 Triliun. Tech. rep. News item, 30 December 2019; the Rp 75 trillion total economic loss is attributed to World Bank data. Jakarta: Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Dec. 2019. URL: https://bnpb.go.id/berita/kerugian-kebakaran-hutan-dan-lahan-sepanjang-2019-capai-rp-75-triliun.
[3] BNPB. UPDATE Banjir dan Longsor: Korban Meninggal Bertambah, Menjadi 67 Orang dan Satu Hilang. Tech. rep. News item, 6 January 2020; reports 67 fatalities and 1 missing person as of 6 January 2020 for the Jabodetabek floods and landslides. Jakarta: Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Jan. 2020. URL: https://www.bnpb.go.id/berita/update-banjir-korban-meninggal-bertambah-menjadi-67-orang-dan-satu-hilang.
[4] Bank Indonesia. Kerugian Ekonomi Akibat Banjir Jakarta Awal 2020 Capai Rp1 Triliun. Tech. rep. Estimate by Bank Indonesia’s DKI Jakarta office, compiled from Aprindo, Hipmi, and Kadin data, as reported by Alinea.id (28 February 2020); covers trade, transport, warehousing/logistics, and financial-services losses from the 1 January 2020 Jabodetabek floods. Jakarta: Bank Indonesia, Kantor Perwakilan DKI Jakarta, Feb. 2020. URL: https://www.alinea.id/bisnis/bi-kerugian-akibat-banjir-jakarta-awal-2020-capai-rp1-triliun-b1ZIr9rWp.
[5] Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS). Dampak Kerugian Ekonomi Bencana Banjir Sumatera. Tech. rep. Projected economic loss from the November 2025 Sumatra floods and landslides (housing, household income, roads and bridges, agricultural land). Jakarta: Center of Economic and Law Studies, Dec. 2025. URL: https://celios.co.id/dampak-kerugian-ekonomi-bencana-banjir-sumatera/.
[6] Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) and Yayasan Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia (KEHATI). Panduan Indeks SRI-KEHATI. Tech. rep. Official index methodology guide (PDF). Jakarta: PT Bursa Efek Indonesia, Apr. 2022. URL: https://www.idx.co.id/media/11195/panduan-indeks-sri-kehati_apr22.pdf.
[7] CRMS Indonesia. Mengenal Indeks Keberlanjutan Perusahaan dari SRI-KEHATI. Web article, 27 September 2018; secondary source for the selection thresholds. Sept. 2018. URL: https://crmsindonesia.org/publications/mengenal-indeks-keberlanjutan-perusahaan-dari-sri-kehati/ (visited on 04/01/2026).
[8] Patrick Bolton, Morgan Despres, Luiz Awazu Pereira da Silva, Frédéric Samama, and Romain Svartzman. The Green Swan: Central Banking and Financial Stability in the Age of Climate Change. Basel: Bank for International Settlements, 2020. URL: https://www.bis.org/publications/green-swan.pdf.
[9] Michael Barnett, William Brock, and Lars Peter Hansen. “Pricing Uncertainty Induced by Climate Change”. Review of Financial Studies 33.3 (2020), pp. 1024–1066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz144.
[10] Renato Faccini, Rastin Matin, and George Skiadopoulos. “Dissecting Climate Risks: Are They Reflected in Stock Prices?” Journal of Banking & Finance 155 (2023), p. 106948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106948.
[11] Gunnar Friede, Timo Busch, and Alexander Bassen. “ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies”. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 5.4 (2015), pp. 210–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917.
[12] Robert F. Engle, Stefano Giglio, Bryan Kelly, Heebum Lee, and Johannes Stroebel. “Hedging Climate Change News”. Review of Financial Studies 33.3 (2020), pp. 1184–1216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz072.
[13] Mohammadhossein Lashkaripour. “ESG tail risk: The Covid-19 market crash analysis”. Finance Research Letters 53 (2023), p. 103598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103598.
[14] Nada Yasya, Beatrice Alicia Maharani, Nabiila Putri Ardiansyah, Adinda Sabelia, and Taufiq Hidayat. “Risk and Return of Sustainable Awarded Company: Comparison between Stock Index Sri-Kehati and LQ45”. Jurnal Keuangan dan Perbankan 19.1 (2023), pp. 37–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35384/jkp.v19i1.340.
[15] Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello. “Measuring Geopolitical Risk”. American Economic Review 112.4 (2022), pp. 1194–1225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823.
[16] Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello. Geopolitical Risk (GPR) Index. Authors’ website. Daily GPR index data, updated weekly. 2026. URL: https://www.matteoiacoviello.com/gpr.htm.
[17] James W. Taylor. “A quantile regression neural network approach to estimating the conditional density of multiperiod returns”. Journal of Forecasting 19.4 (2000), pp. 299–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-131X(200007)19:4<299::AID-FOR775>3.0.CO;2-V.
[18] Xiaochun Liu and Richard Luger. “Quantile-based modeling of scale dynamics in financial returns for Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall forecasting”. International Journal of Forecasting 42.3 (2026), pp. 872–888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2025.12.002.
[19] Robert Tibshirani. “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 58.1 (1996), pp. 267–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x.
[20] Alexandre Belloni and Victor Chernozhukov. “ℓ1-penalized quantile regression in high-dimensional sparse models”. The Annals of Statistics 39.1 (2011), pp. 82–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/10-AOS827.
[21] Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. “A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions”. Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017, pp. 4765–4774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/3295222.3295230.
[22] Haithem Awijen, Sami Ben Jabeur, and Julien Pillot. “Interpretable machine learning models for ESG stock prices under transition and physical climate risk”. Annals of Operations Research 357.1 (2026), pp. 191–221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06231-x.
[23] Tobias Adrian and Markus K. Brunnermeier. “CoVaR”. American Economic Review 106.7 (2016), pp. 1705–1741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120555.
[24] Robert F. Engle and Simone Manganelli. “CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at risk by Regression Quantiles”. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 22.4 (2004), pp. 367–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/073500104000000370.
[25] Mikhail Belkin, Daniel Hsu, Siyuan Ma, and Soumik Mandal. “Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the classical bias-variance trade-off”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116.32 (2019), pp. 15849–15854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903070116.
[26] Paul H. Kupiec. “Techniques for Verifying The Accuracy of Risk Measurement Models”. Journal of Derivatives 3.2 (1995), pp. 73–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1995.407942.
[27] Peter F. Christoffersen. “Evaluating Interval Forecasts”. International Economic Review 39.4 (1998), pp. 841–862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341.
[28] Francis X. Diebold and Roberto S. Mariano. “Comparing Predictive Accuracy”. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 13.3 (1995), pp. 253–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1995.10524599.
[29] Christian Francq and Jean-Michel Zakoian. GARCH Models: Structure, Statistical Inference and Financial Applications. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313472.
[30] Reuben M. Baron and David A. Kenny. “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51.6 (1986), pp. 1173–1182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
[31] Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 51/POJK.03/2017 tentang Penerapan Keuangan Berkelanjutan bagi Lembaga Jasa Keuangan, Emiten, dan Perusahaan Publik. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2017 Nomor 169. 2017. URL: https://peraturan.go.id/files/ojk51-2017bt.pdf.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/cauchy.v11i2.45016
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Annisa Syalsabila, Nur Ikhwana, Lalu Ramzy Rahmanda

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Editorial Office
Mathematics Department,
Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang
Gajayana Street 50 Malang, East Java, Indonesia 65144
e-mail: cauchy@uin-malang.ac.id

CAUCHY: Jurnal Matematika Murni dan Aplikasi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.








