Asymmetric information poses a challenge to mitigation strategies, as information constraints hinder a firm’s awareness and willingness to implement measures to address climate-related concerns. EIB (2020) finds a positive correlation between access to information about climate needs and investment in climaterelated measures. Indeed, firms that make efforts to improve information through green management practices, such as the employment of dedicated climate staff members, energy audits and climate targets, are more likely to invest in climate. All these practices can help alleviate information asymmetries by disseminating knowledge on the impact of climate-related risks and potential solutions to mitigate such. As outlined by Kalantzis and Revoltella (2019), this knowledge exchange can also support energy planning and the design of energy-saving strategies and associated measures. While there is a consensus that access to information is important for mitigation strategies, there are differences in the magnitude of effect reported by different studies. Kalantzis and Revoltella (2019) examine the effect of energy audits on firms’ energy efficiency investments and report that firms that conduct energy audits are more likely to invest in energy efficiency measures than those who do not. Meanwhile, Thollander et al (2007) find that while information campaigns lead to increased awareness regarding the importance of energy efficiency, they translate to a marginally small rise in the implementation of energy efficiency measures. In light of the above, we expect awareness of climate change, as reflected by better green management, to be positively correlated with the number of mitigation measures. We also expect that better green management practices overcome the information barriers to mitigation and induce firms to pursue, at least, “low-hanging fruit” measures. As such, we investigate two additional hypotheses:

**Hypothesis 3.** Credit constraints matter more for capital-intensive mitigation measures - in other words, climate measures in production processes.

**Hypothesis 4.** The more finance constrained a firm is, the fewer the mitigation measures it will pursue.

An additional barrier to mitigation strategies are financial constraints. Mitigation and energy efficiency investments can be costly and require sufficient financial capital for firms to undertake, especially if they are capital-intensive. This is in line with existing literature, which asserts that financial constraints are negatively correlated with climate-related mitigation measures (e.g. Götz, 2018, Fleitera et al, 2012). Fleitera et al (2012) find that the adoption of energy efficiency measures is mainly driven by profitability and that a significant limiting constraint is a firm ́s financial resources. Götz (2018) and Xu and Kim (2021) also find that financial constraints are negatively correlated with firms’ pollution abatement measures. Instead, financially constrained firms increase the likelihood of a firm polluting by 3% – 3.5% (Xu and Kim, 2021). Based on the discussion, we expect that the more finance constrained a firm is, the fewer the mitigation measures it will pursue.

# **V. Methodology**

Logistic regression estimation To capture corporate strategies to tackle climate change and policy-related impacts, we have taken into account the characterization framework of energy-efficiency investments with selected attributes based on Trianni et al (2014). As firms’ business decisions are influenced by a wide range of factors, including market demand, competition and environmental regulations, it is difficult to distinguish between mitigation measures that are only driven by climate change impacts and those that are the results of other 16