A bird's-eye view: firm costs and the limits of habitat protection
Using bird-watching data matched to U.S. industrial facilities, I show that new facilities reduce bird populations up to 18 km away. Yet under the Endangered Species Act, firms bear higher operating costs only when a facility sits within about 3 km of protected habitat. Protection only partly reverses the damage, and corporate disclosures and biodiversity ratings reveal little about which firms are exposed.
Best Paper Award, 3rd Modern Finance Conference, Kraków 2026
Best PhD Paper Award, Global Research Alliance for Sustainable Finance and Investment 2025 (for an earlier version)
Abstract
The U.S. Endangered Species Act protects the habitats of threatened species by designating spatially explicit areas that restrict the operations of nearby firms. Using geographic designations under the Act, I show that these protections are associated with greater operating costs and lower profitability for firms with facilities only within a few kilometers of the area. However, I provide causal evidence that these facilities reduce bird populations—a proxy for local ecology—over a much wider area, with effects detected up to 18 km away. Protections do not undo the damage, as bird populations near designated habitat recover only partially. Costs rise with the concentration of polluting activity near protected habitat and coincide with greater regulatory scrutiny, increased employment, and reductions in the most toxic pollutants. In addition, voluntary disclosures and biodiversity ratings provide little information about this exposure, limiting the scope for market-based incentives to reduce ecological harm.