Since the Industrial Revolution, the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human production activities has increased year by year, and the greenhouse effect has also increased. A series of problems, such as global warming, melting of the Antarctic continent, sea level rise and frequent occurrence of extreme climate, have attracted the attention of countries all over the world. As a developing country with the fastest economic growth rate, China's rapid economic growth is inseparable from the contribution of manufacturing industry. As an important engine of China's economic development, manufacturing industry inevitably brings environmental problems and a large number of greenhouse gas emissions while promoting rapid economic development. Therefore, manufacturing has become a major area for China to achieve its carbon emission reduction targets. With the "Made in China" to the world, the export trade of manufacturing industry plays a decisive role in China's total export trade and even the global trade. But whether the huge export demands will affect carbon emissions. Through the empirical study on carbon emissions of China's manufacturing export trade, the paper found that the increase of export demand of manufacturing industry will indeed bring a significant increase in carbon emissions, but also affected by some other factors. Finally, it provides reference for the high-quality development and export of China's manufacturing industry under the background of the target of “dual-carbon”.

Carbon emissions trading is an important part of emission reduction policy tools, and manufacturing is the foundation of a strong country. This paper explores the impact of carbon emissions trading pilot on the high-quality development of manufacturing industry by using the double difference method. It is found that carbon emissions trading can significantly promote the high-quality development of manufacturing industry, in which the government's will of ecological environment governance, technological progress and industrial structure rationalization have significant intermediary effects. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that the impact of carbon emissions trading on the high-quality development of the manufacturing industry is most significant in the western region. Accordingly, the study proposes suggestions on how to further improve China's carbon emissions trading market and realize the high-quality development of the manufacturing industry.

The performance of ETFs in Hong Kong that apply environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria to make their investment decisions is examined in this study. The performance of these ETFs is assessed against the performance of competitive non-ESG ETFs. The study period spans from 1/12/2022 to 29/2/2024. From a methodological perspective, raw returns, tracking errors and risk-adjusted returns are computed. Raw returns are computed in percentage terms with daily close trade prices. Tracking error is calculated as the difference in daily returns between ETFs and Hang Seng Index, which is used as a proxy for the entire stock market of Hong Kong. Risk-adjusted returns include Sharpe, Treyor, Modigliani & Modigliani, and Information Ratios. A simple regression model is applied too, via which the daily excess return of each ETF, that is the return above the risk-free rate, is regressed on the corresponding return of the market index. The empirical results indicate that the ESG ETFs clearly underperform their non-ESG peers, also being a little riskier and more expensive than them. In particular, the average daily return of ESG ETFs is equal to -0.058%, while the respective return of non-ESG ETFs is slightly better at -0.033%. At the cumulative level, the average return of ESG ETFs is equal to -19.22%, while the respective return of the non-ESG ETFs amounts to -12.41%. When it comes to risk, the ESG group presents an average measure of 1.572%, whereas the non-ESG group has an average risk of 1.490%. In regard to expenses, the average management fee of the ESG ETFs is equal to 0.18%, while the average management fee of the non-ESG peers is 0.09%.