気候リスクの金融規制への統合：ESGと座礁資産の文脈におけるバーゼルIII
Integrating Climate Risks into Financial Regulation: Basel III in the Context of ESG and Stranded Assets (原題)
Muhammed Mustafa Tuncer Çalışkan
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本稿は、気候関連の物理的・移行リスクが銀行の健全性とバーゼルIII枠組みにどう作用するかを金融中心に整理する。ESGの総合スコアを健全性リスク指標の代替とすべきでなく、気候リスクは信用・市場・流動性・オペレーショナルリスクを通じて顕在化すると論じる。座礁資産を伝達経路として位置づけ、自己資本要件・監督レビュー・シナリオ分析・ストレステスト・気候関連開示の役割と限界を評価する。
English
This review examines how climate physical and transition risks affect financial stability and interact with Basel III. It argues aggregate ESG scores should not substitute for prudential risk indicators, since climate risk materializes through credit, market, liquidity, and operational channels. Stranded assets serve as transmission channels affecting valuation, creditworthiness, and bank resilience. It assesses capital requirements, supervisory review, scenario analysis, stress testing, and climate disclosure.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
SSBJ基準・有報での気候開示と金融庁の健全性監督を橋渡しする論点を提供し、邦銀の気候リスク管理・開示対応の設計に示唆を与える。ESGスコア依存への警鐘は日本企業の統合報告・投資家対応にも実務的示唆が大きい。
In the global GX context
Directly relevant to the global push to embed climate risk into prudential regulation under TCFD/ISSB and central-bank stress testing (ECB, BoE). Its core claim—use financial materiality and transmission channels rather than aggregate ESG scores—sharpens the boundary between disclosure frameworks and prudential supervision, informing CSRD/ISSB implementation debates.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:ESG枠組みと気候関連財務リスクの概念的境界を整理し、健全性規制・開示・座礁資産を統合視点で捉える枠組みを提供する。
🏢実務担当者:ESGスコアに依存せず、信用・市場・流動性リスク経路で気候リスクを管理・開示する実務設計の指針となる。
🏛政策担当者:気候リスクを財務的マテリアリティと伝達経路に基づき健全性規制へ組み込む際の論点と限界を示す。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This article provides a finance-centered review of how climate-related physical and transition risk drivers affect financial stability and interact with the Basel III regulatory framework. It distinguishes climate-related financial risk from the broader environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework and argues that aggregate ESG measures should not be treated as direct substitutes for prudential risk indicators. Instead, climate-related risk drivers may materialize through established financial risk categories, including credit, market, liquidity, and operational risk. The study contextualizes stranded assets and assets-at-risk as transmission channels through which transition pressures may affect asset valuation, borrower creditworthiness, credit allocation, and bank resilience. Drawing on academic research and regulatory guidance, the article evaluates the roles and limitations of capital requirements, supervisory review, scenario analysis, stress testing, and climate-related disclosure in identifying and managing such vulnerabilities. The analysis suggests that climate-related financial risks should be incorporated into prudential decision-making on the basis of financial materiality and identifiable risk transmission channels rather than through the mechanical use of aggregate ESG scores or broad green-brown classifications. Climate-related and broader sustainability disclosures can support this process by improving the information available for risk identification, supervisory assessment, and market discipline. The article contributes to the literature by clarifying the conceptual boundary between ESG frameworks and climate-related financial risk and by linking climate-risk drivers, prudential mechanisms, disclosure practices, and stranded-asset implications within a common regulatory perspective.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.48064/equinox.1859506first seen 2026-10-02 05:40:09
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。