← 論文一覧に戻る

炭素市場とグリーンイノベーションの方向性：韓国排出権取引制度からの証拠

Carbon Markets and the Direction of Green Innovation: Evidence from Korea's Emissions Trading Scheme (原題)

Hyejin Park

Crossrefプレプリント2026-01-01#炭素価格対象セクター: cross_sector
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7013522
原典: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7013522

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

韓国の排出権取引制度（ETS）導入を自然実験として、炭素価格が企業のグリーンイノベーションの方向性に与える影響を分析。純粋なグリーン特許は減少する一方、燃料効率特許は減少せず、炭素価格が技術領域ごとに非対称な効果を持つことを示す。燃料効率イノベーションはETS曝露の負の評価効果を部分的に緩和するが、排出削減には寄与していない。

English

Using Korea's ETS as a quasi-natural experiment, this study shows carbon pricing asymmetrically affects green innovation: pure green patents decline while fuel-efficiency patents do not. Firms with larger fuel-efficiency stocks and market power respond more. Fuel-efficiency innovation partly mitigates negative valuation effects but does not reduce emissions in the first phase.

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

日本ではカーボンプライシング（GXリーグ、排出量取引）が本格化しており、本研究成果は政策設計に示唆を与える。企業の技術特性に応じたイノベーション誘発効果の違いは、日本のGX投資戦略やSSBJ開示における技術開示の重要性を示唆する。

In the global GX context

This paper contributes to global carbon pricing literature by showing that ETS can redirect innovation toward incremental improvements rather than transformative low-carbon tech. Relevant for jurisdictions implementing carbon markets (e.g., EU, China) and for ISSB/TCFD disclosure on innovation strategy.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides causal evidence on carbon pricing and innovation direction, useful for climate policy and innovation scholars.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights how carbon pricing may affect R&D portfolios; firms should consider technology-specific responses.

🏛政策担当者:Informs carbon market design: ETS may not spur radical green innovation, suggesting complementary policies needed.

📄 Abstract（原文）

This study examines how carbon markets shape the direction of corporate green innovation by exploiting the introduction of South Korea's emissions trading scheme (ETS) as a quasi-natural experiment. We distinguish between pure green patents, which support low-carbon alternatives, and fuel-efficiency patents, which improve fossil-fuel-based systems. We find that ETS exposure significantly reduces pure green innovation, while fuelefficiency innovation does not decline, indicating an asymmetric effect of carbon pricing across green technology domains. The fuel-efficiency response is stronger among firms with larger fuel-efficiency patent stocks, greater market power, and higher analyst coverage, suggesting that firms' technological profiles and market incentives shape their responses to carbon pricing. We find no evidence that either type of green innovation reduces emissions during the first phase of the ETS, although fuel-efficiency innovation partly mitigates the negative valuation effect of ETS exposure. Overall, the findings suggest that carbon markets can reshape the direction of green innovation, not simply its overall level, by reinforcing incremental fuel-efficiency improvements rather than promoting more transformative low-carbon technologies.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 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。