インドのマルチ・レギュレーター型サステナブルファイナンス体制に関する批判的制度分析
A Critical Institutional Analysis of India's Multi-Regulator Sustainable Finance Architecture (原題)
Anmol Kumar, Yudhvir Singh
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
インドは2007年以降、SEBI・RBI・IRDAI・財務省がそれぞれ独自にサステナビリティ定義と開示枠組みを形成し、重複しつつも非整合な基準群を生み出してきた。本論文は公的 circular・枠組み・草案の教義的・時系列的分析を通じ、単一の調整された architecture の欠如がグリーンウォッシュと規制裁定の温床となっていると論じる。EU の単一タクソノミー規制と対比し、インドの気候ファイナンス・タクソノミー草案を分岐点と位置づけ、規制当局間の調整を軸とした政策提言を行う。
English
India's sustainable finance rules are split across SEBI, RBI, IRDAI and the Finance Ministry, producing overlapping but non-identical definitions of sustainability, uneven assurance and enforcement gaps. Through doctrinal and chronological analysis of instruments from 2007–2026, the paper argues the missing coordinated architecture fuels greenwashing and regulatory arbitrage. Comparing with the EU's single Taxonomy Regulation, it frames India's draft Climate Finance Taxonomy as an inflection point, and offers coordination-focused recommendations.
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
日本でもSSBJ基準の導入と金融庁・経産省・環境省の役割分担をめぐる調整課題が顕在化しており、複数規制当局が並立するインドの事例は、日本の開示ガバナンス設計やタクソノミー整備を考える上で示唆に富む。特に「単一タクソノミーか複数定義か」という論点は、SSBJとGX経済移行債・サステナブルファイナンス指針の整合性を検討する日本にとって参照価値が高い。
In the global GX context
As ISSB-aligned disclosure spreads, this paper offers a rare emerging-market counterpoint to the EU's single-Taxonomy model, showing how multi-regulator fragmentation creates arbitrage and greenwashing risk. It speaks directly to global debates on interoperability, assurance harmonisation and the design of transition taxonomies in jurisdictions without a central sustainability regulator.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:新興国における規制の重層性とグリーンウォッシュの制度的要因を分析する枠組みとして、比較制度研究に有用。
🏢実務担当者:インド事業を持つ企業は、SEBI・RBI等で異なる開示・保証要件を把握し、コンプライアンス設計を見直す材料となる。
🏛政策担当者:複数当局が並立する開示体制の調整コストと、単一タクソノミー導入の是非を検討する際の参照事例を提供する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
India has built one of the most active sustainable finance regulatory ecosystems among emerging economies in little more than a decade, moving from a voluntary corporate social responsibility model to a web of mandatory disclosure and green instrument frameworks administered separately by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Reserve Bank of India, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and the Ministry of Finance. Existing scholarship on this transition largely falls into three categories: descriptive surveys of individual regulatory instruments, ranking exercises that identify barriers such as low investor awareness or high compliance costs, and greenwashing studies that treat misleading disclosure as a corporate governance failure. This paper argues that a more fundamental problem has been under-examined: the absence of a single, coordinated architecture for defining and enforcing sustainability across regulators. Through a doctrinal and chronological analysis of the principal circulars, frameworks and draft instruments issued between 2007 and 2026, this paper maps how the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Reserve Bank of India and the Ministry of Finance have each generated their own working definitions of sustainability, producing overlapping but non-identical standards, uneven assurance requirements and enforcement gaps that create fertile ground for greenwashing and regulatory arbitrage. Drawing a comparison with the European Union's single Taxonomy Regulation, the paper contends that India's draft Climate Finance Taxonomy represents a genuine inflection point that could either harmonise the fragmented landscape or simply add a fourth competing definition. The paper concludes with a set of coordination-focused recommendations for regulators and policymakers.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://ijhce.com/index.php/ijhce/article/download/119/107first seen 2026-09-16 05:05:59 · last seen 2026-09-22 05:06:37
🔔 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。