Green Bonds and Sustainable Finance: Credibility Architectures, Challenges and Implications for the Green Transition
グリーンボンドとサステナブルファイナンス：信頼性アーキテクチャ、課題、およびグリーン移行への影響 (AI 翻訳)
Elena Muñoz Gómez, Ángel Sabino Mirón Sanguino, Eva Crespo Cebada, Carlos Díaz‐Caro
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、7つの主要なグリーンボンドフレームワーク（EU、ICMA、日本、ASEAN、中国、インドなど）を比較し、信頼性アーキテクチャの収束と相違を明らかにする。外部レビューや監督、環境付加性などの要素で枠組み間に大きな差があり、断片的な基準やグリーンウォッシングのリスクなどの課題が残る。グリーンボンドの効果は、制度的な信頼性の設計に依存すると結論づける。
English
This paper compares seven major green bond frameworks (EU, ICMA, Japan, ASEAN, China, India, etc.) on credibility architecture. It finds convergence in product grammar but divergence in external review, supervision, and environmental additionality. Challenges include fragmented standards, greenwashing risks, and information asymmetries. The paper argues that the green transition impact of green bonds depends on how credibility is institutionally organized.
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
日本グリーンボンドガイドラインが国際比較の対象となっており、日本の枠組みの位置づけや改善点を考察する上で貴重。SSBJや有報での情報開示との連携も示唆され、日本の発行体や投資家にとって示唆に富む。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a global comparison of green bond frameworks, including EU, Japan, and China, which is directly relevant to the ongoing convergence and divergence in sustainable finance regulation. It highlights credibility issues that are central to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and transition finance discussions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a systematic comparison of credibility architectures across major green bond frameworks, revealing gaps in additionality and comparability.
🏢実務担当者:Helps corporate sustainability teams understand how different green bond standards affect labeling and credibility, aiding in framework selection.
🏛政策担当者:Offers insights for regulators on how to enhance green bond credibility through external review, supervision, and impact reporting.
📄 Abstract（原文）
While green bonds are increasingly used to channel capital towards environmentally responsible projects, their effectiveness depends not only on market growth, but also on the credibility of the institutional frameworks that support the green label. Through focused bibliometric positioning, scoping synthesis and comparative document analysis, the paper examines how seven major green-bond frameworks organise credibility: the EU European Green Bond Standard, the ICMA Green Bond Principles, the Japan Green Bond Guidelines, the ASEAN Green Bond Standards, China’s catalogue-plus-principles framework, India’s Sovereign Green Bond Framework and China’s Sovereign Green Bond Framework 2025. The findings show that frameworks converge in product grammar, including project selection, management of proceeds, reporting and external review, but diverge substantially in credibility architecture, especially regarding external review, supervision, refinancing governance and environmental additionality. Current frameworks generally make green-bond labels more transparent, comparable and verifiable, but not necessarily more additional in environmental terms. Important challenges therefore remain: fragmented standards, greenwashing risks, information asymmetries, weak impact-reporting comparability and limited safeguards against refinancing existing assets. The paper argues that the contribution of green bonds to the green transition depends on how credibility is institutionally organised.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157607first seen 2026-07-29 05:00:43
🔔 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。