英国と韓国におけるESGグリーンファイナンス政策と市場構造の比較研究
A Comparative Study of ESG Green Finance Policy and Market Structure United Kingdom and South Korea (原題)
Byungjin Yim, Hyunjung Lee
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
英国と韓国のESGグリーンファイナンス制度を政策枠組み・市場構造・情報基盤の三軸で比較した研究。英国は2019年ネットゼロ法制化以降、TCFD義務化・グリーンギルト・独自タクソノミーで市場主導の成熟したエコシステムを構築した一方、韓国は2021年炭素中立法とK-Taxonomyで制度を急速に整備したが政府主導・政策金融機関依存が残る。著者はTCFD/ISSBの早期法制化、移行金融を伴うK-Taxonomy高度化、情報基盤標準化、グリーンウォッシング防止強化を提言する。
English
This study compares UK and South Korean ESG green finance regimes across policy frameworks, market structure, and information infrastructure. The UK built a mature market-led ecosystem via mandatory TCFD, green gilts, and an independent taxonomy, while Korea advanced rapidly through its 2021 Carbon Neutrality Act and K-Taxonomy but remains government-led with limited private maturity. It recommends early TCFD/ISSB legislation, taxonomy upgrading with transition finance, information standardization, and stronger greenwashing safeguards.
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基準の確定と有報・統合報告書での開示義務化を控える日本にとって、英国のTCFD義務化→ISSB法制化の段階的移行と、韓国のような政府主導型からの脱却課題は直接の参照軸となる。特にK-Taxonomyと移行金融の接続設計は、日本のグリーン成長戦略・トランジション・ファイナンス指針の運用改善に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
For global disclosure scholarship, this paper offers a rare paired comparison of a market-led regime (UK: TCFD mandate, green gilts, independent taxonomy) against a state-led latecomer (Korea: K-Taxonomy, policy banks), illuminating how ISSB adoption and transition finance design play out outside the EU/US axis. It reinforces the ISSB/TCFD convergence narrative while highlighting greenwashing-control and evaluation-agency standardization as unresolved infrastructure gaps.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a structured institutional comparison framework linking taxonomy design, TCFD/ISSB sequencing, and private-market maturity that can be extended to other Asian latecomers.
🏢実務担当者:Useful for Korean and Japanese financial institutions benchmarking disclosure readiness and anticipating taxonomy/transition-finance requirements.
🏛政策担当者:Offers a concrete roadmap (early TCFD/ISSB legislation, transition finance in taxonomy, greenwashing controls) for regulators designing disclosure mandates.
📄 Abstract（原文）
As the climate crisis intensifies, green finance incorporating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) considerations has emerged as a core component of global financial order. This study comparatively analyzes ESG green finance systems of the UK and South Korea across policy frameworks, market structures, and information infrastructure to derive institutional improvement directions for Korea. Following Net Zero legislation in 2019, the UK established a mature, market-driven green finance ecosystem through mandatory TCFD compliance, green gilt issuance, and independent green taxonomy development. While Korea rapidly advanced institutional frameworks through the 2021 Carbon Neutrality Act and K-Taxonomy establishment, its structure remains government-led with policy financial institutions dominant and relatively limited private market maturity. Comparative analysis reveals that the UK secured market confidence through early legislation and international standard-setting, forming a multi-layered private-led ESG ecosystem. Korea faces ongoing challenges in balancing international alignment with industrial acceptability, expanding private participation, and standardizing evaluation agencies. This study proposes policy directions including early TCFD and ISSB legislation, K-Taxonomy advancement with transition finance introduction, ESG internalization promotion in private financial institutions, information infrastructure standardization, and strengthened greenwashing prevention mechanisms.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.31203/aepa.2026.23.3.004first seen 2026-10-22 05:20:06 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:14:27
🔔 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。