投资者驱动的气候治理的兴起:从神话到制度?

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Rami Kaplan, David L. Levy
{"title":"投资者驱动的气候治理的兴起:从神话到制度?","authors":"Rami Kaplan, David L. Levy","doi":"10.1111/rego.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investor-driven climate governance (ICG) is premised on mobilizing finance to address climate change by leveraging investors to pressure companies to reduce emissions. Examining the rapid growth of ICG from an institutional political economy perspective, we argue that powerful financial and regulatory actors with varied interests coalesced to promote the discourse that climate risks equal financial risks, and to develop a finance-centered mechanism of climate governance. The flourishing field created market opportunities for other actors such as data vendors and accountants, and attracted activists seeking leverage on emitters. In turn, institutionalization exerted isomorphic pressure on financial firms to adopt ICG practices. However, ICG practices of disclosure and emission commitments became increasingly decoupled from actions to reduce emissions due to the weak business case for decarbonizing investors' portfolios and corporate operations; the core economic mechanism was largely a myth. This decoupling created contradictory forces: it erodes the legitimacy of the ICG discourse, but we also identified dynamic feedback loops that strengthen the field, potentially making the myth self-fulfilling. Overall, we conclude that the field's momentum, interests of key actors, and feedback effects are likely to sustain the field, which is deeply institutionalized despite the current headwinds.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Rise of Investor-Driven Climate Governance: From Myth to Institution?\",\"authors\":\"Rami Kaplan, David L. Levy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rego.70000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Investor-driven climate governance (ICG) is premised on mobilizing finance to address climate change by leveraging investors to pressure companies to reduce emissions. Examining the rapid growth of ICG from an institutional political economy perspective, we argue that powerful financial and regulatory actors with varied interests coalesced to promote the discourse that climate risks equal financial risks, and to develop a finance-centered mechanism of climate governance. The flourishing field created market opportunities for other actors such as data vendors and accountants, and attracted activists seeking leverage on emitters. In turn, institutionalization exerted isomorphic pressure on financial firms to adopt ICG practices. However, ICG practices of disclosure and emission commitments became increasingly decoupled from actions to reduce emissions due to the weak business case for decarbonizing investors' portfolios and corporate operations; the core economic mechanism was largely a myth. This decoupling created contradictory forces: it erodes the legitimacy of the ICG discourse, but we also identified dynamic feedback loops that strengthen the field, potentially making the myth self-fulfilling. Overall, we conclude that the field's momentum, interests of key actors, and feedback effects are likely to sustain the field, which is deeply institutionalized despite the current headwinds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regulation & Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70000\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70000","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

投资者驱动的气候治理(ICG)的前提是动员资金,通过利用投资者向企业施压以减少排放来应对气候变化。从制度政治经济学的角度审视ICG的快速增长,我们认为具有不同利益的强大金融和监管行为者联合起来促进了气候风险等同于金融风险的话语,并建立了以金融为中心的气候治理机制。这个蓬勃发展的领域为数据供应商和会计师等其他参与者创造了市场机会,并吸引了寻求对排放者施加影响的活动人士。反过来,制度化对金融公司采用ICG实践施加了同构压力。然而,由于投资者投资组合和公司运营的脱碳商业案例不足,ICG的披露实践和排放承诺越来越与减排行动脱钩;核心经济机制在很大程度上是一个神话。这种脱钩产生了矛盾的力量:它侵蚀了ICG话语的合法性,但我们也发现了强化该领域的动态反馈循环,潜在地使神话自我实现。总体而言,我们得出的结论是,该领域的势头、关键参与者的利益和反馈效应可能会维持该领域,尽管目前存在逆风,但该领域仍已深入制度化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Rise of Investor-Driven Climate Governance: From Myth to Institution?
Investor-driven climate governance (ICG) is premised on mobilizing finance to address climate change by leveraging investors to pressure companies to reduce emissions. Examining the rapid growth of ICG from an institutional political economy perspective, we argue that powerful financial and regulatory actors with varied interests coalesced to promote the discourse that climate risks equal financial risks, and to develop a finance-centered mechanism of climate governance. The flourishing field created market opportunities for other actors such as data vendors and accountants, and attracted activists seeking leverage on emitters. In turn, institutionalization exerted isomorphic pressure on financial firms to adopt ICG practices. However, ICG practices of disclosure and emission commitments became increasingly decoupled from actions to reduce emissions due to the weak business case for decarbonizing investors' portfolios and corporate operations; the core economic mechanism was largely a myth. This decoupling created contradictory forces: it erodes the legitimacy of the ICG discourse, but we also identified dynamic feedback loops that strengthen the field, potentially making the myth self-fulfilling. Overall, we conclude that the field's momentum, interests of key actors, and feedback effects are likely to sustain the field, which is deeply institutionalized despite the current headwinds.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信