Sustainable finance regulations
It is important to steer investments towards solutions that achieve economic, climate and sustainability goals. However, to do so, regulators must reduce the risks of exposure to climate change, environmental and social sustainability impacts and climate and sustainability policy.
The Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures established recommendations that identified two types of risks: physical and transitional. Physical risks result in direct damage to assets (e.g. flooding or coastal erosion for rail or road infrastructure) as well as indirect impacts from supply chain disruption (e.g. revenue loss or added costs). Transitional risks can result from changes in policy, legal frameworks, technology, and the market. They can lead to "stranded" or possibly inoperable assets. (TCFD, 2017)
In transport, reducing climate change and climate policy risks will likely require removing greenhouse gas emissions from transport modes. This may be achieved, for example, by shifting to zero tailpipe emission vehicles or using low-carbon fuels and energy sources for passenger and freight transport. Climate and, more broadly, sustainability risk mitigation is particularly relevant for long-lasting solutions, such as transport-related infrastructure.
Environmentally friendly bonds are becoming an increasingly relevant source of low-cost financing or refinancing for climate-friendly projects. They are reorienting financial flows towards assets that have lower exposure to climate-related risks (including climate policy).
The European Union has made the most progress in defining a framework allowing investments to flow towards sustainable projects and activities. A key initiative, the Taxonomy Regulation, and its delegated acts define a classification system that establishes a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. The Regulation aims to provide companies, investors and policy makers with appropriate definitions for economic activities considered environmentally sustainable (EC, 2021a). Part of the reason why the sustainable finance taxonomy is gaining relevance in Europe is that it will guide investment in Europe's EUR 672.5 billion Recovery and Resilience Facility, as EU countries must devote at least 37% of the financing they receive to investments and reforms that support climate objectives (EC, 2020).
Korea also plans to build a taxonomy for green finance to channel financial flows into businesses delivering environmental benefits (Government of the Republic of Korea, 2020). The Japanese government has announced it will take measures to attract private investment to green, transition and innovation initiatives while formulating basic principles and roadmaps for industries with large CO2 emissions (METI, 2020). Japan will also co-operate with financial institutions in defining criteria for investments that contribute to a carbon-neutral economy. The United States Treasury is supporting international efforts to better identify climate-aligned investments and encourage financial institutions to credibly align their portfolios and strategies with the objectives of the Paris Agreement (Shalal et al., 2021). The Treasury also instructed federal agencies to measure, mitigate and disclose climate risks (White House, 2021).
Financial instruments that aim to support the development of decarbonising solutions are defined by their potential to reduce GHG emissions and the extent to which they attract investment. The GHG emission savings are therefore dependent on the design of the criteria that define the financial instrument's scope of application. The effectiveness of the policy framework plays a role in encouraging investors to opt for economic activities that are compliant with these criteria.
In the transport sector, quantitative thresholds proposed in the EU Taxonomy Regulation and delegated acts are based on both tank-to-wheel emission (tailpipe emission) per passenger or tonne-kilometre and well-to-tank emission characteristics for different energy sources.
For example, for road transport, economic activities classified as sustainable include cars with up to 50 g CO2/km of tailpipe emissions (therefore including plug-in electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles [PHEV]) until 2025, and zero tailpipe emissions of CO2 after that (therefore excluding PHEVs). They also include buses, two-wheelers, three-wheelers and low-carbon vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions of CO2 and heavy trucks that emit less than half of the average CO2 emissions/km of all vehicles in the same vehicle category (EC, 2021b).
For aviation, economic activities classified as sustainable in the EU Taxonomy include the construction, modernisation, maintenance and operation of infrastructure that is required for zero tailpipe CO2 operation of aircraft (EC, 2021b).
On energy distribution for road transport, the economic activities include infrastructure dedicated to the operation of vehicles with zero tailpipe CO2 emissions. In particular, these include electric charging points, electricity grid connection upgrades, hydrogen fuelling stations and electric road systems (ERSs). They also include infrastructure and installations dedicated to public passenger transport (EC, 2021b).
On energy carriers used or suitable for all transport vehicles, the activities cover electricity and hydrogen as well as biofuels. For electricity (and heat), they include (a) generation from renewable solar, wind, hydro, geothermal energy, and gaseous and liquid fuels leading to less than 100 g CO2e/kWh and (b) biomass fulfilling the sustainability criteria defined in the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (EC, 2021b).
Economic activities included in the draft formulation also include (a) electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure (for cases where newly connected generation capacity is primarily serving generation capacity below the threshold value of 100 g CO2e/kWh measured on a lifecycle basis) and (b) electricity storage in closed-loop pumped hydropower storage (EC, 2021b).
For hydrogen, they include the construction of hydrogen storage facilities, the development of transmission and distribution networks, the manufacturing of technologies for producing hydrogen and hydrogen-based synthetic fuels, as well as the production of hydrogen and hydrogen-based synthetic fuels, provided that they have lifecycle GHG emissions savings of 73.4% for hydrogen and 70% for hydrogen-based synthetic fuels (relative to a fossil fuel benchmark of 94 g CO2-eq/MJ) (EC, 2021b).
The reporting and verification requirements needed to certify financial and non-financial reporting as compliant with the requirements of instruments like the Taxonomy Regulation in Europe are the key instruments guaranteeing compatibility with GHG emission mitigation objectives.
The use of regulatory thresholds for the definition of activities that are compatible with sustainable finance requires the development of measurement, reporting and verification capacity in order to certify compliance. The development of these capacities, as well as certifying compliance, require sufficient human resources, which incurs costs. The costs of certification are likely far lower than the benefits that climate and climate policy risk reductions can bring to the borrowers. This effect is amplified in the case of large-scale investments, as certification costs are unlikely to grow in proportion to the scale of a project. Compliance costs also exist for entities, which may vary according to the regulatory thresholds of the sustainable finance instruments.
Other costs linked to establishing these regulations include negotiation efforts. Setting up such regulations requires negotiations between relevant actors in various levels of government, the private sector and civil society. For example, finalising these regulations can involve the organisation of large meetings for deliberating between relevant actors. In countries with no previous experience in developing regulations for sustainable finance, additional costs could be incurred in the form of capacity building needs.
Developing financial instruments that support decarbonising solutions have great potential for far-reaching benefits. For instance, they can generate momentum in investments for climate-friendly transport solutions, leading to cost reductions when those solutions are scaled up. But the benefits go beyond the transport sector. Developing financial instruments that support decarbonising solutions of all types are well aligned with benefits identified by the EU Technical Expert Group (TEG) on sustainable finance for green bonds. EU TEG identified the following benefits:
- raising visibility and awareness on sustainability projects in both the public and private sectors
- accelerating the emergence of definitions of green eligibility and their transparent comparison, having a potential positive ripple effect beyond the financial markets (e.g. to define criteria relating with the environmental characteristics of vehicles that could be applied to minimising emissions from transport through access regulations and pricing schemes)
- reducing the scale of carbon-intensive assets that risk becoming "stranded" (i.e. unusable) and their negative effect on the economy.
The potentially adverse effect of sustainable finance regulations is the possible failure in defining the criteria that provide the scope of application of the financial instruments. This may be due, for example, to adverse publicity when activities that have received financial support fail to effectively reduce GHG emissions.
ITF (2021) Transport Climate Action Directory - Sustainable finance regulations
https://www.itf-oecd.org/policy/sustainable-finance-regulations
European Commission (2021b) Sustainable finance – EU classification system for green investments, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12302-Sustainable-finance-EU-classification-system-for-green-investments_en
European Commission (2021a) EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en
European Commission (2020) Finance and the Green Deal, https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/finance-and-green-deal_en
Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2020) Green Growth Strategy Through Achieving Carbon Neutrality in 2050, https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2020/1225_001.html
Shalal A. and Lawder D. (2021) U.S. Treasury's Yellen vows to work with international climate finance ministers group, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-imf-world-bank-usa-climate-idUSKBN2BT240
TCFD (2017) Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2020/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report-11052018.pdf
The Government of the Republic of Korea (2020) 2050 Carbon Neutral Strategy of the Republic of Korea - Towards a sustainable and green society, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/LTS1_RKorea.pdf