<p>Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) address a relevant aspect of the sustainable finance market, namely, the relationship between sovereign and corporate green bond issuances, which has so far received limited attention in the literature. The application to Asian markets is both interesting and pertinent, given the growing role of Asian countries in the global development of green finance. Several Asian economies have moved rapidly toward decarbonization through the introduction of climate policies and regulations, as well as through ambitious investment programs, including the issuance of sovereign green bonds. Public investment and policy initiatives may influence market reactions, for example, through signaling effects and the alignment of investor expectations, thereby potentially affecting corporate issuances. In general, sovereign green bond markets have continued to attract strong investor demand, even during periods of waning climate policy ambition, with issuances frequently being oversubscribed.</p><p>Clarifying the greenness classification is crucial, as it shapes the interpretation of the greenium results (which depend in part on how “green” is defined; see Alessi et al. <span>2021</span>; De Angelis and Monasterolo <span>2024</span>) and provides an explanation for observed price and liquidity signals, and for eligibility in asset purchase programs (Bressan et al. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>The signaling effect has recently been explored in the literature, including the influence of a country's green policies and regulations on institutional investors' sustainability preferences (Barber et al. <span>2021</span>), and the potential impact of sovereign sustainable bond issuance on the demand for and supply of corporate sustainable bonds. These factors may contribute to lower yields and enhanced liquidity.</p><p>The formalization of the transmission channels through which sovereign sustainable bond issuance affects corporate bond markets is critical for both model specification and the interpretation of the results.</p><p>I commend Kim et al. for addressing my earlier comments on the conference version of their paper in a comprehensive and clear way.</p><p>First, Ki et al. have clarified the definition of sustainable bonds which cover green bonds and sustainability bonds within the sample, which includes eight Asian sustainable bond markets, namely Hong Kong, Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, and the data provider used (Bloomberg).</p><p>Second, Kim et al. clearly discuss the signaling effect in their Sections 1 and 4, to better understand the market's pricing reaction. Furthermore, they identify the greenium as part of the yield spread, consisting of a greenium and a risk premium, in line with recent literature (Flammer <span>2026</span>). They consistently find that the greenium narrows after the sovereign sustainable bond debut.</p><p>Regarding the model specification, it is worth noting that the e
Kim等人（2026）解决了可持续金融市场的一个相关方面，即主权债券和企业绿色债券发行之间的关系，迄今为止在文献中受到的关注有限。鉴于亚洲国家在全球绿色金融发展中日益重要的作用，亚洲市场的应用既有趣又切合实际。一些亚洲经济体通过出台气候政策和法规，以及通过雄心勃勃的投资计划，包括发行主权绿色债券，迅速向脱碳迈进。公共投资和政策举措可能影响市场反应，例如，通过信号效应和投资者预期的一致性，从而可能影响公司发行。总体而言，主权绿色债券市场继续吸引着强劲的投资者需求，即使在气候政策力度减弱的时期也是如此，其发行经常被超额认购。澄清绿色分类是至关重要的，因为它决定了对绿色结果的解释（这部分取决于如何定义“绿色”；见Alessi等人2021；De Angelis和Monasterolo 2024），并为观察到的价格和流动性信号以及资产购买计划的资格提供了解释（Bressan等人2022）。最近有文献对信号效应进行了探讨，包括国家绿色政策法规对机构投资者可持续性偏好的影响（Barber et al. 2021），以及主权可持续债券发行对企业可持续债券供求的潜在影响。这些因素可能导致收益率降低，流动性增强。主权可持续债券发行影响公司债券市场的传导渠道的正规化对于模型规范和结果解释都至关重要。我赞扬Kim等人以全面而清晰的方式处理了我之前对他们论文会议版本的评论。首先，Ki等人明确了可持续债券的定义，涵盖了样本内的绿色债券和可持续债券，其中包括八个亚洲可持续债券市场，即香港、韩国、印度、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、菲律宾、新加坡和泰国，以及使用的数据提供商（彭博社）。其次，Kim等人在他们的第1节和第4节中清楚地讨论了信号效应，以便更好地理解市场的定价反应。此外，他们将greenium确定为收益率息差的一部分，由greenium和风险溢价组成，与最近的文献一致（Flammer 2026）。他们一致发现，在主权可持续债券首次亮相后，绿色空间缩小了。关于模型规范，值得注意的是，样本中的八个国家在市场发展水平以及经济、金融和气候特征方面存在很大差异。我认为，这种异质性可能会影响发行行为，并可以利用这种异质性来更深入地了解发行量、收益率、期限和相关方面的结果驱动因素。我建议作者澄清他们是如何控制国家层面的异质性的，包括温室气体（GHG）排放、气候政策和绿色投资的存在，以及它们潜在的挤出效应。Kim等人通过在面板向量自回归（VAR）模型中包含国家虚拟人和行业虚拟人来解决我的观点，以控制国家异质性。此外，固定效应将解释国家时变信息，而变量的滞后项将解释时变国家信息。我最后的评论是关于样本的选择。考虑到中国的市场规模和发展，作者解释了为什么他们将中国排除在样本之外。作为未来研究的一个潜在领域，Kim等人可以在当前工作的基础上，测试放松气候政策和监管对八个亚洲经济体绿色债券发行主要市场的影响。事实上，最近，在美国和欧盟（EU），随着政治形势的发展，有关ESG和气候风险披露的立法经历了重大变化，这有助于削弱投资者的信息披露监管。已经有一些证据表明，美国投资者的股票投资组合构成已开始做出反应，进行了一定程度的重新配置，而欧盟投资者的调整路径则较为缓慢。研究亚洲市场是否以及如何应对这些变化将是一件有趣的事情。另一个相关的发展可能包括对所有权结构的分析。特别是，Kim等人可以研究美国和欧盟的债券和所有权结构如何影响亚洲的绿色债券市场。 这将为绿色债券市场对此类事态的反应提供新的线索。最后，正如文献所示，成熟的投资者会奖励更客观的能源和技术公司的绿色措施（Battiston等人，2023），将这种绿色措施应用于样本并将结果与Kim等人（2026）中使用的绿色定义（如在赛马中）进行比较，可以为论文的结果增加新的见解。
{"title":"Comment on “How Sovereign Sustainable Bond Issuance Shakes Up the Corporate Sustainable Bond Market?: Evidence From Asian Markets”","authors":"Irene Monasterolo","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) address a relevant aspect of the sustainable finance market, namely, the relationship between sovereign and corporate green bond issuances, which has so far received limited attention in the literature. The application to Asian markets is both interesting and pertinent, given the growing role of Asian countries in the global development of green finance. Several Asian economies have moved rapidly toward decarbonization through the introduction of climate policies and regulations, as well as through ambitious investment programs, including the issuance of sovereign green bonds. Public investment and policy initiatives may influence market reactions, for example, through signaling effects and the alignment of investor expectations, thereby potentially affecting corporate issuances. In general, sovereign green bond markets have continued to attract strong investor demand, even during periods of waning climate policy ambition, with issuances frequently being oversubscribed.</p><p>Clarifying the greenness classification is crucial, as it shapes the interpretation of the greenium results (which depend in part on how “green” is defined; see Alessi et al. <span>2021</span>; De Angelis and Monasterolo <span>2024</span>) and provides an explanation for observed price and liquidity signals, and for eligibility in asset purchase programs (Bressan et al. <span>2022</span>).</p><p>The signaling effect has recently been explored in the literature, including the influence of a country's green policies and regulations on institutional investors' sustainability preferences (Barber et al. <span>2021</span>), and the potential impact of sovereign sustainable bond issuance on the demand for and supply of corporate sustainable bonds. These factors may contribute to lower yields and enhanced liquidity.</p><p>The formalization of the transmission channels through which sovereign sustainable bond issuance affects corporate bond markets is critical for both model specification and the interpretation of the results.</p><p>I commend Kim et al. for addressing my earlier comments on the conference version of their paper in a comprehensive and clear way.</p><p>First, Ki et al. have clarified the definition of sustainable bonds which cover green bonds and sustainability bonds within the sample, which includes eight Asian sustainable bond markets, namely Hong Kong, Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, and the data provider used (Bloomberg).</p><p>Second, Kim et al. clearly discuss the signaling effect in their Sections 1 and 4, to better understand the market's pricing reaction. Furthermore, they identify the greenium as part of the yield spread, consisting of a greenium and a risk premium, in line with recent literature (Flammer <span>2026</span>). They consistently find that the greenium narrows after the sovereign sustainable bond debut.</p><p>Regarding the model specification, it is worth noting that the e","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"70-71"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146007496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Zhan et al. (<span>2026</span>) address the impact of green bond issuance on the yield spreads between the conventional bonds and green bonds using a sample of 1468 corporate bonds. Zhan et al. find that after the green issuance, the green-bond issuer has lower operational uncertainty, and its conventional bond has a higher upgrade probability (lower credit risk).</p><p>These findings collectively suggest that green bond issuance mitigates the default risks associated with the issuer and its bonds, resulting in lower yield spreads for its existing bonds. Green bond issuance may also enhance the issuer's reputation. As more cash flows are injected into the firm, the firm's value increases, and its debt repayment capacity improves (cash flow hypothesis). In addition, with larger amounts of investments, green-bond issuers' conventional bonds would have better liquidity conditions, which could also lead to lower yield spreads (liquidity hypothesis). However, we find inconsistent results, indicating that the impacts of green bond issuance on the issuer's operating cash flows and mutual fund holdings of existing bonds are insignificant. Additionally, Zhan et al. find that the positive effects of green bond issuance on existing bondholders are significantly stronger for bonds with high liquidity conditions, further supporting the notion that the liquidity channel is not a significant factor.</p><p>The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) (<span>2025</span>) defines 10 areas where green bonds can be issued: (1) renewable energy; (2) energy efficiency (such as in new and refurbished buildings, energy storage, district heating, smart grids, appliances, and products); (3) pollution prevention and control; (4) environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use; (5) terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity conservation; (6) clean transportation; (7) sustainable water and wastewater management; (8) climate change adaptation (including efforts to make infrastructure more resilient to impacts of climate change, as well as information support systems, such as climate observation and early warning systems); (9) circular economy adapted products, production technologies, and processes; and (10) green buildings that meet regional, national, or internationally recognized standards or certifications. There is a question of whether the same criteria are applied to green bonds in China. If not, coordination with the global standard will be required to enable the company to issue green bonds.</p><p>Environmental Scores are assigned to each company by ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) credit rating agencies (Yoshino et al. <span>2023</span>). Table 1 provides a brief summary of the ratings methodology for the major ESG credit rating companies. Since each rating agency has its own criteria for evaluating a company's greenness, this will likely result in different credit rating scores. In China, there are two important questi
詹等人（2026）以1468只公司债券为样本，研究了绿色债券发行对传统债券和绿色债券收益率差的影响。詹等人发现绿色债券发行后，绿色债券发行人的操作不确定性降低，其传统债券的升级概率更高（信用风险更低）。这些发现共同表明，绿色债券的发行减轻了与发行人及其债券相关的违约风险，从而降低了其现有债券的收益率差。绿色债券的发行也可以提高发行人的声誉。当更多的现金流注入企业时，企业的价值会增加，其偿债能力也会提高（现金流假设）。此外，绿色债券发行人的传统债券在投资规模较大的情况下，其流动性条件较好，这也可能导致较低的收益率差（流动性假设）。然而，我们发现结果不一致，表明绿色债券发行对发行人经营性现金流和共同基金持有现有债券的影响不显著。此外，Zhan等人发现，对于流动性条件较高的债券，绿色债券发行对现有债券持有人的积极影响明显更强，这进一步支持了流动性渠道不是重要因素的观点。国际资本市场协会（ICMA）（2025）定义了绿色债券可以发行的10个领域：(1)可再生能源；(2)能源效率（如新建和翻新建筑、储能、区域供热、智能电网、家电和产品）；（三）污染防治；(4)生物自然资源和土地利用的环境可持续管理；(5)陆地和水生生物多样性保护；(6)清洁运输；(7)可持续的水和废水管理；(8)气候变化适应（包括提高基础设施抵御气候变化影响的能力，以及气候观测和预警系统等信息支持系统）；（九）与循环经济相适应的产品、生产技术和工艺；（十）符合地区、国家或国际公认标准或认证的绿色建筑。有一个问题是，同样的标准是否适用于中国的绿色债券。如果没有，则需要与全球标准协调，以使公司能够发行绿色债券。环境得分由ESG（环境、社会和治理）信用评级机构（Yoshino et al. 2023）分配给每家公司。表1简要总结了主要ESG信用评级公司的评级方法。由于各信用评价机构对绿色企业的评价标准各不相同，因此很有可能会出现不同的信用评价分数。在中国，有两个与评级有关的重要问题：哪家评级机构提供信用评级分数？是否会根据二氧化碳排放量来打分？（吉野等人，2025）。发行绿色债券的成本通常很高，这可能会使公司的财务资源紧张，而不会带来任何即时回报。只有大型企业才能发行绿色债券，因此中小企业无法获得绿色债券。Zhang等人的异中异回归显示，绿色债券发行后，现有债券的收益率息差显著缩小了21个基点，表明现有债券持有人从绿色债券发行中受益。因此，发行绿色债券标志着公司对可持续经营的承诺，并降低了其环境监管风险。然而，在日本，由于缺乏强大的二级市场，投资者对购买绿色债券犹豫不决。许多投资者担心绿色债券的流动性。传统债券和绿色债券之间的收益率差不仅受到其声誉的影响，还受到二级市场流动性程度的影响。不同类型的投资者，包括银行、保险公司、养老基金和公司，对不同期限的债券有不同的偏好。例如，银行通常喜欢5年左右的期限，而养老基金喜欢更长的期限。一个重要的问题是，收益率差是否受到不同期限投资者类型的影响？发行绿色债券是加快绿色经济发展的一种方式。然而，还有其他政策可以使用，如碳定价和碳税。大企业可以发行绿色债券，但小企业由于发行成本高，对资本市场缺乏了解，很难发行绿色债券。 根据经济合作与发展组织（OECD）的一份报告（Marchese和Medus 2023），欧洲地区63%的碳排放量是由中小型企业产生的。在亚洲，这一数字可能更高，因为中小企业在该地区的作用尤为重要。碳定价和/或碳税不仅适用于大企业，也适用于中小企业。此外，中小企业往往缺乏必要的技能和财政资源来实施在生产过程中减少碳排放的新技术。政府可以通过征收碳定价或碳税来筹集资金。然后，所征收的收入可用于补贴中小企业引进新技术，并提供技术援助，帮助他们采取措施减少生产过程中的二氧化碳（吉野等人，2025）。
{"title":"Comment on “Beyond Green: Impacts of Green Bond Issuance on Conventional Bonds in China”","authors":"Naoyuki Yoshino","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70011","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Zhan et al. (<span>2026</span>) address the impact of green bond issuance on the yield spreads between the conventional bonds and green bonds using a sample of 1468 corporate bonds. Zhan et al. find that after the green issuance, the green-bond issuer has lower operational uncertainty, and its conventional bond has a higher upgrade probability (lower credit risk).</p><p>These findings collectively suggest that green bond issuance mitigates the default risks associated with the issuer and its bonds, resulting in lower yield spreads for its existing bonds. Green bond issuance may also enhance the issuer's reputation. As more cash flows are injected into the firm, the firm's value increases, and its debt repayment capacity improves (cash flow hypothesis). In addition, with larger amounts of investments, green-bond issuers' conventional bonds would have better liquidity conditions, which could also lead to lower yield spreads (liquidity hypothesis). However, we find inconsistent results, indicating that the impacts of green bond issuance on the issuer's operating cash flows and mutual fund holdings of existing bonds are insignificant. Additionally, Zhan et al. find that the positive effects of green bond issuance on existing bondholders are significantly stronger for bonds with high liquidity conditions, further supporting the notion that the liquidity channel is not a significant factor.</p><p>The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) (<span>2025</span>) defines 10 areas where green bonds can be issued: (1) renewable energy; (2) energy efficiency (such as in new and refurbished buildings, energy storage, district heating, smart grids, appliances, and products); (3) pollution prevention and control; (4) environmentally sustainable management of living natural resources and land use; (5) terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity conservation; (6) clean transportation; (7) sustainable water and wastewater management; (8) climate change adaptation (including efforts to make infrastructure more resilient to impacts of climate change, as well as information support systems, such as climate observation and early warning systems); (9) circular economy adapted products, production technologies, and processes; and (10) green buildings that meet regional, national, or internationally recognized standards or certifications. There is a question of whether the same criteria are applied to green bonds in China. If not, coordination with the global standard will be required to enable the company to issue green bonds.</p><p>Environmental Scores are assigned to each company by ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) credit rating agencies (Yoshino et al. <span>2023</span>). Table 1 provides a brief summary of the ratings methodology for the major ESG credit rating companies. Since each rating agency has its own criteria for evaluating a company's greenness, this will likely result in different credit rating scores. In China, there are two important questi","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"83-84"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) contribute to the literature by providing evidence that sovereign sustainable bond issuance can lower corporate sustainable spreads through the reduction in greenium, using unique data from Asian markets that are currently under-researched in sustainable finance. Additionally, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) demonstrate how long it takes for the impacts of sovereign sustainable bond (SSB) issuance to be reflected in liquidity and yield spreads.</p><p>In Equation (1), corporate green bond yield − corporate conventional bond yield is greenium, and corporate conventional bond yield − conventional sovereign bond yield is the risk premium. Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) find that sovereign sustainable bond debuts have tightened yield spread via reductions in both greenium and the risk premium.</p><p>As their second contribution, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) show that these reductions are statistically significant only in the short term, e.g., in daily data settings. In medium (monthly) and long-term (quarterly) data, the coefficient of impact on greenium is negative but not statistically significant. Regarding the impact on risk premiums, the coefficient is positive, although it is not statistically significant.</p><p>These results suggest that signaling effects may be at play in the short term, which is consistent with the previous literature (Breuer et al. <span>2018</span>; Wang et al. <span>2021</span>; La Rosa and Bernini <span>2022</span>). The issuance of a SSB implies that the government is promoting green policies. Investors may be more willing to invest in sustainable bonds, even if they sacrifice some financial returns.</p><p>Although Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) contribute significantly to the academic literature as mentioned previously, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) have some limitations and leave some space for future research.</p><p>First, there are some inconsistencies between Tables 5 and 6 in Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>), although the decomposition of greenium and risk premium is their excellent contribution. Their Table 5 shows that the impact of the sovereign sustainable bond (SSB) debut on the yield spread is negative and statistically significant in monthly and quarterly data. However, the impact of SSB on the yield is not clear from their Table 6, as neither the medium-term nor the long-term data showed any results. This is partly because Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) use different data to conduct the analysis presented in their tables 5 and 6. According to Table 2 in Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>), the sample sizes for bid-ask spread and yield spread are 160,139, whereas those of greenium and risk premium are 71,809 and 71,777, respectively.</p><p>Even if no statistically significant results were found, the sums of the greenium and risk premium estimated from daily, monthly, and quarterly data were −0.0550, −0.0022, and −0.0360, respectively. We reasonably expect the impact of sovereign
Kim等人（2026）利用目前在可持续金融领域研究不足的亚洲市场的独特数据，为文献提供了证据，证明主权可持续债券发行可以通过减少greenium来降低公司的可持续利差。此外，Kim等人（2026）证明了主权可持续债券（SSB）发行的影响需要多长时间才能反映在流动性和收益率价差上。式(1)中，公司绿色债券收益率-公司常规债券收益率为格林，公司常规债券收益率-传统主权债券收益率为风险溢价。Kim等人（2026）发现，主权可持续债券首次发行通过降低greenium和风险溢价收紧了收益率差。作为他们的第二个贡献，Kim等人（2026）表明，这些减少仅在短期内具有统计学意义，例如，在日常数据设置中。在中期（月）和长期（季度）数据中，对greenium的影响系数为负，但不具有统计学意义。对于风险溢价的影响，系数为正，但不具有统计学意义。这些结果表明，信号效应可能在短期内起作用，这与先前的文献一致（Breuer et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2021; La Rosa and Bernini 2022）。“绿色政策指南”的发布意味着政府正在推行绿色政策。投资者可能更愿意投资可持续债券，即使他们会牺牲一些财务回报。虽然Kim et al.（2026）对之前提到的学术文献做出了重大贡献，但Kim et al.（2026）有一定的局限性，为未来的研究留下了一定的空间。首先，Kim et al.（2026）的表5和表6之间存在一些不一致之处，尽管他们对格林和风险溢价的分解做出了出色的贡献。他们的表5显示，主权可持续债券（SSB）首次亮相对收益率差的影响是负的，并且在月度和季度数据中具有统计学意义。然而，SSB对产量的影响从他们的表6中并不清楚，因为中期和长期数据都没有显示任何结果。这部分是因为Kim等人（2026）使用不同的数据进行表5和表6所示的分析。根据Kim et al.（2026）的表2，买卖价差和收益率价差的样本量为160139，而格林和风险溢价的样本量分别为71809和71777。即使没有发现统计学上显著的结果，从每日、每月和季度数据估计的greenium和风险溢价的总和分别为- 0.0550、- 0.0022和- 0.0360。我们有理由预计主权可持续债务对收益率差的影响为负，但在未来的研究中应提供有力的证据。其次，Kim等人（2026）可以考虑SSB发行对收益率息差的影响如何取决于各国的前景，例如不同的ESG实践（Stellner等人，2015）。例如，发行更多SSB的国家对greenium的负面影响更大。此外，发行可持续主权债券只是绿色政策的一种。代表积极绿色政策的国家的总体ESG得分可能会对SSB发行与公司绿色之间的相关性产生影响。最后，具有积极治理实践的国家可能具有更大的信号效应。例如，马来西亚以其强大的公司治理实践而闻名（Do和Vo 2023）。这些分析更清晰地揭示了一个特定国家的绿色政策如何影响绿色债券市场。第三，考虑机构投资者的行为如何影响greenium是很有趣的。如果有主权绿色债券，他们更容易通过构建一个包括主权可持续债券和在同一国家发行的公司债券的投资组合来对冲可持续转型风险。如果机构投资者加大对企业可持续债券的投资，它们很可能是对主权可持续债券的补充，而不是替代。Kim等人（2026）提供的部分证据表明，SSB是对企业可持续债券的补充，因为SSB有助于扩大企业可持续债券。然而，观察银行、保险公司、公共养老金、私人养老金、对冲基金等不同机构投资者对SSB或企业绿色债券的投资差异，对于了解什么样的机构投资者愿意牺牲财务回报投资绿色债券，仍具有重要意义。此外，机构投资者的可持续性偏好也受到国家绿色政策或法规的影响（Barber et al. 2021）。这些渠道是值得检验的有趣假设。 第四，Kim et al.（2026）表明，首次发行SSB提高了流动性，缩小了收益率差。然而，由于所实施的模型，流动性的改善是否会导致收益率差的缩小，这一点并不完全清楚。在以收益率价差为因变量的回归分析中，将滞后的买卖价差作为自变量纳入，但未纳入同期买卖价差，如Kim et al.（2026）的表5所示。收益率价差与买卖价差之间是否存在相关性尚不确定。如果Kim等人（2026）将同期买卖价差包括在内，就会有所帮助。理想情况下，如果Kim等人（2026）进行了两阶段模型，第一阶段将是对SSB发行和其他控制变量的买卖价差的回归，第二阶段将是对估计买卖价差和其他控制变量的收益率价差的回归。如果显示出显著的结果，发行SSB将通过减小greenium和流动性溢价来减小收益率差。总之，尽管存在一些局限性，Kim等人（2026）通过提供证据证明ssb的发行对亚洲整体公司可持续债券市场具有积极影响，对可持续金融文献和实践做出了重大贡献。我希望未来的研究能够深入了解每个亚洲国家如何从政府的绿色政策变化中受益。
{"title":"Comment on “How Sovereign Sustainable Bond Issuance Shakes up the Corporate Sustainable Bond Market?: Evidence From Asian Markets”","authors":"Haruyoshi Ito","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) contribute to the literature by providing evidence that sovereign sustainable bond issuance can lower corporate sustainable spreads through the reduction in greenium, using unique data from Asian markets that are currently under-researched in sustainable finance. Additionally, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) demonstrate how long it takes for the impacts of sovereign sustainable bond (SSB) issuance to be reflected in liquidity and yield spreads.</p><p>In Equation (1), corporate green bond yield − corporate conventional bond yield is greenium, and corporate conventional bond yield − conventional sovereign bond yield is the risk premium. Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) find that sovereign sustainable bond debuts have tightened yield spread via reductions in both greenium and the risk premium.</p><p>As their second contribution, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) show that these reductions are statistically significant only in the short term, e.g., in daily data settings. In medium (monthly) and long-term (quarterly) data, the coefficient of impact on greenium is negative but not statistically significant. Regarding the impact on risk premiums, the coefficient is positive, although it is not statistically significant.</p><p>These results suggest that signaling effects may be at play in the short term, which is consistent with the previous literature (Breuer et al. <span>2018</span>; Wang et al. <span>2021</span>; La Rosa and Bernini <span>2022</span>). The issuance of a SSB implies that the government is promoting green policies. Investors may be more willing to invest in sustainable bonds, even if they sacrifice some financial returns.</p><p>Although Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) contribute significantly to the academic literature as mentioned previously, Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) have some limitations and leave some space for future research.</p><p>First, there are some inconsistencies between Tables 5 and 6 in Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>), although the decomposition of greenium and risk premium is their excellent contribution. Their Table 5 shows that the impact of the sovereign sustainable bond (SSB) debut on the yield spread is negative and statistically significant in monthly and quarterly data. However, the impact of SSB on the yield is not clear from their Table 6, as neither the medium-term nor the long-term data showed any results. This is partly because Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>) use different data to conduct the analysis presented in their tables 5 and 6. According to Table 2 in Kim et al. (<span>2026</span>), the sample sizes for bid-ask spread and yield spread are 160,139, whereas those of greenium and risk premium are 71,809 and 71,777, respectively.</p><p>Even if no statistically significant results were found, the sums of the greenium and risk premium estimated from daily, monthly, and quarterly data were −0.0550, −0.0022, and −0.0360, respectively. We reasonably expect the impact of sovereign ","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"68-69"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comment on “Inclusive Wealth and ESG Practices: Financial Impacts in a Global Context”","authors":"Xiaoyun Yu","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"41-42"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Sustainable finance now plays a pivotal role in every major economic region, though trajectories differ. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement, the industry has expanded rapidly worldwide, with Asia's recent surge reflecting its nascent history compared to Europe and North America. Macro shocks—including the Russia–Ukraine War, elevated inflation, and rising interest rates in 2022—have led to net capital outflows in the United States, while Europe and Asia continue to grow robustly. As regional approaches evolve, it becomes increasingly important to understand the conditions under which sustainable investments generate both positive societal or environmental impacts and acceptable financial returns.</p><p>Flammer (<span>2026</span>) offers valuable insights into these dynamics by synthesizing recent academic research. Flammer finds that green bonds, when certified by independent third parties, not only produce positive announcement returns but also drive meaningful emissions reductions, thereby attracting long-term, environmentally conscious investors. Biodiversity finance, in contrast, hinges on the use of bundling mechanisms—pairing public goods with private returns—and on blended finance to de-risk projects with broad societal benefits. Impact investments in disadvantaged communities are shown to deliver superior accounting performance alongside measurable social impact, relative to comparable investments elsewhere. Active investor engagement, while resource-intensive, is more effective in steering firms' environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices than passive strategies like divestment. In addition, firms that adopt comprehensive approaches to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) exhibit higher profitability, although demographic diversity alone is insufficient. Finally, robust corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices promote innovation, support employee retention, and improve resilience during economic shocks, enhancing long-term competitiveness.</p><p>A central contribution of Flammer (<span>2026</span>) is to articulate the conditions that produce “win–win” outcomes—those that yield both financial value and social or environmental impact. For instance, green bonds only achieve their intended effects when certified to prevent greenwashing. In the presence of capital constraints (induced by either taste-based or statistical discrimination with incorrect beliefs), investments in disadvantaged communities produce greater social impact and returns on assets than those in comparable firms elsewhere. In the arena of biodiversity finance, Flammer highlights the need for public support to overcome the externality problem and mobilize private capital. Although active engagement works well, its scalability is constrained by the time and effort required. Meanwhile, DEI and CSR initiatives appear to pay off when stakeholders with strong ethical commitments—consumers, employees, and investors—reward firms with loyalty and patience, allowi
可持续金融目前在每个主要经济区域都发挥着关键作用，尽管发展轨迹有所不同。自2015年《巴黎协定》签署以来，该行业在全球范围内迅速扩张，与欧洲和北美相比，亚洲最近的激增反映了其刚刚起步的历史。宏观冲击——包括俄乌战争、通胀加剧和2022年利率上升——导致美国资本净流出，而欧洲和亚洲继续强劲增长。随着区域方法的发展，了解可持续投资产生积极的社会或环境影响和可接受的财务回报的条件变得越来越重要。Flammer（2026）通过综合最近的学术研究，对这些动态提供了有价值的见解。弗拉默发现，经过独立第三方认证的绿色债券不仅能产生积极的公告回报，还能推动有意义的减排，从而吸引具有环保意识的长期投资者。相比之下，生物多样性融资依赖于捆绑机制的使用——将公共产品与私人回报结合起来——以及混合融资，以降低具有广泛社会效益的项目的风险。与其他地方的可比投资相比，对弱势社区的影响力投资显示出卓越的会计绩效和可衡量的社会影响。积极的投资者参与虽然是资源密集型的，但在指导公司的环境、社会和治理（ESG）实践方面，比撤资等被动策略更有效。此外，采用多元化、公平和包容性（DEI）综合方法的公司表现出更高的盈利能力，尽管仅人口多样性是不够的。最后，稳健的企业社会责任（CSR）实践可以促进创新，支持员工保留，并在经济冲击中提高弹性，从而增强长期竞争力。Flammer（2026）的一个核心贡献是阐明了产生“双赢”结果的条件——那些既产生经济价值又产生社会或环境影响的条件。例如，绿色债券只有在被认证为防止“漂绿”的情况下才能达到预期效果。在存在资本限制的情况下（由品味或统计歧视引起的错误信念），对弱势社区的投资比在其他地方的可比公司产生更大的社会影响和资产回报。在生物多样性金融领域，Flammer强调需要公共支持来克服外部性问题并动员私人资本。虽然主动参与效果很好，但其可扩展性受到所需时间和精力的限制。与此同时，DEI和CSR计划似乎在具有强烈道德承诺的利益相关者（消费者，员工和投资者）以忠诚和耐心奖励公司时获得了回报，从而为实现长期收益留出了时间。Flammer（2026）将可持续投资定义为“投资于旨在产生社会和环境成果以及财务回报的公司、项目或基金的做法。”对于跨学科的论述，值得注意的是，这一定义反映了可持续投资的一个特定方面，即强调影响的意向性。然而，在金融文献中，可持续投资的概念往往更为宽泛。例如，Starks（2023）将ESG投资描述为包括非金钱和金钱动机：对一些投资者来说，它是表达道德价值观的工具，而对其他人来说，它是管理财务风险和提高回报的策略。一个关键的区别是，在更广泛的金融框架中，一项投资不需要明确地将社会或环境结果纳入可持续投资的范畴。这种侧重点的差异可能反映了学科传统——包括弗拉默在内的管理学者经常关注有意影响，而金融学者则将投资者目标纳入更广泛的范围。澄清这种差异并不是一种批评，而是一种帮助读者理解彭博社预测的40万亿美元巨额资金与私人资本流入生物多样性和混合金融等高影响力领域的有限差距的方式。这40万亿美元中的大部分反映了“价值”驱动型投资者，他们寻求风险调整后的回报，可能只看重与财务业绩相符的社会效益。相比之下，弗拉默审查的证据主要反映了可持续投资领域中“价值”驱动的一面，即追求其内在的社会效益。当回报-影响一致性较弱或为负时，价值驱动型投资者可能会避免投资，除非公共或慈善资本介入以调整风险-回报概况。 混合融资提供了一种解决方案，即利用公共资金使对社会有益的项目更易于私人资本投资。需要做更多的工作来揭示“价值”驱动的可持续投资者的异质性。他们是在寻求可衡量的影响，还是与价值观保持一致？实验研究（例如，Bonnefon et al. 2025; Heeb et al. 2023）表明，许多西方投资者优先考虑道德一致性，而不是最大化影响。目前尚不清楚这些模式是否适用于制度和文化背景不同的亚洲。植根于基督教和个人导向伦理的西方传统倾向于强调个人应对社会挑战的道德责任。这可能会鼓励以价值为导向的投资，旨在使投资组合与个人道德承诺保持一致。相比之下，在亚洲更为普遍的集体主义伦理框架往往指望政府通过税收、再分配或公共投资来聚集资源，以解决社会和环境问题（Markus and Kitayama, 1991）。因此，对私人投资作为个人道德表达工具的重视程度可能会降低。目前尚不清楚的是，在亚洲背景下，对私人资本的需求有多大。Flammer（2026）对可持续金融提出了及时而细致的观点。本文将实证研究结果与概念框架结合起来，阐明了基于市场的解决方案的潜力和局限性。特别是，它引起了人们对经济和社会目标不完全一致时出现的结构性权衡的关注。混合融资的例子清楚地说明了这种紧张关系：虽然这种安排可以使私人投资于生物多样性保护，但它们往往需要优惠支持，以抵消与高影响成果相关的较低财务回报。如果完全听凭市场力量，生物多样性和其他公共产品可能会资金不足。弗拉默的第8部分对亚洲独特的环境进行了有益的讨论，强调了监管成熟度、能源依赖和发展阶段的差异。进一步研究的一个富有成效的途径是调查(i)亚洲区域投资者的动机（价值与价值，影响与一致性），（ii）公共优惠支持的持久性和可靠性，以调整高影响项目的风险回报概况，以及（iii）考虑到(i)和（ii）的相互作用，亚洲可持续金融的潜在影响结果的大小。总体而言，Flammer（2026）及时且有价值地综合了可持续金融的关键工具。Flammer（2026）将经验证据与绿色债券、生物多样性金融、影响力投资和股东参与的概念清晰结合起来，增进了我们对私营部门方法的希望和局限性的理解。随着该领域不断跨越学科、地理背景和投资者类型，持续的对话（如本期特刊所示）对于弥合观点和确定有效的前进途径至关重要。
{"title":"Comment on “Sustainable Finance: Tools, Effectiveness, and Challenges”","authors":"Ayako Yasuda","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70016","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Sustainable finance now plays a pivotal role in every major economic region, though trajectories differ. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement, the industry has expanded rapidly worldwide, with Asia's recent surge reflecting its nascent history compared to Europe and North America. Macro shocks—including the Russia–Ukraine War, elevated inflation, and rising interest rates in 2022—have led to net capital outflows in the United States, while Europe and Asia continue to grow robustly. As regional approaches evolve, it becomes increasingly important to understand the conditions under which sustainable investments generate both positive societal or environmental impacts and acceptable financial returns.</p><p>Flammer (<span>2026</span>) offers valuable insights into these dynamics by synthesizing recent academic research. Flammer finds that green bonds, when certified by independent third parties, not only produce positive announcement returns but also drive meaningful emissions reductions, thereby attracting long-term, environmentally conscious investors. Biodiversity finance, in contrast, hinges on the use of bundling mechanisms—pairing public goods with private returns—and on blended finance to de-risk projects with broad societal benefits. Impact investments in disadvantaged communities are shown to deliver superior accounting performance alongside measurable social impact, relative to comparable investments elsewhere. Active investor engagement, while resource-intensive, is more effective in steering firms' environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices than passive strategies like divestment. In addition, firms that adopt comprehensive approaches to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) exhibit higher profitability, although demographic diversity alone is insufficient. Finally, robust corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices promote innovation, support employee retention, and improve resilience during economic shocks, enhancing long-term competitiveness.</p><p>A central contribution of Flammer (<span>2026</span>) is to articulate the conditions that produce “win–win” outcomes—those that yield both financial value and social or environmental impact. For instance, green bonds only achieve their intended effects when certified to prevent greenwashing. In the presence of capital constraints (induced by either taste-based or statistical discrimination with incorrect beliefs), investments in disadvantaged communities produce greater social impact and returns on assets than those in comparable firms elsewhere. In the arena of biodiversity finance, Flammer highlights the need for public support to overcome the externality problem and mobilize private capital. Although active engagement works well, its scalability is constrained by the time and effort required. Meanwhile, DEI and CSR initiatives appear to pay off when stakeholders with strong ethical commitments—consumers, employees, and investors—reward firms with loyalty and patience, allowi","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"20-21"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146007491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comment on “Green Human Capital and Carbon Emissions of Asian Firms”","authors":"Zigan Wang","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70013","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"100-101"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Flammer (2026) describes a broad research program that she and her colleagues have undertaken over the past 15 years. This body of work is distinctive and highlights the potential for progress in addressing global sustainability issues. But it also brings into sharper focus the obstacles that lie ahead.
Flammer and her colleagues investigate the resulting gaps. Private investors are happy to participate in biodiversity projects when they can earn a good return. But such opportunities are rare: Flammer et al. (2025) find that the most profitable biodiversity projects are small and have a limited impact.
In this mixed environment, blended finance becomes a practical necessity. Will governments and NGOs be willing to supply concessionary capital at the required scale?
Two challenges seem particularly salient:
Importance of multidisciplinary work: In her concluding section, Flammer (2026) calls for a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary research. This is a longstanding issue, as academic advancement usually depends on expertise and publication within a relatively narrow range of study. There are good historical reasons for this emphasis, but in the field of sustainable finance it is misguided. Academic organizations interested in sustainable finance should bear in mind the saying: “show me the incentives, and I'll show you the results.”
The problem of attention: The quality of research in sustainable finance has greatly improved over the past decade. But who is listening? Even in the best of times, the attention of markets and policymakers seems intermittent. They have their own constraints, and so the role of researchers seems to ultimately be an advisory one.
But this does not diminish the importance of the work. On the contrary, it underscores the importance of this emerging field. With systemic issues growing in urgency, policymakers will ultimately need to act. Strong research now will support better decisions later.
{"title":"Comment on “Sustainable Finance: Tools, Effectiveness, and Challenges”","authors":"Lloyd Kurtz","doi":"10.1111/aepr.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.70015","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Flammer (<span>2026</span>) describes a broad research program that she and her colleagues have undertaken over the past 15 years. This body of work is distinctive and highlights the potential for progress in addressing global sustainability issues. But it also brings into sharper focus the obstacles that lie ahead.</p><p>Flammer and her colleagues investigate the resulting gaps. Private investors are happy to participate in biodiversity projects when they can earn a good return. But such opportunities are rare: Flammer et al. (<span>2025</span>) find that the most profitable biodiversity projects are small and have a limited impact.</p><p>In this mixed environment, blended finance becomes a practical necessity. Will governments and NGOs be willing to supply concessionary capital at the required scale?</p><p>Two challenges seem particularly salient:</p><p><i>Importance of multidisciplinary work</i>: In her concluding section, Flammer (<span>2026</span>) calls for a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary research. This is a longstanding issue, as academic advancement usually depends on expertise and publication within a relatively narrow range of study. There are good historical reasons for this emphasis, but in the field of sustainable finance it is misguided. Academic organizations interested in sustainable finance should bear in mind the saying: “show me the incentives, and I'll show you the results.”</p><p><i>The problem of attention</i>: The quality of research in sustainable finance has greatly improved over the past decade. But who is listening? Even in the best of times, the attention of markets and policymakers seems intermittent. They have their own constraints, and so the role of researchers seems to ultimately be an advisory one.</p><p>But this does not diminish the importance of the work. On the contrary, it underscores the importance of this emerging field. With systemic issues growing in urgency, policymakers will ultimately need to act. Strong research now will support better decisions later.</p>","PeriodicalId":45430,"journal":{"name":"Asian Economic Policy Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"22-23"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aepr.70015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146007330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：