No abstract

No abstract

This study analyzes which firms leave multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) for corporate social responsibility. Based on an analysis of all active and delisted business participants from the United Nations Global Compact between 2000 and 2015 (n = 15,853), we find that small and medium-sized enterprises are more likely to leave than larger and publicly traded firms; that early adopters are less likely to leave than late adopters; and that the presence of a local network in a country reduces the likelihood of leaving. Based on these findings, we discuss theoretical implications related to MSIs' output legitimacy, the nature of organizational platforms supporting norm entrepreneurs within MSIs, and the occurrence of legitimacy spillover effects in local networks.

Although policies for green financial systems are proliferating across the globe, the dynamics shaping such policies remain inadequately understood. With China and the EU at the global forefront of green financial policies, this paper demonstrates how they each influence global policy norms through their distinct policy models. This contributes to the literature, first, by improving our understanding of the global green financial policy processes and, second, by challenging current expectations from the literature. Analysing three central policy areas (information disclosure, taxonomies, and central banking) from an institutional approach, the paper, first, finds that green financial policies are both proliferating and converging globally. Second, the paper finds that China pioneered policy types around 2015, creating an Overton Window. Subsequently, since 2018, the EU has been standardising policy contents within the policy types that China pioneered. The findings suggest that China acts as a policy pioneer through its top–down policy approach, whereas the EU acts as a standard setter through its bottom–up approach. Although this confirms the literature's expectation that the EU creates global standards, it challenges the expectation that China is both primarily a recipient of policy practice and too unique for other countries to learn from directly. In the broader context, the findings imply that the current global situation of competing political models may be an advantage as countries complement each other through both competition and collaboration. Efforts to align financial systems with sustainable development have moved from industry‐led initiatives to state‐led green financial policies, which are now proliferating and converging across the globe. China and the EU are the most influential actors in shaping how countries across the world use green financial policy because China acts as a policy pioneer based on its top–down policymaking model and the EU acts as a standard setter based on its bottom–up model. Although China and the EU have competing governance and policymaking models, their differences may have been an advantage to scaling up green financial policies as they complement each other through different roles. Awareness of their roles and different approaches should inform future China‐EU policy coordination because harmonisation of practice remains a barrier to mainstreaming green finance. Other countries can benefit from awareness of policy developments in the EU and China to support their own policy development in terms of future scope and contents.

No abstract

To address environmental problems, efforts to green financial systems are proliferating across the globe. However, green finance policy approaches differ substantially and in ways left unexplained in current literature. Focusing on the EU and China as the most active and influential in green finance, the paper provides a comparative analysis and conceptualization of their approaches. The analysis is based on the dissection of policy documents, a review of stakeholder statements and articles, and insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. The paper finds that in terms of similar characteristics, both parties seek inclusive expertise input, establish thematic committees, and initiate green finance efforts through financial system-wide guidelines. In terms of different characteristics, the paper finds that through a consultation-based, transparent, and limited mandate approach, the EU is characterized by longer time horizons and organic growth. This can be contrasted with the Chinese technocratic, closed-door, and non-limited mandate approach, characterized by rapid rollout and command-and-control growth. These findings can be conceptualized as a bottom-up market-facilitating approach in the EU and a top-down market-steering approach in China. The different approaches help explain current difficulties in coordination between the EU and China and imply that cooperation is only possible through compatibility rather than harmonization. The findings show that different governance models can actively use the state to pursue sustainable development, and second that such an active state can function in very different ways towards the same goals.

No abstract

A growing number of emerging economies receive significant parts of their overseas finance and investment from Chinese state-owned or state-linked institutions. While academic research has focused on how Chinese policy and state-owned banks approach sustainable development issues, Chinese sovereign-backed overseas development funds are a critical yet overlooked component. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by providing the first comprehensive overview of such funds regarding their scope, activities and capitalization, as well as by assessing the funds' policy approach to sustainability. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected from databases, funds' websites, newspaper articles and public statements in both Chinese and English to identify common features between funds and to analyse their sustainability policies in comparison with global best practices. The paper specifically analyses the funds' sustainability approaches rather than impact due to a lack of comprehensive data on the funds' investments. First, the paper finds that given their number, announced capital size of US$213 billion, geographic scope and sectorial focus, including on high-emissions projects such as mining, energy and heavy industry, the funds are influential players in global development finance. Second, regarding the funds' approaches to sustainability, the paper finds that the funds lack transparency about their policies and practices,