Whose risk counts? Climate risk frames in global green finance governance complex
(2025) In Earth System Governance 26.- Abstract
In recent decades, global green finance governance institutions (GGFGIs) have developed diverse frames for understanding climate-related risks. Understanding these risk frames is crucial because they lead to distinctive “de-risking” policies, empowering different types of actors. This paper examines how GGFGIs produce different climate risk frames, and what the prevailing climate risk frame is and whose risk it addresses. We investigate these questions by analyzing the current global green finance governance complex applying a constructivist approach emphasizing contestation over normative issues and a Critical Political Economy perspective. Our mapping based on 74 GGFGIs shows exercise that a risk framing focusing on climate impact on... (More)
In recent decades, global green finance governance institutions (GGFGIs) have developed diverse frames for understanding climate-related risks. Understanding these risk frames is crucial because they lead to distinctive “de-risking” policies, empowering different types of actors. This paper examines how GGFGIs produce different climate risk frames, and what the prevailing climate risk frame is and whose risk it addresses. We investigate these questions by analyzing the current global green finance governance complex applying a constructivist approach emphasizing contestation over normative issues and a Critical Political Economy perspective. Our mapping based on 74 GGFGIs shows exercise that a risk framing focusing on climate impact on business actors became prevalent over other types of climate risks imposed on people and nature. Our finding shows the dominant influence of the Task Force on the Climate-Related Financial Disclosure created by G20's Financial Stability Board. This development reflects broader trends of climate capitalism.
(Less)
- author
- Park, Hyeyoon LU and Skovgaard, Jakob LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2025-12
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Climate risk frames, Critical political economy, Global green finance governance, Governance complex
- in
- Earth System Governance
- volume
- 26
- article number
- 100288
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:105015558140
- ISSN
- 2589-8116
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- e1a73da4-de42-4692-afe1-e626c0c6b9a7
- date added to LUP
- 2025-10-02 13:41:14
- date last changed
- 2025-10-02 13:46:10
@article{e1a73da4-de42-4692-afe1-e626c0c6b9a7, abstract = {{<p>In recent decades, global green finance governance institutions (GGFGIs) have developed diverse frames for understanding climate-related risks. Understanding these risk frames is crucial because they lead to distinctive “de-risking” policies, empowering different types of actors. This paper examines how GGFGIs produce different climate risk frames, and what the prevailing climate risk frame is and whose risk it addresses. We investigate these questions by analyzing the current global green finance governance complex applying a constructivist approach emphasizing contestation over normative issues and a Critical Political Economy perspective. Our mapping based on 74 GGFGIs shows exercise that a risk framing focusing on climate impact on business actors became prevalent over other types of climate risks imposed on people and nature. Our finding shows the dominant influence of the Task Force on the Climate-Related Financial Disclosure created by G20's Financial Stability Board. This development reflects broader trends of climate capitalism.</p>}}, author = {{Park, Hyeyoon and Skovgaard, Jakob}}, issn = {{2589-8116}}, keywords = {{Climate risk frames; Critical political economy; Global green finance governance; Governance complex}}, language = {{eng}}, publisher = {{Elsevier}}, series = {{Earth System Governance}}, title = {{Whose risk counts? Climate risk frames in global green finance governance complex}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.esg.2025.100288}}, volume = {{26}}, year = {{2025}}, }