近年來，由於環境污染及氣候變遷所產生的金融風險及經濟損失是巨大的，聯合國及國際組織紛紛提出各種氣候金融倡議，全球主要國家的中央銀行以及金融監理單位也意識到「極端氣候變遷已成為金融風險的來源」。特別是2020年的疫情引發了環境與社會的風險，讓全球經濟產生重大變化，改變了許多產業供應鏈模式及工作型態，使得重視ESG風險（環境、社會及公司治理）變成社會主流意識，金融業也因此朝向發展ESG降低經營風險，以達永續發展的目標，推展綠色金融已是刻不容緩。
金融機構簽署赤道原則會被視為在ESG方面的積極展現，入選永續指數的企業在財務績效指標較同產業有較佳的表現，銀行貸款給綠色企業相對來說，發生ESG的風險較低，有助於其授信風險管理。公股銀行理應率先簽署赤道原則與TCFD，然本國銀行實際卻是民營銀行居先，主因係目前加入相關倡儀仍為自主性，若未加入並未有罰則；其次，綠色金融範圍及商品廣泛，尚未成為市場商品主流或氣候，金融業需要投入相當的人力與成本，培養相關人才與Know-how，因此目前對公股行庫來說，這是一種義務與責任，尚未能自主全力投入推展綠色金融。
金融機構推動永續金融的最大驅動力為法規及風險，惟本國僅少數的國內金融業已做好落實永續金融的心理準備及能力，因此本研究以探討我國金融機構採用ESG及赤道原則推展綠色金融的現況情形，作為銀行推動綠色金融業務之參考。

In recent years, due to the huge financial risks and economic losses caused by environmental pollution and climate change, the United Nations and international organizations have put forward various climate finance initiatives. Central banks and financial supervision units in major countries around the world have also realized that "extreme climate change has Become a source of financial risk". In particular, the 2020 epidemic has triggered environmental and social risks, caused major changes in the global economy, changed many industrial supply chain models and work patterns, and made attention to ESG risks (environmental, social and corporate governance) a mainstream social consciousness. Therefore, the financial industry is also heading towards the development of ESG to achieve the goal of sustainable development. It is urgent to promote green finance.
The signing of the Equator Principles by financial institutions will be regarded as a positive display of ESG. Companies selected for the sustainability index have better performance in financial performance indicators than their peers. Bank loans to green companies have relatively low risk of ESG occurrence. , Contribute to its credit risk management. Publicly-owned banks should take the lead in signing the Equator Principles and TCFD. However, domestic banks are actually private banks first, mainly because they are still autonomous in joining relevant initiatives. If they do not join, there will be no penalties; secondly, the scope of green finance and the wide range of products. The financial industry has not yet become the mainstream commodity or climate in the market. The financial industry needs to invest considerable manpower and costs to cultivate relevant talents and know-how. Therefore, for public stock banks, this is an obligation and responsibility, and they have not yet been able to fully invest in green promotion. financial.
The biggest driving force for financial institutions to promote sustainable finance is regulations and risks. However, only a few domestic financial industries in the country are prepared and capable of implementing sustainable finance. Therefore, this study explores the adoption of ESG and the Equator Principles by Chinese financial institutions to promote green The current financial situation serves as a reference for banks to promote green finance business.

1. Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality, 30(1), 98. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2017-0149
2. Hee, J. N. (2010). Financial Strategy to Accelerate Green Growth. Korea Capital Market Institute.
3. Jin, D., Liu, L., Ma, J., Wang, H., & Yin, D. (2018). How Have Green Companies Fared in Transactions with Banks? A Stakeholder-Management Perspective. 30(4), 89-107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12320
4. Migliorelli, M. (2021). What Do We Mean by Sustainable Finance? Assessing Existing Frameworks and Policy Risks. Sustainability, 13(2), 975. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13020975
5. Ong, D. M. (2010). From 'International' to 'Transnational' Environmental Law? A Legal Assessment of the Contribution of the 'Equator Principles' to International Environmental Law. Nordic Journal of International Law, 79(1), 35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181009X125812581245929604
6. Park, H., & Kim, J. D. (2020). Transition towards green banking: role of financial regulators and financial institutions. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41180-020-00034-3
7. Plastun, A., Makarenko, I., Yelnikova, Y., & Makarenko, S. (2020). Environmental, social and governance investment standardization: moving towards sustainable economy. Environmental Economics, 10(1), 12-22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.02
8. Sarwar Uddin, A., Samiul Parvez, A., & Hasan, I. (2018). Why banks should consider ESG risk factors in bank lending? Banks and Bank Systems, 13(3), 71-80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.13(3).2018.07
9. 王皓軒. (2020). 企業導入氣候相關財務揭露(TCFD)之現況研究－以台灣上市(櫃)公司為例. (碩士), 國立臺北科技大學, 台北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/99ar72
10. 朱祥瑋. (2020). ESG、環境績效與公司風險之探討. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w7wt4x
11. 林淑如. (2020). 股票市場對於與違反社會責任記錄企業往來銀行的反應：以簽署赤道原則之銀行為例. (碩士), 國立高雄科技大學, 高雄市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8689n2
12. 邱雅琴. (2019). 道瓊永續指數與公司績效之關聯性─以台灣半導體業與金融業為例. (碩士), 國立中央大學, 桃園縣. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p4fv5c
13. 郭怡萱. (2020). ESG績效對公司風險之影響. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/r5fh7u
14. 游琇螢. (2019). ESG分數對公司績效表現與風險的影響 —以台灣市場為例. (碩士), 國立中央大學, 桃園縣. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9u3428
15. 湯偉宏. (2020). 企業投入ESG效益之研究–以總體經濟、機構投資人探討. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/mhdkjk
16. 楊舒婷. (2019). ESG揭露程度對公司風險之影響. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/tdx3v6
17. 中國大陸人民銀行研究局編著: 「中國綠色金融發展報告2019年」