Comprehensive global comparative analysis of green and sustainable taxonomies

Autores

  • Alejandro Dorado
  • Milton Gimenez Melero

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34140/bjbv8n2-056

Palavras-chave:

green taxonomy, climate change, environmental and social governance

Resumo

This article provides a systematic comparative analysis of green and sustainable finance taxonomies (GSTs) implemented globally as of July 2025. Examining 49 national and three regional frameworks, we identify core structural features (including environmental objectives, sectoral coverage, classification methodologies, governance arrangements, and legal status), while tracing how national taxonomies reflect specific sustainability contexts and development priorities. Our analysis reveals substantial convergence around climate mitigation and adaptation objectives, yet significant divergence in how jurisdictions operationalize biodiversity protection, social safeguards, and transition pathways. We argue that while country-specific taxonomies remain necessary to address local needs and policy agendas, interoperability has emerged as a critical requirement for preventing greenwashing, generating comparable information, and enabling cross-border sustainable finance flows. The paper advances three main contributions: first, it offers the most comprehensive empirical mapping of global taxonomy development to date, including frameworks often excluded from comparative studies; second, it develops an analytical framework for understanding taxonomy design choices across jurisdictions with varying institutional capacities; third, it draws on recent developments, including COP30 outcomes and the launch of the Principles for Taxonomy Interoperability, to assess emerging governance innovations. We conclude that taxonomies function not merely as classification tools but as institutional mechanisms reshaping decision-making frameworks across financial systems. However, their effectiveness depends less on technical design choices than on governance quality, policy integration, and international cooperation. Without sustained attention to these dimensions, taxonomy proliferation risks fragmenting capital markets rather than channeling investment toward sustainability objectives at the required scale.

Referências

Dorado, A. J.; Bortz, P. G. & Melero, M. G. (2025). The Political Economy of Green Taxonomies: Implications for development from the Global South. In: The Political Economy Of Green Taxonomies: Implications For Development From The Global South - University of Johannesburg

Bortz, P. G. (2024). Green and Sustainable Taxonomies: Dimension, challenges and difficulties. Buenos Aires.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2022). California greenhouse gas emissions for 2000 to 2020. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov

Center for Clean Air Policy (2022). Global Landscape of Taxonomies, Washington DC. Home | Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP): Climate Policy in Action

Center for Clean Air Policy (2025). Towards a common pathway across sustainable finance taxonomies: Policy brief for decision makers, Washington DC.

Climate Bonds Initiative. (2022). Global green taxonomy development, alignment, and implementation. Xiaoyun Xu, Wenhong Xie, Manshu Deng (ed.). Climate Bonds Initiative. Global-Green-Taxonomy-Development-Alignment-and-Implementation.pdf

Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI). (2025a). Green bonds market overview – Q2 2025. https://www.climatebonds.net

Climate Bonds Initiative. (CBI). (2025b). Advancing interoperability: A global approach to taxonomy alignment. Climate Bonds Initiative.

Climate Policy Initiative (CPI). (2022). Comparative Analysis of Climate Taxonomies. Climate Policy Initiative and CCAP. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org

CPA Ontario. (2025). Key Takeaways from COP30 – What CPAs Need to Know. CPA Ontario.

Dafermos, Y. and Nikolaidi, M. (2019). Fiscal Policy and Ecological Sustainability: A Post-Keynesian Perspective. In: Arestis, P., Sawyer, M. (eds) Frontiers of Heterodox Macroeconomics. International Papers in Political Economy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ehlers, T.; Gao, D. & Packer, F. (2021). A taxonomy of sustainable finance taxonomies. BIS, Monetary and Economic Department. No 118.

European Commission. (2020). EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance/tools-and-standards/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en

European Commission. (2023). EU emissions trading system: Factsheet and statistics. https://climate.ec.europa.eu

European Commission. (2025). International Platform on Sustainable Finance - 2025 key deliverables including annual report. European Commission.

Green Finance LAC. (2023). Comparison Study Between the Colombian and EU Taxonomies. Climate Bonds Initiative.

Hilbrich, S., Berensmann, K., Artmann, G., Herbold, T., Lötters-Viehof, S., Monti, A., … Steenkamp, L. A. (2024). Implementing sustainability taxonomies to redirect capital flows: The case of South Africa. Climate Policy.

ICMA. (2023). Climate Transition Finance Handbook. ICMA. Climate-Transition-Finance-Handbook-CTFH-June-2023-220623v2.pdf

International Platform on Sustainable Finance. (2024). Common Ground Taxonomy Instruction Report - Updated. IPSF.

Känzig, D. (2023). The unequal carbon consequences of carbon pricing, NBER Working Paper No. 31221, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA.

Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5

NGFS – Network for Greening the Financial System. (2022). NGFS conceptual framework for nature-related financial risks. https://www.ngfs.net

Pflücke-Mahoux, M., & Zetzsche, D. (2025). An Empirical Legal Analysis of Sustainable Finance Taxonomies Around the World. SSRN.

Proskauer Rose LLP. (2025). General Court Upholds European Commission's Approach to Nuclear and Gas in Taxonomy Regulation. Proskauer Rose LLP.

Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia. (2025). COP30. A Huddle of Hubs: How regional transparency hubs are transforming MRV system success. CAREC.

Sustainable Banking and Finance Network. (2025). Mexico. SBFN Data Portal.

Tamasiga, P., Onyeaka, H., Bakwena, M. and Ouassou, E. (2024). Pricing the future: unveiling the effects of carbon pricing on socio-economic outcomes and energy poverty, International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 43 (1): 2362334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2362334

TechMarketView. (2025). COP30: Implementation, innovation, and implications. TechMarketView.

UN. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.

UN. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations. 25p. ADOPTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT - Paris Agreement text English

UNEP FI. (2025). New resource provides guiding principles for development of credible, comparable sustainable finance frameworks to help mobilize capital. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME FINANCE INITIATIVE (UNEP FI). (2022). Climate Finance for Developing Countries: Progress and Gaps. Nairobi: UNEP FI. https://www.unepfi.org/.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC). (2023). Standing Committee on Finance: 2023 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows. Bonn: UNFCCC.

UNFCCC. (2015). The Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

World Bank. (2023). FY23 Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. WBG, Washington, DC. 37p.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Publicado

2026-05-05

Como Citar

Dorado, A., & Melero , M. G. (2026). Comprehensive global comparative analysis of green and sustainable taxonomies. Brazilian Journal of Business, 8(2), e86956. https://doi.org/10.34140/bjbv8n2-056

Edição

Seção

Artigos