近年來，隨全球永續金融監理架構快速發展，氣候風險揭露、永續資訊揭露及轉型金融等制度逐步由國際倡議走向制度化監理，並開始影響金融機構之核心業務決策。國際監理趨勢普遍強調，金融機構除提升永續資訊透明度外，亦須將氣候風險納入授信評估、資產配置與風險管理架構中，使金融體系於淨零轉型過程中扮演更積極之資金引導角色。
在此趨勢下，我國金融監督管理委員會自2017年起陸續推動《綠色金融行動方案》、銀行氣候風險揭露制度及《綠色及轉型金融行動方案》等政策，並逐步發布《永續經濟活動認定參考指引》、《轉型授信審查參考指南》等規範，顯示我國永續金融監理已由早期資訊揭露與綠色融資推動，進一步朝向風險管理內嵌化與轉型金融導向發展。
然而，既有研究多聚焦於政策架構、制度設計或量化績效分析，對於永續金融規範如何實際影響銀行內部授信流程、風險管理機制及跨部門治理運作，仍缺乏較深入之質化研究。基於此，本文以玉山銀行為研究案例，探討永續金融規範對銀行授信與風險管理制度之影響，並分析相關規範如何於銀行內部實際轉化為制度與作業流程。
本研究採探索型質化研究方法，透過文本與文件分析、次級資料分析、案例研究及參與觀察等方式進行研究。研究內容聚焦於永續金融規範對銀行授信流程、放款決策、氣候風險治理、資訊揭露及風險管理架構之影響，並進一步分析銀行於制度導入與落實過程中所面臨之挑戰。
研究結果顯示，永續金融規範已逐步改變銀行授信與風險管理之決策邏輯。在授信業務方面，ESG因素、氣候風險已逐步納入貸前審查、授信評估及貸後管理流程中，銀行授信決策亦由過往偏重財務風險評估，逐漸轉向結合永續因素之雙軌評估架構；在風險管理方面，銀行則逐步導入氣候風險治理架構、情境分析、
氣候壓力測試及永續資訊揭露制度，使氣候風險逐步內嵌於既有風險管理機制之中。
然而，本研究亦發現，銀行於制度落實過程中，仍面臨ESG資料不足、跨部門整合成本高、永續風險衡量不確定性及監理規範持續變動等問題。整體而言，永續金融規範對銀行之影響已不僅止於揭露與法規遵循要求，而係逐步重塑銀行授信與風險管理之治理模式與決策邏輯。未來主管機關除持續推動揭露制度與轉型金融政策外，亦應強化產業轉型配套、資料基礎建設與制度一致性，以協助金融機構有效推動永續轉型。

In recent years, as the global regulatory framework for sustainable finance has rapidly evolved, regulatory regimes concerning climate risk disclosure, sustainability-related disclosure and transition finance have gradually moved from international initiatives toward formalized supervision, thereby beginning to influence the core business decisions of financial institutions. International regulatory trends generally emphasize that financial institutions should not only enhance the transparency of sustainability-related information, but also incorporate climate risks into credit assessment, asset allocation, and risk management frameworks, enabling the financial system to play a more active role in guiding capital flows during the net-zero transition.
Against this backdrop, Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) has successively promoted policies such as the Green Finance Action Plans, climate-related financial disclosure requirements for banks, and the Green and Transition Finance Action Plan since 2017. The FSC has also gradually introduced guidelines, including the Reference Guidelines for the Recognition of Sustainable Economic Activities and the Reference Guidelines for Transition Finance Credit Review. These developments demonstrate that Taiwan’s sustainable finance regulatory framework has evolved from an early emphasis on information disclosure and green financing toward the integration of risk management into core operations and a stronger orientation toward transition finance.
However, existing studies have mainly focused on policy frameworks, institutional design, or quantitative performance analysis, while in-depth qualitative research remains limited regarding how sustainable finance regulations affect, in practice, banks’ internal credit processes, risk management mechanisms, and cross-departmental governance operations. Therefore, this study uses E.SUN Bank as its case to explore
the impact of sustainable finance regulations on banks’ credit and risk management systems, and further analyzes how such regulations are translated into internal institutional arrangements and operational processes.
This study adopts an exploratory qualitative research approach through textual and document analysis, secondary data analysis, case study research, and participant observation. The research focuses on the effects of sustainable finance regulations on banks’ credit processes, lending decisions, climate risk governance, sustainability disclosures, and risk management frameworks, while further examining the challenges encountered during the introduction and implementation of these systems.
The findings indicate that sustainable finance regulations have gradually transformed the decision-making logic of banks’ credit and risk management practices. In credit operations, ESG factors and climate risks have increasingly been incorporated into pre-loan reviews, credit assessments, and post-loan management processes. Banks’ lending decisions have also gradually shifted from an approach primarily focused on financial risk assessment toward a dual-track assessment framework that combines financial and sustainability factors. In terms of risk management, banks have progressively introduced climate risk governance structures, scenario analysis, climate stress testing, and sustainability disclosure systems, thereby gradually embedding climate risks into existing risk management mechanisms.
Nevertheless, this study also finds that banks continue to face challenges such as insufficient ESG data, high cross-departmental integration costs, uncertainty in measuring sustainability risks, and continuously evolving regulatory requirements. Overall, the impact of sustainable finance regulations on banks extends beyond disclosure and regulatory compliance requirements, gradually reshaping the governance models and decision-making logic of banks’ credit and risk management activities. In the future, regulators should continue promoting disclosure systems and
transition finance policies while also strengthening supporting measures for industrial transition, data infrastructure, and regulatory consistency to assist financial institutions in effectively advancing sustainable transformation.

一、中文文獻
（一）主管機關公告、官方政策文件
金融監督管理委員會（2017）。《綠色金融行動方案》。
金融監督管理委員會（2020）。《綠色金融行動方案2.0》。
金融監督管理委員會（2022a）。《綠色金融行動方案3.0》。
金融監督管理委員會（2022b）。《本國銀行氣候風險財務揭露指引》。
金融監督管理委員會（2023）。《金融業減碳目標設定與策略規劃指引》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024a）。《永續經濟活動認定參考指引（第二版）》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024b）。《金融機構防漂綠參考指引》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024c）。《金融業範疇三財務碳排放計算指引》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024d）。《永續資訊內部控制制度有效性判斷參考項目》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024e）。《綠色及轉型金融行動方案》。
金融監督管理委員會（2024年12月31日）。〈修正「永續經濟活動認定參考指引」第二版〉。金管會新聞稿
金融監督管理委員會（2025）。《轉型授信審查參考指南》。
國家發展委員會（2023）。《臺灣2050淨零排放路徑及策略總說明》。
（二）企業公開揭露文件（玉山金控及玉山銀行）
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024a）。《2024玉山金控永續報告書》。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024b）。《玉山金融控股公司永續金融政策》。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024c）。《玉山金控及子公司氣候環境風險管理政策》。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024d）。《玉山金控及子公司煤炭及非傳統油氣撤資要點》。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024e）。《玉山金控及子公司防漂綠管理要點》。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司（2024f）。《維護生物多樣性暨不毀林承諾》。
玉山銀行股份有限公司（2024a）。《2024玉山銀行氣候自然報告書》。
玉山銀行股份有限公司（2024b）。內部風險管理及授信相關規範。
（三）博碩士學位論文
王嬋娟（2025）。《以應用層級分析法探討銀行業永續金融授信系統功能性需求》〔碩士論文，國立高雄科技大學〕。
黃瓊慧（2021）。《我國金融業採用ESG及赤道原則推展綠色金融現況研究》〔碩士論文，國立中央大學〕。
湯雅婷（2024）。《ESG評等對公司信用風險及財務績效影響－以台灣上市櫃公司為例》〔碩士論文，國立成功大學〕。
（四）研究機構、智庫與專業報告
中華民國企業永續發展協會（BCSD Taiwan）（2023）。《2023臺灣永續金融大調查：調查報告》。
證券暨期貨市場發展基金會（2023）。《「2023金融驅動永續轉型」研討會成果回顧》。
（五）期刊
王儷玲（2023）。〈金融科技在綠色金融的創新與應用〉。《會計研究月刊》，451，80–85。
林士傑（2023）。〈銀行業參與國際氣候金融發展之建議〉。《國際開發援助現場季刊》，14，23–31。
洪承豐（2023）。〈國際永續金融及企業ESG揭露之概況與借鏡〉。《臺灣經濟研究月刊》，46（3），96–102。
祝康偉（2023）。〈面對全球永續金融浪潮，臺灣的思考與行動〉。《國際開發援助現場季刊》，14，39–47。
（六）新聞稿及網路資料
數位時代，〈「永續連結貸款」是什麼？玉山銀大方「讓利」背後，看準這點好處〉，2024年1月24日，https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/78115/esunbank-sustainability-linked-loan（瀏覽日期：2026年7月17日）。
玉山金融控股股份有限公司，〈玉山攜手裕隆汽車簽訂臺灣首件氣候暨生物多樣性永續連結貸款〉，2023年9月15日，https://www.esunfhc.com/zh-tw/news-center/news-center/news/detail?id=6838904B89D24E97BDEE72275D802551&p=99812C02BA704D578203AF374D8DB2E5（瀏覽日期：2026年7月17日）。
玉山商業銀行股份有限公司，〈玉山攜手鮮乳坊推動「永續牧場賦能專案」 打造韌性酪農產業鏈〉，2026年5月20日，https://www.esunbank.com/zh-tw/about/news-center/detail?id=140AAB92C32F416DB8DDFD6BE1DA592A（瀏覽日期：2026年7月17日）。
玉山商業銀行股份有限公司，〈玉山銀行攜手大都會客運合作轉型授信 共同推動零碳運輸發展〉，2026年1月19日，https://www.esunbank.com/zh-tw/about/news-center/detail?id=B92F8E2460AB4D2F9E39A6CA6DF8EC32（瀏覽日期：2026年7月17日）。
環境部氣候變遷署，〈環境部預告修正「溫室氣體管理基金收支保管及運用辦法」第四條草案，基金用途增列貸款信用保證及利息補貼〉，2026年7月7日，https://enews.moenv.gov.tw/moenv-news/zh-tw/News/13553（瀏覽日期：2026年7月17日）。
二、英文文獻
（一）國際組織與官方報告
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2021a). Climate-related financial risks: Measurement methodologies. Bank for International Settlements.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2021b). Climate-related risk drivers and their transmission channels. Bank for International Settlements.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2022). Principles for the effective management and supervision of climate-related financial risks. Bank for International Settlements.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2023). Disclosure of climate-related financial risks [Consultative document]. Bank for International Settlements.
European Central Bank. (2020). Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management and disclosure.
International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023a). IFRS S1 general requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information. IFRS Foundation.
International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023b). IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures. IFRS Foundation.
International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023c). Effects Analysis: IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures. IFRS Foundation
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2019). A call for action: Climate change as a source of financial risk.
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2020). Guide for supervisors: Integrating climate-related and environmental risks into prudential supervision.
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2021). Progress report on the implementation of the NGFS guide for supervisors.
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2022a). Enhancing market transparency in green and transition finance.
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2022b). NGFS climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors.
Network for Greening the Financial System. (2023). NGFS climate scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Phase IV.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Developing sustainable finance definitions and taxonomies. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). OECD guidance on transition finance: Ensuring credibility of corporate climate transition plans. OECD Publishing.
Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials. (2022). The global GHG accounting and reporting standard Part A: Financed emissions (2nd ed.).
Science Based Targets initiative. (2024). Financial institutions’ near-term criteria (Version 2.0).
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures: Final report.
United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (2020). Beyond the horizon: New tools and frameworks for transition risk assessments from UNEP FI’s TCFD banking program.
United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (2021). Principles for responsible banking: Guidance document (Updated November 2021).
United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (2024). 2024 climate risk landscape report.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). Paris Agreement.
World Bank. (2021). Green, resilient, and inclusive development.
（二）英文學術論文與專書
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.
Bolton, P., Després, M., Pereira da Silva, L. A., Samama, F., & Svartzman, R. (2020). The green swan: Central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change. Bank for International Settlements.
Brummer, C. (2012). Soft law and the global financial system: Rule making in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press.
Bruno, B., & Lombini, S. (2023). Climate transition risk and bank lending. Journal of Financial Research, 46(S1), 59–106.
Carnevale, C., & Drago, D. (2024). Do banks price ESG risks? A critical review of empirical research. Research in International Business and Finance, 69, Article 102227.
Chalabi-Jabado, F., & Ziane, Y. (2024). Climate risks, financial performance and lending growth: Evidence from the banking industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 209, Article 123757.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Delis, M. D., de Greiff, K., Iosifidi, M., & Ongena, S. (2024). Being stranded with fossil fuel reserves? Climate policy risk and the pricing of bank loans. Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, 33(3), 239–265.
Ho, K., & Wong, A. (2023). Effect of climate-related risk on the costs of bank loans: Evidence from syndicated loan markets in emerging economies. Emerging Markets Review, 55, Article 100977.
Houston, J. F., & Shan, H. (2021). Corporate ESG profiles and banking relationships (SSRN Working Paper No. 3331617). SSRN.
Kölbel, J. F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2020). Can sustainable investing save the world? Reviewing the mechanisms of investor impact. Organization & Environment, 33(4), 554–574.
Nykvist, B., & Maltais, A. (2022). Too risky – The role of finance as a driver of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 42, 219–231.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Schoenmaker, D. (2019). A framework for sustainable finance. Erasmus Platform for Sustainable Value Creation Working Paper. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. SAGE Publications.
Volz, U., Beirne, J., Ambrosio Preudhomme, N., Fenton, A., Mazzacurati, E., Renzhi, N., & Stampe, J. (2020). Climate change and sovereign risk. SOAS University of London, Asian Development Bank Institute, World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore, & Four Twenty Seven.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Zetzsche, D. A., & Anker-Sørensen, L. (2022). Regulating sustainable finance in the dark. European Business Organization Law Review, 23, 47–85.