지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper discusses the theme of climate change risk disclosure focusing U.S. systems in general. The idea that a mandatory disclosure system of climate change risk voluntary disclosure would undermine voluntary reporting through other outlets, such as GRI and the CDP, is well worth considering. Also, there is some reason in the opinion that a mandatory climate change risk disclosure will be prohibitively expensive.
But, as mentioned earlier, mandatory climate change risk disclosure despite the cost factor, climate change risk disclosure could prevent the confusion of investors by a single unitary of disclosure standards. Despite the cost factor, mandatory climate change risk disclosure could cut cost by taking advantage of the existing system of Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act of Korea. There are no disclosure systems which have zero cost.
The contrary is rather to be supposed. More important thing is the protection of investors by solving the problem of information asymmetry and guarantee of capital finance. It is simply too easy to argue that mandatory climate change risk disclosure will be prohibitively expensive. Companies which have comprehensive disclosure opportunely will be establish trust in comparison new competitor.
Transparency is an intense power behind the Green Wave, and its expectations rise daily. Moreover, not only does environmental reporting build trust with investors and other stakeholders, the failure to provide the disclosure introduces a shame factor that may be even more powerful. Is the problem of climate change risk disclosure surely necessary? The fact that investors strongly require definite disclosure systems will be an adequate answer. We must do our best to solve the problems that we are facing. It is not necessary that a mandatory disclosure suggest way to reduce global warming and solve practical problem. The only thing that we need is an assistance with their investments by disclosure systems.
To conclude, Financial Services Commission is able to introduce climate change risk disclosure system to Korea under the authoritative interpretation for §119(3) of Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act.
But, as mentioned earlier, mandatory climate change risk disclosure despite the cost factor, climate change risk disclosure could prevent the confusion of investors by a single unitary of disclosure standards. Despite the cost factor, mandatory climate change risk disclosure could cut cost by taking advantage of the existing system of Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act of Korea. There are no disclosure systems which have zero cost.
The contrary is rather to be supposed. More important thing is the protection of investors by solving the problem of information asymmetry and guarantee of capital finance. It is simply too easy to argue that mandatory climate change risk disclosure will be prohibitively expensive. Companies which have comprehensive disclosure opportunely will be establish trust in comparison new competitor.
Transparency is an intense power behind the Green Wave, and its expectations rise daily. Moreover, not only does environmental reporting build trust with investors and other stakeholders, the failure to provide the disclosure introduces a shame factor that may be even more powerful. Is the problem of climate change risk disclosure surely necessary? The fact that investors strongly require definite disclosure systems will be an adequate answer. We must do our best to solve the problems that we are facing. It is not necessary that a mandatory disclosure suggest way to reduce global warming and solve practical problem. The only thing that we need is an assistance with their investments by disclosure systems.
To conclude, Financial Services Commission is able to introduce climate change risk disclosure system to Korea under the authoritative interpretation for §119(3) of Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act.
목차
Ⅰ. 서언
Ⅱ. 기후변화 리스크의 중요성 및 대처 동향
Ⅲ. 미국의 기후변화 리스크 공시제도
Ⅳ. CERES 보고서와 기후변화 리스크 공시 내용의 범주
Ⅴ. 기후변화 공시제도의 국내 도입
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (29)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - 서완석 / 2007 / 유가증권 발행시장의 공시제도 / 한국학술정보(주)
2. [단행본] - 노희진 / 2010 / 기후변화와 탄소금융 / 자본시장연구원
3. [보고서] - 환경부 / 2007 / 기업 환경정보 공시제도 도입방안 연구
4. [기타자료] - 김도요 / 2010 / 기후변화 위험의 대처와 정보공시제도의 발전-미국 SEC의 기후변화 공시에 관한 해석지침(Interpretive Release on Climate Change Disclosure) / 법무법인 지평지성 소식
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 안수현 / 2009 / 기업의 환경정보 공시제도화 / 경영법률 19 (4) : 33 ~ 81
2. [단행본] - 노희진 / 2010 / 기후변화와 탄소금융 / 자본시장연구원
3. [보고서] - 환경부 / 2007 / 기업 환경정보 공시제도 도입방안 연구
4. [기타자료] - 김도요 / 2010 / 기후변화 위험의 대처와 정보공시제도의 발전-미국 SEC의 기후변화 공시에 관한 해석지침(Interpretive Release on Climate Change Disclosure) / 법무법인 지평지성 소식
5. [학술지(정기간행물)] - 안수현 / 2009 / 기업의 환경정보 공시제도화 / 경영법률 19 (4) : 33 ~ 81
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
기후변화시대에서 자연재해를 원인으로 한 국가배상청구와 위험관리책임
박태현
강원법학
2014
.10
광역지자체의 기후변화 적응계획 평가 : 계획요소와 수립과정을 중심으로
김진아
,
윤순진
한국사회와 행정연구
2014
.08
국내 배출권거래제 도입에 따른 주요 쟁점사항 및 정책적 시사점 : 국내 반도체 산업을 중심으로
임호선
,
최은경
,
이민영
외 1명
한국기후변화학회지
2014
.06
우리나라의 기후변화적응 국제협력에 대한 고찰
박용하
,
정서용
,
손요환
외 1명
한국기후변화학회지
2010
.09
기후변화에 따른 우리나라 물 관리의 취약성 평가
김영규
,
유정아
,
정은성
한국기후변화학회지
2012
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-366-000876804