The Role of Technology in Promoting Green Finance: A Systematic Literature Survey and the Development of a Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Green finance, defined as channeling money into sustainable development activities, is still far lower than needed to achieve net-zero emissions objectives. In this paper, we discuss the role of technologies in developing green finance. We identify that green finance faces three major challenges, including the risk management of green projects, the scarcity of innovative green financing products, and compliance with the regulations. Then, in the context of the existing literature, we explore recent technologies, including blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), data analytics, Internet of Things (IoT), and robotics that are helping to deal with the challenges in green finance. We show that data-driven approaches utilizing AI and ML help in the risk assessment of green projects; FinTech-based crowdfunding platforms provide innovative green financial products and regulatory technologies (RegTech) support in compliance with regulations. We also identify that the environmental footprint of cryptocurrencies is an emerging area in the technologies and green finance domain. Our framework could be helpful to further extend the debate on the role of technology in green finance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".