The sticky, muddled geopolitics of sustainable finance regulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The geopolitical implications of climate change are vast, including the harnessing of capital to finance investment in response to it. Sustainable finance is an emerging geopolitical terrain that offers countries the ability to project and protect their policy preferences through their control over financial flows, institutions, and assets. This article explores the ways in which the regulation of sustainable finance—under the broad category of ESG (environmental, social, governance) investing and otherwise—enables and constrains its use as a means to re-orient financial flows to achieve geopolitical objectives. While the use of sustainable finance as a tool of geopolitical competition is still nascent, I argue that geopolitics diminishes the capacity of the financial system to effectively and equitably address climate change and other sustainability threats and hinders international lawmaking and global regulatory coordination in sustainable finance. This article analyses the use of sustainable finance regulation as a geopolitical strategy and explores how the international financial architecture may be able to overcome geopolitical pressures to facilitate global cooperation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it