Scholarlink

<p>This article synthesizes the academic literature on the credibility of sustainability, ESG, climate, and net-zero claims made by banking institutions, with particular attention to whether prior research links these claims to observable financing conduct, loan-book exposure, governance arrangements, and risk-management practices. Using a scoping-review design with theory-based synthesis, the study applies Population–Concept–Context logic and PRISMA-ScR-informed reporting to map how claim–conduct alignment has been conceptualized, examined, and verified. Systematic searches of Scopus and Web of Science produced a final sample of 70 peer-reviewed studies. The synthesis does not support the general conclusion that all banking sustainability claims are symbolic. Instead, it identifies three recurring evidence patterns: disclosure–practice disconnect, partial or substantive alignment in lending and risk management, and mixed alignment in which climate or ESG information is acknowledged but only weakly translated into portfolio steering or borrower discipline. Credibility is strongest when claims are linked to pricing, covenants, credit allocation, financed-emissions measurement, client transition assessment, board oversight, and external assurance. The article contributes by developing a conduct-based interpretation of banking transition credibility and proposing a provisional Bank Transition Credibility Assurance System for future empirical calibration, supervisory testing, and assurance practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Banking transition claims and their verification: credibility challenges in sustainable finance

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月24日

查看全文
  • Rohail Hassan,
  • Mohammed R. M. Salem,
  • Norazah Mohd Suki,
  • Liang Xinrui

摘要

This article synthesizes the academic literature on the credibility of sustainability, ESG, climate, and net-zero claims made by banking institutions, with particular attention to whether prior research links these claims to observable financing conduct, loan-book exposure, governance arrangements, and risk-management practices. Using a scoping-review design with theory-based synthesis, the study applies Population–Concept–Context logic and PRISMA-ScR-informed reporting to map how claim–conduct alignment has been conceptualized, examined, and verified. Systematic searches of Scopus and Web of Science produced a final sample of 70 peer-reviewed studies. The synthesis does not support the general conclusion that all banking sustainability claims are symbolic. Instead, it identifies three recurring evidence patterns: disclosure–practice disconnect, partial or substantive alignment in lending and risk management, and mixed alignment in which climate or ESG information is acknowledged but only weakly translated into portfolio steering or borrower discipline. Credibility is strongest when claims are linked to pricing, covenants, credit allocation, financed-emissions measurement, client transition assessment, board oversight, and external assurance. The article contributes by developing a conduct-based interpretation of banking transition credibility and proposing a provisional Bank Transition Credibility Assurance System for future empirical calibration, supervisory testing, and assurance practice.