Finance is vital for the green energy transition, but access to low cost finance is uneven as the cost of capital differs substantially between regions. This study shows how modelled decarbonisation pathways for developing economies are disproportionately impacted by different weighted average cost of capital (WACC) assumptions. For example, representing regionally-specific WACC values indicates 35% lower green electricity production in Africa for a cost-optimal 2 °C pathway than when regional considerations are ignored. Moreover, policy interventions lowering WACC values for low-carbon and high-carbon technologies by 2050 would allow Africa to reach net-zero emissions approximately 10 years earlier than when the cost of capital reduction is not considered. A climate investment trap arises for developing economies when climate-related investments remain chronically insufficient. Current finance frameworks present barriers to these finance flows and radical changes are needed so that capital is more equitably distributed.

The finance sector’s response to pressures around climate change has emphasized disclosure, notably through the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The implicit assumption—that if risks are fully revealed, finance will respond rationally and in ways aligned with the public interest—is rooted in the “efficient market hypothesis” (EMH) applied to the finance sector and its perception of climate policy. For low carbon investment, particular hopes have been placed on the role of institutional investors, given the apparent matching of their assets and liabilities with the long timescales of climate change. We both explain theoretical frameworks (grounded in the “three domains”, namely satisficing, optimizing, and transforming) and use empirical evidence (from a survey of institutional investors), to show that the EMH is unsupported by either theory or evidence: it follows that transparency alone will be an inadequate response. To some extent, transparency can address behavioural biases (first domain characteristics), and improving pricing and market efficiency (second domain); however, the strategic (third domain) limitations of EMH are more serious. We argue that whilst transparency can help, on its own it is a very long way from an adequate response to the challenges of ‘aligning institutional climate finance’.

This article examines the role of sustainable finance and investment in Japan and how the Japanese financial sector can mitigate growing climate risks and support Japan's transition towards a zero-carbon, sustainable economy. It first illustrates Japan’s exposure to physical and transitional climate risks before reviewing emerging practices in sustainable finance. These include the growing importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in financial decision-making; more rigid reporting and disclosure standards; and the development of green bond and sustainable investment markets. The article also assesses the role of policies and regulations in scaling up sustainable finance and low-carbon infrastructure investments. Subsequently, it analyses transitional climate risks via scenario analysis, applying the Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment (PACTA) tool to examine the exposure of subsectors of the Japanese equity market over several climate scenarios. The article concludes with policy recommendations for aligning Japan’s financial sector with global climate and sustainability goals.