专题：对话ESG全球领导者
新浪财经ESG评级中心提供包括资讯、报告、培训、咨询等在内的14项ESG服务，助力上市公司传播ESG理念，提升ESG可持续发展表现。点击查看【ESG评级中心服务手册】
文 | 新浪财经 李欣然
在全球经济向可持续发展转型的关键时期，金融体系正面临前所未有的机遇与挑战。随着气候变化议题的深入和ESG投资理念的普及，可持续金融已逐渐演变为全球金融改革的核心议程。然而，区域发展不平衡、绿色技术成本居高不下等现实问题，仍在考验着金融机构的智慧与执行力。
在此背景下，新浪财经与三井住友金融集团首席可持续发展官Masayuki Takanashi展开对话，共同探讨可持续议题对金融机构的战略意义、全球不同市场的实践差异，以及这一领域当前面临的挑战与未来演进方向。
三井住友金融集团首席可持续发展官Masayuki Takanashi以下为对话原文：
新浪财经：我们了解到三井住友金融集团非常重视可持续发展，并为此选取了五个优先议题。请问贵集团如此关注可持续发展的主要驱动因素是什么？
Masayuki Takanashi：其实在集团内部，我们使用更多的是“创造社会价值”这一概念。虽然这一术语与“可持续发展”非常相似，但“可持续发展”一词本质上侧重于维持现状，而“创造社会价值”则更强调积极创造和提升价值的内涵。尽管两者有所重叠，我们现在除了“可持续发展”外，也频繁使用“创造社会价值”这一表述。
我们于三年前正式采纳了这一术语，并将其纳入我们现行的中期经营计划——该计划每三年更新一次。在日本，财年于每年三月结束。当前的中期计划将于今年三月到期，自四月起我们将开启新的周期。在即将完成的计划中，我们明确将“创造社会价值”定位为企业战略的核心支柱之一。
我们的战略立足于三大支柱：第一，持续创造利润；第二，优化企业伙伴合作生态；第三，也是我们新的优先任务——为社会价值作出显著贡献。
至于我们为何如此重视可持续发展，主要有以下三点原因：
第一，当前诸多社会挑战阻碍了经济增长。作为一家大型金融机构，我们的业务成果与经济的健康发展息息相关。如果经济无法增长，我们自身也难以成长。因此，我们认为有责任帮助应对这些社会问题，以推动构建更有活力的经济环境。
第二，我们认识到，利益相关方对企业的评价标准正在发生变化。这不仅包括投资者，也涵盖客户、现有员工以及潜在人才——例如高校学生。年轻一代尤其关注企业处理社会议题的方式，他们在职业选择时并不只依据财务表现。为了吸引并留住最优秀的人才，我们必须展现对社会价值创造的承诺。这种公众期望的转变是我们聚焦于此的关键动因。
第三，关注可持续发展能创造商业机会。通过思考如何协助解决社会问题，我们已开发出新的服务与项目。这些举措不仅回应了社会需求，同时也带来了收入。从根本上说，这是一项有益的生意。
总而言之，支持经济增长、回应利益相关方不断变化的期望，以及把握新的商业机遇——这三点是我们关注可持续发展与创造社会价值的主要原因。
新浪财经：根据您的实践经验，在投资与信贷决策中纳入环境与社会考量，是否有助于带来积极的财务回报？
Masayuki Takanashi：我们将环境与社会尽职调查作为信贷审批流程的重要组成部分。我们认为这至关重要，主要是因为其有助于管控风险，进而对财务表现产生积极影响。
举例来说，如果忽视环境或社会因素，项目可能无法获得监管许可。在这种情况下，项目可能陷入停滞，危及我们收回投资的能力。因此，我们的风险评估对于最大限度地减少潜在损失、优化贷款流程具有关键作用。
当前的重点领域是脱碳，这涉及管理转型风险和物理风险。部分客户既面临向低碳经济转型相关的风险，也直接承受气候变化带来的物理风险。我们认为，积极评估并缓解这些风险对我们自身、股东以及所有利益相关方都至关重要。这样做不仅有助于保护我们的投资组合，更能提升长期的财务表现。
新浪财经：目前，部分地区出现了可持续发展进程放缓的现象，例如一些金融机构推迟了净零排放目标。您如何看待这一现象？
Masayuki Takanashi：我注意到部分银行确实推迟了净零目标。但根据他们的解释，我的理解是这并不意味着其放弃了环境承诺。更准确地说，他们是在根据外部条件的变化调整目标。例如，若客户转型进度未达初期预期，银行便难以按原定时限完成目标。这种调整具有合理性。以国际能源署（IEA）为例，其每年都会更新情景预测模型。依据现实情况调整计划，本就是符合逻辑的做法。
我们始终认为，金融机构乃至所有企业，都应基于自身具体情况设定切实可行的目标。因此，欧洲、亚洲和美国的金融机构之间存在差异是必然的。每个地区处于不同的脱碳进程阶段，面临的挑战也各不相同。强求所有人遵循统一目标并不现实，也不科学。环境始终在变化，形势也在不断发展。所以，金融机构根据变化中的格局调整战略，不应被视作承诺的倒退，而应理解为一种务实的战略校准。
新浪财经：欧洲通常被视为可持续金融与可持续商业的引领者。您如何看待欧洲与亚洲在此领域的差距？您觉得亚洲金融机构未来应如何推进自身的可持续发展进程？
Masayuki Takanashi：欧洲在脱碳进程中确实曾处于领先地位。但我认为这种态势正在转变。例如，欧盟去年推出的综合法案（Omnibus Simplification Package）意味着其监管战略正在调整——脱碳虽仍是目标，但需要更明确地与财务回报及更广泛的商业考量取得平衡。因此，尽管过去欧洲与亚洲地区可能存在差距，但我看到这种差距正在显著缩小。
一个关键趋同例证是“转型金融”理念。日本政府长期积极推广这一框架，强调从“棕色”产业向“绿色”产业过渡阶段的金融支持至关重要。业界已形成共识：立即彻底的转型并不现实，必须通过金融手段支持企业循序渐进完成演变。这一理念已获得广泛认同。尽管“转型金融”的定义尚未完全统一，但术语本身已被普遍采用，预计近期将形成更规范的标准。这说明欧亚之间对于可持续金融领域关键议题的思考正在趋同，认知与实践层面的差距正在消弭。
新浪财经：您认为可持续金融的未来发展趋势是什么？例如，哪些可持续领域的资金缺口最为显著？哪些技术创新可能重塑可持续金融的格局？
Masayuki Takanashi：“融资缺口”这一概念被广泛提及，但具体测算数据存在差异。在我看来，最根本的缺口在于项目缺乏财务可行性——资本天然会回避缺乏经济吸引力的项目。
坦率地说，核心问题并非金融工具不足，而在于脱碳本身具有成本。如果我们不能有效降低脱碳成本，项目将难以盈利，也无法吸引投资者。因此，真正的挑战在于：既要通过技术创新降低绿色溢价，也要推动市场观念转变，让长期社会价值获得合理估值。只有当项目展现出清晰的财务吸引力时，资本才会大规模涌入。这正是技术创新的关键意义——我期待它通过成本削减效应，成为吸引资金、破解困局的重要力量。
混合金融常被视作“万能钥匙”，似乎单凭此工具就能引导资本流向任何领域。我的看法则更为审慎。混合金融在特定场景下确实有效——例如对冲商业金融机构难以承受的高风险，或提升略低于机构收益门槛项目的回报率。但它无法将本质上不具备财务可行性的项目变为可融资资产。项目的底层经济逻辑必须首先成立。
总体来说，我们确实观察到可持续发展某些领域面临逆风。例如利率上升与通胀压力已影响一些地区项目的经济可行性。但宏观趋势并未改变，战略方向依然坚定。以日本为例，政府按照既定路线图在今年启动绿色转型碳排放交易体系（GX-ETS）等举措都在稳步推进。虽然不同行业进展速度可能有所差异，但向可持续发展转型的承诺始终坚定不移。
以下为英文原文：
Q: We understand that Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group places significant emphasis on sustainable development and has selected five priority issues in this regard. What are the primary driving factors behind the Group's strong commitment to sustainability?
A: First, we use a concept we call "social value creation." While this term is very similar to "sustainability," the word "sustainability" inherently focuses on maintaining the status quo, whereas "creating social value" carries a stronger connotation of actively generating and increasing value. Although the concepts overlap, we now frequently use "social value creation" in addition to "sustainability."
We formally adopted this terminology three years ago. It was integrated into our current mid-term plan, which we renew every three years. In Japan, the fiscal year ends in March. The current mid-term period concludes this March, and starting this April, we will begin a new cycle. Within the concluding plan, we explicitly positioned "social value creation" as one of the core pillars of our corporate strategy.
Our strategy rests on three pillars: first, continuing to generate profit; second, strengthening our fundamental corporate platform; and third—our new priority—making a significant contribution to social value.
To address your question on why we are so committed to this: there are three main reasons.
First, numerous social challenges hinder economic growth. As a major financial institution, our success is deeply tied to the health of the economy. If the economy does not grow, neither do we. Therefore, we believe we have a responsibility to help address these issues to foster a more robust economic environment.
Second, we recognize that how stakeholders evaluate companies is evolving. This includes not only investors but also customers, current employees, and prospective talent—such as university students. Young people, in particular, are highly attentive to how companies address social issues. They don't base their career decisions solely on financial performance. To attract and retain the best talent, we must demonstrate our commitment to creating societal value. This shift in public expectation is a key driver for our focus.
Third, and quite simply, it creates business opportunities. By asking how we can help solve societal problems, we have developed new services and programs. These initiatives not only address social needs but also generate revenue. It is, fundamentally, good business.
In summary, these three points—supporting economic growth, responding to evolving stakeholder expectations, and seizing new business opportunities—are the primary reasons we are focused on social value creation.
Q: From your practical experience, does incorporating environmental and social considerations into investment and credit decision-making yield positive financial returns for the Group?
A: We conduct what we term Environmental and Social due diligence as part of our credit and loan approval processes. We consider this essential, primarily for risk mitigation, which in turn contributes to positive financial returns.
To illustrate: if we were to overlook environmental or social factors, a project might fail to secure regulatory permits. In such a scenario, the project could stall, jeopardizing our ability to recover the investment. Our assessments are therefore critical for minimizing potential losses and streamlining our lending process.
A current priority is decarbonization, which involves managing both transition and physical risks. Some clients are exposed to risks associated with shifting to a low-carbon economy, as well as direct physical risks from climate change. We believe it is vital for us—and for our shareholders and stakeholders—to proactively assess and mitigate these risks. Doing so not only protects our portfolio but also enhances our long-term financial performance.
Q: Currently, some regions have witnessed setbacks in sustainability efforts, such as financial institutions delaying their net-zero targets. What is your perspective on this phenomenon?
I am aware that some banks have delayed their net-zero targets. However, based on their explanations, my understanding is that this does not mean they are abandoning their environmental commitments. Rather, they are adjusting their targets in response to changing external conditions. For example, if their clients are not progressing as quickly as initially projected, it becomes difficult for the banks to meet their original timelines. This seems reasonable. Consider the International Energy Agency (IEA): it updates its own scenarios annually. Adapting plans based on current realities is a logical approach.
We have always believed that financial institutions—and companies in general—should set realistic goals based on their specific circumstances. Consequently, we should expect differences between, say, institutions in Europe, Asia, and the US. Each region is at a different stage in its decarbonization journey and faces unique challenges. It is not effective to impose a single, uniform target on everyone. Situations vary and they evolve. Therefore, if a financial institution revises its strategy based on a changing landscape, that should not be seen as a failure of commitment, but as a pragmatic recalibration.
Q: Europe has typically been the leader in sustainable finance and development. How do you perceive the gap between Europe and Asia in this regard, and what should financial institutions in Asia do to advance their sustainable initiatives in the future?
A: I acknowledge that Europe has historically led the way in decarbonization. However, I believe this dynamic is shifting. For instance, last year's introduction of the EU's Omnibus Package suggests a strategic regulatory recalibration. While decarbonization remains a goal, it now appears to be more explicitly balanced against financial returns and broader business considerations. Consequently, while a gap may have existed in the past between Europe and regions like Asia, I see that gap narrowing significantly.
A key example of this convergence is the concept of transition finance. The Japanese government has actively promoted this framework for some time, emphasizing the critical need for a transition phase from "brown" to "green" industries. The understanding is that an immediate, complete shift is impractical; financing is essential to support companies through this evolution. This concept has gained substantial traction. While definitions of "transition finance" may still vary, the term is now widely adopted. I expect greater standardization in the near future. This example of transition finance illustrates my broader point: the thinking around these critical issues—especially between Europe and Asia—is converging. The gap in perspective and approach is closing.
Q: What do you believe are the future development trends in sustainable finance? For example, in which sustainability-oriented areas do significant funding gaps exist, and what technological innovations might reshape the paradigm of sustainable finance?
A: Regarding the funding gap, the term is widely used, but the figures vary. From my perspective, the most critical gap exists where projects are not financially viable. Finance will naturally avoid projects that don't make economic sense.
The core issue, frankly, isn't a lack of financial instruments. It's that decarbonization carries a cost. If we cannot reduce that cost, projects remain unprofitable and unattractive to investors. The real challenge, therefore, is twofold: we must drive down costs through innovation and shift market mindsets to properly value the long-term benefits. Only when projects demonstrate a clear, positive value proposition will capital flow to them at scale. This is where technological innovation becomes crucial. I hope it will be a major part of the solution by reducing costs and, consequently, attracting finance.
People often discuss blended finance as a panacea, as if it alone can channel capital anywhere. My view is more nuanced. Blended finance can work in specific cases—for instance, to mitigate risks that are too high for commercial lenders, or to boost returns that are slightly below a financial institution's hurdle rate. However, it cannot magically transform a fundamentally unviable project into a bankable one. The project's underlying economics must work first.
I acknowledge that certain areas within sustainable development are facing headwinds. Higher interest rates and inflation, for example, have impacted project viability in some regions. However, I do not believe the overarching trend has changed. The strategic direction remains firm. In Japan, initiatives like the launch of the GX-ETS (Green Transformation Emissions Trading Scheme) this year proceed as planned, following the government's established roadmap. While the pace may vary in specific sectors, the commitment to the transition itself is unwavering.
新浪财经ESG评级中心简介
新浪财经ESG评级中心是业内首个中文ESG专业资讯和评级聚合平台，致力于宣传和推广可持续发展，责任投资，与ESG（环境、社会和公司治理）价值理念，传播ESG的企业实践行动和榜样力量，推动中国ESG事业的发展，促进中国ESG评估标准的建立和企业评级的提升。
依托ESG评级中心，新浪财经发布多只ESG创新指数，为关注企业ESG表现的投资者提供更多选择。同时，新浪财经成立中国ESG领导者组织论坛，携手中国ESG领导企业和合作伙伴，通过环境、社会和公司治理理念，推动建立适合中国时代特征的ESG评价标准体系，促进中国资产管理行业ESG投资发展。
责任编辑：李欣然