Advertisement

Promoting Green Technology Financing: Political Will and Information Asymmetries

  • Jothee Sinnakkannu
  • Ananda Samudhram
Chapter

Abstract

Malaysia’s allocation of about USD1 billion, for the green technology financing scheme (GTFS), was beset with low uptake rates. This chapter posits that information asymmetries, wherein the regulators, bankers and GTFS-based loan applicants had different perceptions regarding the objectives of GTFS, and the requirements for obtaining these loans, led to the poor uptake. These information asymmetries contributed to the submission of incomplete documentation and information sets by the GTFS-based loan applicants, which led to low bank approval rates. Pertinent information asymmetries are identified, and relevant recommendations are presented, for boosting the GTFS uptake rates, which will in turn promote the adoption of green technology in the Malaysian economy and other emerging economies that are contemplating similar financial incentives for promoting green economic growth.

Keywords

Green technology financing Green technology policy Green ergonomics Energy categorisation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation for a large E-Science grant that financed this research.

References

  1. APEC. (2014). Peer review on low carbon energy policies in Malaysia. Final report, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s292_e.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2017.
  2. Barbi, F., Ferreira, L., & Guo, S. (2016). Climate change challenges and China’s response: Mitigation and governance. Journal of Chinese Governance, 1, 324–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford, J., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2008). Local authorities, climate change and small and medium enterprises: Identifying effective policy instruments to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clement, K., & Hansen, M. (2003). Financial incentives to improve environmental performance: A review of Nordic public sector support for SMEs European environment. The Journal of European Environmental Policy, 13, 34–47.Google Scholar
  5. Crespi, F., Ghisetti, C., & Quatraro, F. (2015). Taxonomy of implemented policy instruments to foster the production of green technologies and improve environmental and economic performance. Working paper no. 90, WWWforEurope. Retrieved March 6, 2017, from http://www.foreurope.eu/fileadmin/documents/pdf/Workingpapers/WWWforEurope_WPS_no090_MS216_partI.pdf
  6. De Serres, A., Murtin, F., & Nicoletti, G. (2010). A framework for assessing green growth policies. OECD economics department working paper series, Working paper no. 774. OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. EEA. (2005). Market-based instruments for environmental policy in Europe. Technical report no 8/2005, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  8. Eskelson, D., Antal, I., Fidanza, B., Leclercq, M., & Rosca, A. (2016). Green business models and the green finance landscape. GREEN-WIN project 642018 RIA. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://green-win-project.eu/sites/default/files/D4.1-green_investment_landscape-V2.pdf
  9. GTFBC. (2013a, January). Green financing, the new frontier. Address of the Deputy Governor, Malaysian Central Bank. Green technology financing bankers’ conference 2012. The Banker’s Journal Malaysia, 140, 3–6.Google Scholar
  10. GTFBC. (2013b, January). Green financing, the new frontier. Address of the Secretary General for the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, Malaysia. Green technology financing bankers’ conference 2012. The Banker’s Journal Malaysia, 140, 6–8.Google Scholar
  11. Hanson, M. (2013). Green ergonomics. Challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics, 56, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IFC. (2013). Mobilizing public and private funds for inclusive green growth investment in developing countries. A stocktaking report prepared for the G20 development working group, International Finance Corporation: World Bank Group. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/cb_home/publications/publication_mobilizinggreeninvestments/ http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/event_meeting/2015_cop21_japan2/file/03_malaysia.pdf
  13. Kelhart, M. D. (2008). The sound of silence at the Environmental protection agency. Bioscience, 58, 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. KeTTHA. (2011). Green technology future opportunities in Malaysia. Vienna Spring Dialogue 2011, Malaysian Green Technology Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. KeTTHA. (2015). Implementation of green technology policy in Malaysia. Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water Malaysia. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/event_meeting/2015_cop21_japan2/file/03_malaysia.pdf
  16. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NJ: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  17. Mir, D. F., & Feitelson, E. (2007). Factors affecting environmental behavior in micro-enterprises: Laundry and motor vehicle repair firms in Jerusalem. International Small Business Journal, 25, 383–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pimenova, P., & Van der Vorst, R. (2004). The role of support programmes and policies in improving SMEs environmental performance in developed and transition economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Samudhram, A., Siew, E.-G., Sinnakkannu, J., & Yeow, H. P. (2016). Towards a new paradigm: Activity level balanced sustainability reporting. Applied Ergonomics, 57, 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sneed, A. (2017). Trump day 1: Global warming’s fate. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-day-1-global-warmings-fate/
  21. Stavins, R. N. (2003). Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments handbook of environmental economics. In K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 355–435). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Bristol, UK: Green Books.Google Scholar
  23. Tenth Malaysia Plan. (2010). The tenth Malaysia plan: 2011–2015. Putrajaya, Malaysia: The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department.Google Scholar
  24. Thatcher, A. (2013). Green ergonomics: Definition and scope. Ergonomics, 56, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thatcher, A., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2016). A sustainable system of systems approach: A new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics, 59, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tu, F., Ho, C. S., Chau, L. W., & Yu, X. (2016). Promoting urban sustainability through green technology in Malaysia. MIT-UTM Malaysia Sustainable Cities Program. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from https://malaysiacities.mit.edu/paperTu
  27. United Nations. (2014). United Nations environment assembly fact sheet. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2014/nairobi/unea_symposium_factsheet.pdf
  28. WEF. (2013). The Green Investment report the ways and means to unlock private finance for green growth. A report of the green growth action alliance, World Economic Forum. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GreenInvestment_Report_2013.pdf
  29. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. WTO. (2014). Trade policy review: Malaysia. World Trade Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jothee Sinnakkannu
    • 1
  • Ananda Samudhram
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BusinessMonash University MalaysiaBandar SunwayMalaysia

Personalised recommendations