The Impact of Carbon Market Mechanisms on Green Investment and Financial Risks: A Comparative Study of Guangdong, China, and New South Wales, Australia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/hnyd7604Keywords:
Green Investment; Financial Risk; Carbon Market; Guangdong Carbon Market; New South Wales Financial.Abstract
This article analyses the impact of the carbon market mechanism on green investment and financial risks by taking Guangdong Province, China and New South Wales, Australia, as examples. Carbon pricing and related policies are not only important tools for environmental governance, but also affect the investment decision-making, capital allocation and financial risk exposure of enterprises. Therefore, while promoting low-carbon transformation, the carbon market mechanism will also have a more direct impact on the financial market and enterprise management. This study adopts a qualitative comparative research design, mainly through literature review, policy text analysis and case comparison. Guangdong Province was selected as a typical case of the Regional Carbon Emission Rights Trading System (ETS). In contrast, NSW better reflects the characteristics of the policy mix, and its low-carbon transformation is also affected by the "security mechanism" at the Australian federal level, the state-level net zero emission target and the power infrastructure policy. The study found that the carbon market mechanism can promote the development of green investment by increasing the cost of high-emission activities, enhancing enterprises' expectations of low-carbon investment, and guiding more capital to clean technologies. However, at the same time, these mechanisms may also bring certain financial risks, such as fluctuations in carbon prices, revaluation of industry assets, uncertainty in policy implementation, and transformation pressures faced by enterprises. The comparison results show that Guangdong's policy model relies more on direct carbon market price signals, and affects the emissions and investment behaviour of enterprises through the carbon trading mechanism. New South Wales, on the other hand, attaches more importance to long-term policy guidance and supports low-carbon investment through net zero emission targets and infrastructure planning. This article believes that two aspects should be considered at the same time when evaluating carbon policy. On the one hand, it is necessary to examine its ability to promote green investment and capital flow to low-carbon fields; on the other hand, it is also necessary to pay attention to its ability to identify and manage financial risks in the process of low-carbon transformation.
Downloads
References
[1] Newell, R. G., Pizer, W. A., & Raimi, D. (2013). Carbon markets 15 years after Kyoto: Lessons learned, new challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.123
[2] Lv, S., Lv, Y., Gao, D., & Liu, L. (2023). The path to green development: The impact of a carbon emissions trading scheme on enterprises' environmental protection investments. Sustainability, 15(16), 12551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612551
[3] Dong, Q., Zhao, Y., Ma, X., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Risk spillover between carbon markets and stock markets from a progressive perspective: Measurements, spillover networks, and driving factors. Energy Economics, 129, 107228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107228
[4] Ma, J., Feng, J., Chen, J., & Zhang, J. (2024). Volatility spillover from carbon prices to stock prices: Evidence from China's carbon emission trading markets. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(3), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17030123
[5] Fuchs, M., Stroebel, J., & Terstegge, J. (2024). Carbon price uncertainty and decarbonization investments (Working Paper No. 32937). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32937
[6] Luu, N. H., Nguyen, D. T., Dao, L. T. A., & Phung, U. N. (2025). Transformative influence of emissions trading schemes on corporate investments: Insights from the People’s Republic of China. Asian Development Review, 42(3), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0116110525500180
[7] Liu, S., Xiong, X., & Gao, Y. (2025). Market based environmental regulations and green innovation: Evidence from the pilot carbon markets in China. Research in International Business and Finance, 77, 102896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2025.102896
[8] OECD. (2025). Effective carbon rates 2025: Emissions trading systems A variety of designs. Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development.
[9] Jotzo, F., Jordan, T., & Fabian, N. (2012). Policy uncertainty regarding Australia’s carbon price: Expert survey results and implications for investment. Australian Economic Review, 45(4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467 8462.2012.00709.x
[10] DCCEEW. (2024). Safeguard mechanism reforms factsheet. Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
[11] NSW Government. (2020). Electricity infrastructure roadmap. NSW Climate and Energy Action.
[12] NSW Government. (n.d.). Net zero plan. NSW Climate and Energy Action.
[13] ICAP. (2025a). China Guangdong pilot ETS. International Carbon Action Partnership.
[14] ICAP. (2025b). China Guangdong pilot ETS: 2024 allocation plan update. International Carbon Action Partnership.
[15] EnergyCo. (n.d.). The electricity infrastructure roadmap. NSW Government.
[16] DCCEEW. (2026). Safeguard mechanism. Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Scientific Journal of Economics and Management Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




