Over the past few years, when most companies talked about ESG, their attention was almost entirely focused on the “E”—the environmental pillar.Carbon emissions, energy use, and capital investment have already become baseline competencies for finance and accounting teams.

From 2026 onward, however, what begins to influence financing terms and credit ratings most directly is often not E, but S.

From an accountant’s perspective, it is worth stating this plainly:
banks and investment institutions are no longer looking only at how much carbon you emit. They are increasingly asking a different question—whether your organization is structurally resilient enough to endure.

When Taiwan–Japan collaborations stall, it is often difficult to pinpoint which step has gone wrong. Required documents have already been submitted, processes are proceeding according to the original plan, and both sides appear to be pushing their work fo

In recent months, a new narrative has started to circulate in the market:
“It seems the EU CBAM may be postponed until 2027. Does that mean we can afford to wait and see?”

Many Taiwanese exporters—particularly in steel, aluminum, cement, chemicals, and other energy-intensive manufacturing sectors—are quietly weighing the same question:
should capital expenditures be put on hold, at least for now?

From the perspective of an accountant and financial advisor, I would put it bluntly:
a delay is not a cancellation—and waiting may ultimately prove to be the most expensive option of all.

When Taiwanese companies first establish subsidiaries in Japan, they rarely feel the complexity of the accounting structure right away. Accounting matters on the Japanese side are handled by tax accountants, with corporate tax and consumption tax filed in

In January 2026, Taiwan will officially begin levying its carbon fee.

For many business owners, the first reaction is often, “Is this just another excuse for the government to collect money?”

But from an accountant’s perspective, there is an uncomfortable truth that needs to be stated clearly: the carbon fee is neither a slogan nor a sustainability branding issue. It is a real cost that will flow directly into the financial statements.

And in the first year, the biggest risk is not how much you pay. The real challenge lies in how the cost is recognized, when it is accrued, and whether it is accounted for correctly at all.

When Taiwan–Japan cross-border collaboration encounters difficulties, discussions often focus on institutional design. Questions such as whether processes are too slow, rules too detailed, or documentation requirements overly conservative tend to dominate

Against the backdrop of a high-interest-rate environment and heightened geopolitical tensions, the predictability of the traditional U.S. IPO market has declined significantly.

When Climate Risk Escalates — “Natural Capital” Is Now Part of Financial Disclosure

Following the issuance of IFRS S1 and S2 by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which established the global framework for disclosing climate-related financial risks, the recommendations released by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) signal a major shift: companies must now expand their focus beyond carbon emissions (climate risk) to encompass the broader spectrum of nature-related risks.

The convergence of these two standards positions TNFD as the second major disclosure framework that directly affects financial reporting. For industries highly dependent on natural capital—such as water resources, land, and biodiversity—including agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and tourism, TNFD adoption is not merely a sustainability exercise. It is a critical accounting issue that directly influences asset valuation and impairment testing.