Perbandingan Hukum Pemberian Kredit Perbankan yang Mendukung Program Sustainable Finance antara Indonesia dan Jerman

Abstract

This research discusses the legal comparison of bank lending that supports sustainable finance programme between Indonesia and Germany as one of the European Union member countries that has issued regulations related to sustainable finance with the EU Taxonomy Directive. Sustainable finance is an ecosystem with comprehensive support in the form of policies, regulations, norms, standards, products, transactions and financial services that harmonize economic, environmental and social interests in financing sustainable activities and financing the transition to sustainable economic growth. The Banking on Biodiversity Collapse (BOBC) report in March 2024 shows that there are still many large banks in Indonesia that provide credit that puts Indonesia's forests at risk. The purpose of this research is to understand the regulation of bank lending to sustainable finance programme, the role of the Financial Services Authority in overseeing its implementation, and a comparison of regulations with Germany in a related context. This research uses normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual and comparative approaches. Data collection is done through literature study techniques using secondary data obtained from primary legal materials in the form of laws, secondary legal materials in the form of books, and tertiary legal materials. The data analysis method used is qualitative juridical. The results of this study explain that Indonesian and German regulations have some differences in the substance of the taxonomy and the application of sanctions, Indonesia applies administrative sanctions and Germany has sanctions in the form of monetary fines and public statements. This reflects that the German legal system places compliance with sustainability principles within a binding and sanctioned legal framework, whereas in Indonesia it is still coaching and gradual. While Indonesia's approach is understood in the context of industry readiness and development challenges, this difference shows the level of regulatory maturity and supervisory infrastructure readiness between the two countries.