Conclusion

Abstract

The study concluded that TPRs may enhance effectiveness when they are established and implemented by (a) securing legitimacy, (b) strengthening regulator focality, (c) conforming goals, (d) establishing commitment through intermediaries with conformed goals and complementary capabilities, and (e) acquiring state commitments that provide incentives to use the TPR and collaborate with targets and other stakeholders as organizers. These conditions can lead to (1) transparent engagement with regulators and other stakeholders in the implementation of TPRs, (2) improved compliance of market stakeholders, and (3) increased TPR implementation. The effectiveness of TPRs in global urban development is different in economic, environmental, and social cases. In the economic field, improved transparency and consistency with international standards directly affect the international competitiveness of the state and the growth of firms in each country; improved transparency with GRETI provides incentives for states to promote global property investment and economic revitalization. The effectiveness of GRETI and the IVS has been higher through securing legitimacy and state commitment. As interests of states for global environmental issues have increased, and as ESG investment activities have become determinant factors in the competitiveness of the state or firms, the effectiveness of TPRs in environmental issues, such as GRESB and LEED, has been moderately secured. This has been achieved through cooperation with intermediaries such as business associations and state commitment in developed countries. Conversely, TPRs in social issues have not become an incentive for states because such issues have been addressed in accordance with country-specific laws and regulations. The effectiveness of SURF and the JCI has been lower than TPRs in economic and environmental cases because of weak legitimacy and lower state commitment.