This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
One of the key drivers behind the change is a decision by several large asset managers to report lower sustainable assets “in the magnitude of billions and trillions of dollars,” compared with the previous report in 2020. trillion in 2020 from US$6.6 trillion in 2020 from US$22.8 trillion in 2014. trillion in 2016.
As the COP28 meeting begins and the world looks to the financial sector to step up on the climate crisis, the global sustainable investment industry is finally coming to grips with allegations of greenwashing that have plagued it for years. between 2020 and 2022. went from 33% in 2020 to just 13% in 2022. trillion. “We
The SFAC compiled the report after it assumed responsibility for creating a green taxonomy after the Canadian Standards Association, a non-profit industry body, failed to reach consensus among fossil-fuel and investment-industry representatives in 2020.
Chinese asset managers are improving ESG awareness, but weak regulation means green claims often don’t match reality, says Greenpeace. Greenwashing is a growing risk in the Chinese fund management sector, as marketing of ESG products runs ahead of standards and regulatory oversight, a new report by Greenpeace has found.
The summit brought together delegates from over 190 countries to negotiate the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework , the implementation of which will require a transformation in the way we produce, consume and trade goods and services that rely on and impact biodiversity. Bending the curve of biodiversity loss.
Asset managers decide to re-label existing funds as greeninvestment vehicles for two reasons, according to Paul Lacroix, Head of Structuring at Smart Beta specialist investment firm Ossiam, an affiliate of Natixis. The first is client demand for investment solutions that are ESG-based,” he tells ESG Investor.
European regulators have ratcheted up efforts to eliminate greenwashing from the investment sector. End of an era I – The fight against greenwashing inched ahead with the release of final guidelines for naming ESG- or sustainability-related funds by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
The majority of investors surveyed by the AIGCC (74%) use the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) to measure and report targets, compared to 55% in 2020. The situation looks to be improving as it was cited by 56% of respondents in 2020, falling to 45% in 2021. Opportunities and resources.
The arrival of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) was announced as early as July 2020. The World Economic Forum estimated its monetary value in 2018 to be equivalent to an estimated US$125 trillion worth of economic, natural and social capital. What is the TNFD?
The European Markets and Securities Authority (ESMA) released an analysis that noted the “absence of harmonised and standardised reporting requirements” for private sector actors against SDG targets, and concluded that most funds claiming to contribute to SDGs neither explained clearly how they aligned, nor invested any differently to non-SDG funds.
The company’s bond prospectus said an externally reviewed report on allocated proceeds and expected impacts would be issued once a year until the green bonds are repaid in full, but the latest available report on its public investors webpage appears to be from 2020/21.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content