專(zhuān)題：對(duì)話ESG全球領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者

　　文 | 新浪財(cái)經(jīng) 李欣然

　　當(dāng)前，全球氣候行動(dòng)正從承諾向落地深化，在ESG投資理念逐步普及、各國(guó)國(guó)家自主貢獻(xiàn)（NDCs）目標(biāo)加速推進(jìn)的背景下，聯(lián)合國(guó)綠色氣候基金（Green Climate Fund, 簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)GCF）作為全球重要的多邊氣候融資機(jī)制，正通過(guò)資金催化與伙伴協(xié)作助力全球低碳轉(zhuǎn)型。但當(dāng)前氣候融資領(lǐng)域仍面臨諸多阻礙：ESG被部分地區(qū)過(guò)度政治化、中小企業(yè)減碳融資門(mén)檻高、最脆弱群體及社區(qū)的氣候項(xiàng)目易被忽視，這些問(wèn)題如何破解？綠色氣候基金在撬動(dòng)私營(yíng)部門(mén)參與、支持發(fā)展中國(guó)家氣候項(xiàng)目上已取得哪些切實(shí)成效？針對(duì)氣候項(xiàng)目中“短期成本壓力”與“長(zhǎng)期可持續(xù)影響”的核心矛盾，綠色氣候基金的資助模式又具備哪些創(chuàng)新優(yōu)勢(shì)？近日，新浪財(cái)經(jīng)對(duì)話聯(lián)合國(guó)綠色氣候基金首席投資官亨利·岡薩雷斯（Henry Gonzalez），共同深入探討全球氣候融資的現(xiàn)實(shí)瓶頸與突破路徑，以及綠色氣候基金如何為各國(guó)氣候行動(dòng)提供兼具資金支持與系統(tǒng)性解決方案。

　　以下為對(duì)話實(shí)錄：

　　Q：我們了解到您在可持續(xù)發(fā)展與影響力投資領(lǐng)域擁有超過(guò)25年的專(zhuān)業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，在ESG及影響力投資領(lǐng)域積累了豐富實(shí)踐?；谀慕?jīng)驗(yàn)，將ESG要素納入投資決策是否能帶來(lái)更可觀的財(cái)務(wù)回報(bào)？

　　A：我們以往評(píng)估投資主要依據(jù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與回報(bào)，這是一種非常簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯，投資者也對(duì)此表示認(rèn)可。但隨著時(shí)間的推移，投資者的需求不斷升級(jí)——他們不僅想了解財(cái)務(wù)層面的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與回報(bào)，還希望知曉自身投資可能對(duì)實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)生的潛在影響。年輕投資者和女性投資者更多參與市場(chǎng)后，這種轉(zhuǎn)變尤為明顯。當(dāng)前全球正經(jīng)歷一場(chǎng)值得關(guān)注的財(cái)富轉(zhuǎn)移，即財(cái)富正從二戰(zhàn)前后出生的一代人轉(zhuǎn)移至下一代。

　　眾多大型金融機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查顯示，投資者對(duì)了解投資對(duì)實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)的影響，以及對(duì)環(huán)境、氣候和社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的影響抱有明確興趣。從這一角度看，ESG要素的整合已變得至關(guān)重要。

　　對(duì)于長(zhǎng)期投資者而言，我們確實(shí)希望保持參與度。這些要素之所以關(guān)鍵，是因?yàn)楫?dāng)下氣候變化的影響在未來(lái)會(huì)更加顯著。今年夏天，歐洲已遭遇史無(wú)前例的火災(zāi)和熱浪，這充分說(shuō)明我們必須將這些因素納入決策過(guò)程。

　　反之，如果不納入這些要素，就可能出現(xiàn)“擱淺資產(chǎn)”——即不再可用的資產(chǎn)，這會(huì)帶來(lái)巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。同時(shí)，有限資源也會(huì)面臨枯竭，進(jìn)而阻礙創(chuàng)新與增長(zhǎng)的可持續(xù)性。此外，人口結(jié)構(gòu)變化若未得到重視，也會(huì)引發(fā)一系列后果，比如人口老齡化、青壯年人口問(wèn)題，以及部分地區(qū)勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)參與率不足等。最后，影響實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì)的因素眾多，我們應(yīng)將其更多地納入投資決策，從簡(jiǎn)化的“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)-回報(bào)”模型轉(zhuǎn)向“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)-回報(bào)-可持續(xù)性”模型，并以此作為投資決策的新核心。

　　Q：您提到歐洲出現(xiàn)了更多極端天氣事件，比如火災(zāi)和熱浪。但我們似乎也觀察到對(duì)氣候行動(dòng)的抵制情緒，例如部分金融機(jī)構(gòu)正退出凈零聯(lián)盟。您認(rèn)為這一現(xiàn)象的根本原因是什么？他們?yōu)楹螘?huì)對(duì)氣候治理和氣候行動(dòng)產(chǎn)生這種抵制？

　　A：我相信，許多投資者和資產(chǎn)所有者始終對(duì)ESG持有嚴(yán)肅態(tài)度，并將長(zhǎng)期堅(jiān)守相關(guān)承諾。

　　但有一部分投資者受地緣政治形勢(shì)及美國(guó)等一些國(guó)家輿論的影響，因避免損害短期利益而被迫選擇妥協(xié)。遺憾的是，ESG相關(guān)討論已陷入政治化漩渦。但我想明確，ESG本身不涉及政治，它只是一種投資篩選工具。它從未試圖強(qiáng)加任何東西，只是為投資者提供一種新的、不同的投資評(píng)估方式——投資者可自主選擇是否使用，絕非強(qiáng)制要求。但尤其在美國(guó)，ESG被賦予了政治屬性，陷入過(guò)度政治化的境地，這影響了人們對(duì)它的認(rèn)知。

　　但有一點(diǎn)讓我感到欣慰：盡管言論紛雜，但顯然有部分投資者在長(zhǎng)期堅(jiān)持ESG理念。我最近看到一篇報(bào)道，某大型資產(chǎn)所有者從貝萊德（BlackRock）撤資數(shù)十億美元，原因是貝萊德未能兌現(xiàn)其ESG戰(zhàn)略承諾。因此，歐洲的資產(chǎn)所有者和投資者群體中，肯定有部分主體仍對(duì)此保持長(zhǎng)期堅(jiān)定的投入。

　　亞洲的發(fā)展也給我留下了非常積極的印象。亞洲在ESG和可持續(xù)發(fā)展的諸多方面起步較晚，因?yàn)閬喼尥顿Y者往往以收益為導(dǎo)向，更青睞高收益資產(chǎn)。但如今，家族辦公室和大型主權(quán)財(cái)富基金（如阿布扎比的主權(quán)財(cái)富基金等）顯然已在向ESG原則靠攏。澳大利亞等市場(chǎng)也出現(xiàn)了類(lèi)似趨勢(shì)。因此，我相信那種將ESG與收益對(duì)立起來(lái)的二元化論調(diào)，其實(shí)已并非主流。在全球多地，投資者如今更渴望看到投資所產(chǎn)生的積極影響力，要求證明他們的投資確實(shí)會(huì)對(duì)社會(huì)產(chǎn)生積極效益。這是好事，體現(xiàn)了問(wèn)責(zé)精神。但我堅(jiān)信，回避或否認(rèn)納入這些要素的必要性，本質(zhì)上是一種短期思維，與長(zhǎng)期投資視角相悖。

　　Q：您剛強(qiáng)調(diào)了氣候治理的重要性，因?yàn)檫@是一項(xiàng)長(zhǎng)期考量。但部分企業(yè)（尤其是中小企業(yè)）可能會(huì)表示，他們需優(yōu)先關(guān)注短期利潤(rùn)和運(yùn)營(yíng)，缺乏對(duì)長(zhǎng)期收益的預(yù)判能力。那在您看來(lái)，該如何平衡短期與長(zhǎng)期目？

　　A：我一直認(rèn)為，中小企業(yè)是經(jīng)濟(jì)體的支柱，我們需要與它們合作，找到切合實(shí)際需求的ESG工具。不能簡(jiǎn)單地將適用于《財(cái)富》500強(qiáng)企業(yè)的ESG框架直接套用于中小企業(yè)。在許多方面，各方的看法基本一致。例如，中小企業(yè)需遵守勞動(dòng)法——這在治理層面至關(guān)重要；由于供應(yīng)鏈規(guī)模較小，它們往往能更緊密地管理價(jià)值鏈，從而對(duì)原材料采購(gòu)擁有更強(qiáng)的控制權(quán)；此外，多數(shù)中小企業(yè)為家族企業(yè)，往往深度參與社區(qū)事務(wù)，從創(chuàng)立之初就帶有強(qiáng)烈的使命感。

　　我們不能像對(duì)待大型企業(yè)那樣，向中小企業(yè)強(qiáng)加一套ESG工具包。我們需要結(jié)合中小企業(yè)的實(shí)際情況，提供更貼合其需求的方案。中小企業(yè)通常具有長(zhǎng)期導(dǎo)向——它們的經(jīng)營(yíng)周期往往長(zhǎng)達(dá)數(shù)十年，要么通過(guò)家族傳承，要么通過(guò)成立控股公司引入其他投資者實(shí)現(xiàn)延續(xù)。因此，它們本質(zhì)上傾向于長(zhǎng)期發(fā)展。

　　當(dāng)前，我們需要確保的是，在納入ESG參數(shù)時(shí)不會(huì)因不必要的報(bào)告要求而增加其負(fù)擔(dān)，這正是制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要性所在。我對(duì)部分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)遭遇抵制感到非常遺憾，但也有一些機(jī)制經(jīng)受住了考驗(yàn)，例如負(fù)責(zé)任投資原則（PRI），該原則已存在多年，能夠應(yīng)對(duì)并化解各類(lèi)問(wèn)題，這點(diǎn)至關(guān)重要。

　　另一個(gè)要點(diǎn)是，許多中小企業(yè)并非上市公司，它們通常尋求私募債和私募股權(quán)融資。將ESG和氣候標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)用于私募股權(quán)與私募債領(lǐng)域，這與在公開(kāi)市場(chǎng)的應(yīng)用方式存在差異。在私募領(lǐng)域，投資者往往進(jìn)入董事會(huì)，能提供寶貴見(jiàn)解，也更關(guān)注實(shí)際執(zhí)行過(guò)程。有一些私募股權(quán)投資者專(zhuān)門(mén)聚焦可持續(xù)發(fā)展領(lǐng)域，并與中小企業(yè)開(kāi)展深度合作。因此，這是另一種差異化的實(shí)施路徑。鑒于并非所有中小企業(yè)都上市，我們完全可以量身定制ESG整合方案。

　　Q：您剛才提到不應(yīng)給中小企業(yè)增加過(guò)多負(fù)擔(dān)。今年2月，歐盟推出了“綜合一攬子方案”（Omnibus Package），旨在簡(jiǎn)化可持續(xù)發(fā)展及信息披露相關(guān)法規(guī)，目標(biāo)是為企業(yè)營(yíng)造有利的經(jīng)營(yíng)環(huán)境。有人認(rèn)為這是好事，因?yàn)樗?jiǎn)化了披露流程；但也有人擔(dān)憂這會(huì)降低數(shù)據(jù)的可信度。您如何看待歐盟的這項(xiàng)政策？

　　A：歐盟分類(lèi)法（EU Taxonomy）可視為一項(xiàng)非常完善的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但如你所言，它需要進(jìn)行一些調(diào)整。俗話說(shuō)得好：“追求完美，反成畫(huà)蛇添足”（the perfect is the enemy of the good），這一點(diǎn)在新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體應(yīng)用這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)尤為突出，畢竟新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體的實(shí)際情況與歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)體存在顯著差異。

　　我認(rèn)為，制定更具靈活性和適用性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，未必會(huì)導(dǎo)致標(biāo)準(zhǔn)掩蓋或縮水，但前提是相關(guān)主體需承擔(dān)責(zé)任。它們需要制定清晰（即便簡(jiǎn)單）的問(wèn)責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，且能夠提供實(shí)證支持。

　　實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)的最佳方式，是采用一套各方普遍理解且包含核查機(jī)制的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。歸根結(jié)底，任何人都可能試圖鉆制度的空子，但最終都會(huì)被發(fā)現(xiàn)。這也可以是一個(gè)漸進(jìn)的過(guò)程：起初可制定具有雄心但并非遙不可及的政策，先推動(dòng)運(yùn)營(yíng)模式轉(zhuǎn)型，再隨著機(jī)構(gòu)能力的提升逐步提高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。例如，機(jī)構(gòu)可從初級(jí)起步，逐步升級(jí)，每一級(jí)都需滿足更多要求。

　　或許這種漸進(jìn)式整合的體系才是正確的路徑。我認(rèn)為我們不需要“一刀切”的解決方案，但即便沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，所有主體在報(bào)告中都應(yīng)做到問(wèn)責(zé)透明，且報(bào)告內(nèi)容最好能接受外部核查。

　　Q：接下來(lái)，讓我們把焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移到您所在的機(jī)構(gòu)。作為《聯(lián)合國(guó)氣候變化框架公約》（UNFCCC）資金機(jī)制的組成部分，GCF旨在通過(guò)資金支持幫助發(fā)展中國(guó)家開(kāi)展氣候行動(dòng)。您認(rèn)為GCF目前面臨哪些挑戰(zhàn)？

　　A：GCF已運(yùn)營(yíng)10年。我們?cè)诎屠铓夂蜃兓髸?huì)（COP 21）召開(kāi)前批準(zhǔn)了首個(gè)資助項(xiàng)目，截至目前，已承諾投入193億美元自有資金；包括該筆資金在內(nèi)，共撬動(dòng)了790億美元資金。我們已在140個(gè)國(guó)家開(kāi)展了300多筆交易，其中約36%投向私營(yíng)部門(mén)，其余投向公共部門(mén)。具體而言，36%的資源投向非洲，32%投向亞太地區(qū)，22%投向拉丁美洲，10%投向中亞。這無(wú)疑是一項(xiàng)顯著的成就。

　　如你所言，我們是《聯(lián)合國(guó)氣候變化框架公約》及《巴黎協(xié)定》的資金運(yùn)營(yíng)機(jī)制。盡管我們的資源有限——在三輪籌款周期中已籌集近300億美元，且采用四年運(yùn)營(yíng)周期——但我們計(jì)劃在2023至2027年間投入106億美元。今年，我們有望創(chuàng)下紀(jì)錄，承諾投入超30億美元資金。但我們面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn)，是如何以最具催化效應(yīng)的方式運(yùn)用這些資源。

　　我們肩負(fù)著一項(xiàng)明確的使命：按贈(zèng)款當(dāng)量計(jì)算，將一半的資金用于氣候減緩項(xiàng)目，另一半用于氣候適應(yīng)項(xiàng)目。必要情況下可以承擔(dān)更高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、進(jìn)行更大規(guī)模投資。但我們真正需要明確的是，我們的干預(yù)措施是否能幫助各國(guó)實(shí)現(xiàn)其國(guó)家自主貢獻(xiàn)（NDCs）和國(guó)家適應(yīng)計(jì)劃。這意味著要為各國(guó)的氣候優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)創(chuàng)造價(jià)值。

　　第一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)是確保我們的項(xiàng)目支持各國(guó)向低碳經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型；第二個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)是確保項(xiàng)目產(chǎn)生變革性影響——我們聚焦于測(cè)試新技術(shù)、新模式或處于創(chuàng)新前沿的項(xiàng)目，核心在于國(guó)家主導(dǎo)、目標(biāo)對(duì)齊、成果導(dǎo)向和影響力優(yōu)先。第三個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)是調(diào)動(dòng)更多資源（尤其是私營(yíng)部門(mén)資源），我們希望提高私營(yíng)部門(mén)的參與度。另一個(gè)重要方向是確保覆蓋最脆弱的人群和社區(qū)——那些常被忽視的群體，我們希望將他們納入行動(dòng)體系。

　　我們是全球最大的多邊氣候基金，具有獨(dú)特性，與150多個(gè)合作伙伴開(kāi)展合作，涵蓋銀行、非政府組織、政府、多邊開(kāi)發(fā)銀行及發(fā)展金融機(jī)構(gòu)等。由于我們通過(guò)合作伙伴而非直接開(kāi)展項(xiàng)目，因此需要確保合作伙伴能進(jìn)一步選擇最優(yōu)執(zhí)行方。因此，在氣候領(lǐng)域真正發(fā)揮催化作用，對(duì)我們而言意味著助力各國(guó)實(shí)現(xiàn)其宏偉的氣候減緩與適應(yīng)目標(biāo)。

　　Q：您認(rèn)為未來(lái)發(fā)展中國(guó)家或新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體是否在全球氣候行動(dòng)融資方面所做的貢獻(xiàn)更多？

　　A：在最新一輪資金補(bǔ)充或籌款周期中，我們已收到35個(gè)不同來(lái)源的捐款，其中不乏新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體。事實(shí)上，無(wú)論是初始資金動(dòng)員階段，還是第一期（GCF-1）和當(dāng)前第二期（GCF-2）籌款中，我們都已看到發(fā)展中國(guó)家的參與。但正如你所指出的，我們完全可以期待更多國(guó)家以及經(jīng)濟(jì)體的參與，尤其是那些有能力調(diào)動(dòng)更多資源的大型經(jīng)濟(jì)體。這正是我們積極探索的方向。

　　不過(guò)，我們也認(rèn)為，發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家有責(zé)任去支持這一轉(zhuǎn)型，因?yàn)樗鼈兊臍v史碳足跡是造成當(dāng)前諸多問(wèn)題的重要原因。因此，我認(rèn)為發(fā)展中國(guó)家更多的參與并不會(huì)免除發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的責(zé)任；相反，這有望強(qiáng)化整體行動(dòng)力度，推動(dòng)所有相關(guān)方取得更大進(jìn)展。

　　Q：您認(rèn)為中國(guó)在未來(lái)全球氣候治理中將扮演何種角色？您如何評(píng)價(jià)中國(guó)目前在綠色發(fā)展領(lǐng)域的進(jìn)展？您期待中國(guó)采取哪些行動(dòng)以對(duì)全球氣候治理產(chǎn)生積極影響？

　　A：事實(shí)上，我與GCF的中國(guó)籍董事會(huì)成員以及中國(guó)其他合作伙伴保持著密切合作。最近，我們對(duì)亞洲基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資銀行（簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)“亞投行”）的資質(zhì)給予認(rèn)可。我們也見(jiàn)證了中國(guó)在碳目標(biāo)、可再生能源、綠色債券及南南合作等領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展歷程與堅(jiān)定承諾。在全球其他地區(qū)立場(chǎng)出現(xiàn)波動(dòng)的背景下，中國(guó)對(duì)自身開(kāi)啟的轉(zhuǎn)型之路目標(biāo)明確，并決心在2060年實(shí)現(xiàn)碳中和。這種承諾絕非空談，因?yàn)橹袊?guó)已拿出了實(shí)實(shí)在在的成果。

　　在合作層面，我們正與部分中國(guó)投資者探討聯(lián)合投資的可能性，也在與亞投行溝通，希望將其部分投資錨定在太平洋、中亞等重點(diǎn)國(guó)家。同時(shí)，我們還將繼續(xù)與中國(guó)籍董事會(huì)成員及中國(guó)政府溝通，評(píng)估中國(guó)為GCF議程貢獻(xiàn)力量的最佳方式。這是我們每年在執(zhí)行主任牽頭的年度項(xiàng)目規(guī)劃交流中都會(huì)探討的議題。過(guò)去兩年，我還牽頭了另一項(xiàng)深化合作的工作，我們圍繞技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓、南南合作、聯(lián)合融資及研發(fā)等領(lǐng)域展開(kāi)了討論。此外，中國(guó)希望在多個(gè)領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮作用，我們也希望找到更緊密的合作路徑。

　　在與亞投行的合作中，我們的業(yè)務(wù)覆蓋整個(gè)亞洲大陸，從而能充分利用其專(zhuān)業(yè)優(yōu)勢(shì)。我們與亞洲開(kāi)發(fā)銀行在中國(guó)有一個(gè)合作項(xiàng)目，同時(shí)也與部分中方成員進(jìn)行了交流。中方成員認(rèn)為，中國(guó)不應(yīng)僅聚焦于國(guó)內(nèi)項(xiàng)目規(guī)劃，還可支持GCF開(kāi)展更廣泛的全球項(xiàng)目規(guī)劃。作為聯(lián)合投資方，我們有望找到路徑，將資金、技術(shù)和專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)引入非洲、太平洋島國(guó)等中國(guó)同樣關(guān)注的重點(diǎn)地區(qū)。

　　以下為英文對(duì)話實(shí)錄：

　　Q: We learned that you have over 25 years of professional experience in sustainable and impact investing, and that you have extensive experience with ESG and impact integration strategies across finance. So, based on your experience, do you think incorporating ESG elements into investment decisions leads to more favorable financial returns?

　　A: We used to assess investments mostly based on risk and reward. It was a very simple equation, and investors were happy with that. However, over time, there has been a growing demand from investors to understand not only the financial risks and returns but also the potential impact their investments could have on the real economy. This shift has been particularly noticeable as younger investors and women have become more involved in the market. The world is currently undergoing an interesting wealth transition, as wealth moves from the generation born around World War Two to the next generations.

　　If you look at surveys conducted by many large financial players, there is a clear interest in understanding the impact that investments can have on the real economy, as well as the environmental, climate, and social infrastructure impacts. From this perspective, the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors has become extremely important.

　　If investors are in it for the long term, we really want to stay engaged. These elements are crucial because the impacts of climate change today will be even more palpable in the future. We've already seen an unprecedented number of fires and heat waves in Europe during the summer. It's clear that these factors need to be integrated into our decision-making.

　　Otherwise, if we don't incorporate these elements, there will be stranded assets—assets that are no longer usable, which poses a huge risk. There will also be depletion of finite resources, which would hinder our ability to sustain innovation and growth. Additionally, demographic changes are happening that, if not taken into consideration, will have consequences. We will see these consequences in aging populations, young populations, and in other parts of the world where people are not accessing the labor market. There are many factors impacting the real economy, and we need to incorporate more of these elements into our investment decisions; we need to shift from a simplified risk-reward model to a risk-reward-sustainability model as a new anchor for making investment decisions.

　　Q: So you mention that there are more and more extreme weather events in Europe, such as fires and heat waves. But we also seem to be witnessing a backlash against climate action. For example, some companies and institutions, particularly some banks, are withdrawing from net-zero commitments. What do you think is the fundamental reason for this phenomenon? Why are they having this kind of backlash against climate governance and climate action?

　　A: I believe there are many investors and asset owners who have always been serious about ESG and will remain committed to it for the long term.

　　However, there were others who, given the geopolitical conditions and the discourse in the U.S. and other countries at the time, felt pressured to align a little bit in order not to jeopardize their short-term opportunities. Unfortunately, the ESG debate became politicized. Let me just focus on ESG. ESG is not political. It's simply a screening tool for making investments. It was never about imposing anything; it was about providing investors with a new, different way to assess investments. Investors could choose whether to use it or not. It was never imposed. But in the U.S., in particular, it took on a political angle and became overly politicized, which affected its perception.

　　But one thing that reassures me is that despite the rhetoric, it's clear that certain investors are sticking to ESG for the long term. I actually recently saw an article about a major asset owner pulling billions from BlackRock because BlackRock wasn't delivering on its ESG strategies. So, there are definitely elements of the European asset owner and investor base that remain fully committed to this for the long run.

　　And I'm also very positively impressed by what's happening in Asia. Asia was a bit of a latecomer to many aspects of ESG and sustainability because Asian investors tend to be very yield-driven. They were looking for high-yielding assets. However, it’s clear now that family offices and large sovereign wealth funds, like the one in Abu Dhabi and others, are really aligning with ESG principles. You also see this in Australia and other markets. So I do believe that perhaps this binary discourse, which suggests that ESG and returns are mutually exclusive, is not a widespread view. In many parts of the world, investors are now asking for more evidence of impact, more proof that their investments are actually helping the real economy. And that's good—it's accountability. But I do believe that avoiding or not acknowledging the need to take these elements into account is a short-term bias and not aligned with a long-term horizon.

　　Q: So you emphasized the importance of climate governance because it's a long-term consideration. But some companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), might say that they need to focus on their short-term profits or operations first. They may not have the vision to see the long-term benefits. So, how do you balance the short term and the long term?

　　A: I've always said that SMEs are the backbone of our economies, and we need to work with them to see what ESG tools are fit for purpose. You can't just translate an ESG framework for a Fortune 500 company and apply it to an SME. Estimates are usually pretty aligned on a lot of things. For example, SMEs need to comply with labor laws, which are extremely important on the governance side. They also tend to manage their value chains more closely because their supply chains are smaller, so they can have more control over how they source their materials. And a lot of them, because most SMEs are family businesses, tend to be very active in their communities. They often have a sense of purpose right from the start.

　　What we can't do is impose an ESG toolkit on SMEs in the same way we do for larger companies. We need to adjust to the realities of SMEs and provide something that is more fit for purpose. SMEs usually have a long-term orientation. They often stay in business for many years, either through family transfers or by creating holding companies that bring in other investors. So, they tend to be long-term oriented.

　　Now, what we need to ensure is that when we incorporate ESG parameters, they don't become too burdensome with unnecessary reporting. That's why it's important to have standards. I'm extremely sorry to see that some of these standards have been pushed back. But there have been initiatives like the Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) from the UN, which have existed for many years and have been able to withstand and sustain all these issues. I think this is important.

　　Another important point is that many SMEs are not publicly traded companies. They often seek private debt and private equity. Applying ESG and climate standards to private equity and private debt is different from how you do it in the public markets. Here, investors are often on the boards and provide valuable insights. They are more invested in how these things happen. We have private equity investors who focus solely on sustainability and work closely with SMEs. So, I think this is another different approach. Not all SMEs are listed, and therefore you can tailor how you apply ESG integration.

　　Q: You just mentioned that maybe we shouldn't put too much workload on SMEs. In February this year, the EU introduced an Omnibus Package aimed at simplifying the code related to sustainability and information disclosure. Their goal was to create a favorable business environment for companies. Some people think this is a good thing because it simplifies the disclosure process. However, others worry that it might reduce the credibility of the data. So, what do you think about this policy published by the EU?

　　A: The EU taxonomy is considered a very good standard. But as you said, there needs to be some adjustment. As we say in English, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” This is especially true when applying these standards to emerging economies. In emerging economies, we have different realities compared to European economies.

　　I feel that creating something more flexible and applicable doesn't necessarily translate into greenwashing or falling short of admission, as long as entities are held accountable. They need to have clear, even if simple, accountability standards that they can demonstrate with evidence.

　　The best way to do this is to use a standard that everyone understands and that includes some form of verification. At the end of the day, anyone can try to game the system, but they will get caught. This could also be a gradual journey. One could start with a set of policies that are ambitious, but not to the point where they seem unattainable. It's about making a shift in how things operate and then increasing those standards as the organization progresses. For example, an organization could start at level 1 and move to level 2, complying with more requirements at each level.

　　Maybe a system like this, with gradual integration, is the right approach. I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all solution. But even if we don't have a one-size-fits-all approach, everyone should be accountable and transparent in their reporting and ideally have external verifications of what is reported.

　　Q: Next, let's focus on your organization. As part of the financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the GCF is designed to support climate actions in developing countries through funding. What challenges do you think the GCF is facing?

　　A: The GCF has been in operation for 10 years now. We approved our first funding proposal right before COP 21 in Paris. Fast forward to today, and we have already committed $19.3 billion of our own capital. In total, we have been able to mobilize $79 billion, including that $19 billion from the GCF. We have made investments in 140 countries, with over 300 projects approved—about 36% of which are in the private sector, and the rest in the public sector. Specifically, we have allocated 36% of our resources to Africa, 32% to the Asia-Pacific region, 22% to Latin America, and 10% to Eastern Central Asia. It's been quite an achievement.

　　As you mentioned, we are the financial and operating mechanism of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Although we have finite resources—we've been able to raise nearly $30 billion across three fundraising cycles and operate on a four-year cycle—we aim to deploy $10.6 billion between 2023 and 2027. This year, we hope to break a record by committing over $3 billion in capital. But our biggest challenge is how to use these resources in the most catalytic way possible.

　　We have a strong mandate to allocate 50% of our funds to mitigation and 50% to adaptation in grant equivalency. We can take higher risks and make larger investments if needed. But what we really need to understand is whether our interventions will support countries in meeting their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and national adaptation plans. This means adding value to the country's climate priorities.

　　The first challenge is to ensure that our projects support countries in their transition to low carbon economies. The second challenge is to ensure that the impacts of our projects are transformational. We focus on projects that are testing new technologies or business models, or are at the forefront of innovation. It's about country ownership, alignment, results, and impact. The third challenge is to mobilize as many resources as possible, especially from the private sector. We want to increase private sector participation. Another important element is ensuring that we reach the most vulnerable people and communities—those who are often overlooked. We want to bring them into the fold.

　　We are a unique fund, the largest multilateral climate fund, working with over 150 partners. These partners range from banks and NGOs to governments, multilateral development banks, and development finance institutions. Because we work through partners rather than directly, we need to ensure that they, in turn, choose the best partners to deliver the projects. So, for us, being truly catalytic in the climate space means delivering ambitious mitigation and adaptation goals that countries have set.

　　Q: Do you think that, in the future, developing countries or emerging economies might become more important contributors to financing global climate action?

　　A: For this last cycle of replenishment or fundraising, we have received contributions from 35 different sources. Some of these are emerging economies. So, both in the initial mobilization phase and in GCF-1 and now GCF-2, we have already seen participation from developing countries. But to your point, we could definitely see a bigger engagement, especially from large players who might be able to channel more resources. That is something we are actively exploring.

　　However, we also feel that there is a responsibility on the part of developed countries to support this transition, given that their historical footprint has contributed significantly to many of these issues. So, I think that having more engagement from developing countries does not take away the responsibility of developed countries. In fact, it hopefully enhances the overall effort and leads to greater progress for everyone involved.

　　Q: What do you think China;s role will be in the future in terms of climate governance? What's your view on China's progress in green development so far? And what do you expect China to do to have a positive impact on global climate governance?

　　A: Actually, I've been working closely with our Chinese board members, as well as other partners in China. We recently accredited the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which is based in Beijing. So, we've seen China's journey and commitment regarding its carbon goals, its focus on renewables, green bonds, and South-South cooperation. As the world shifts in other parts, China seems very clear that this is a journey they have started and are determined to achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by 2060. We do see that commitment, and it's genuine because they are able to show actual results.

　　Now, in terms of engagement, we are discussing with some China-based investors about the possibility of co-investing with us. We are also working with the AIIB on the possibility of anchoring some of their investments in priority countries, like the Pacific or Central Asia. But we also want to continue engaging with our board members and the Chinese government to assess how best they can contribute to the GCF agenda. This is something we discuss every year during our annual programming exchange, which our executive director leads. For the past two years, I've been leading another effort to engage further, and we've been talking about technology transfer, South-South cooperation, co-financing, and R&D. There are many areas where China would like to play a role, and we'd like to find better ways to partner closely.

　　With the AIIB, we are working across the entire Asian continent because we want to take advantage of their expertise. We have one project with the Asian Development Bank in China, but we've also discussed with some Chinese members. They feel that instead of focusing only on programming within China, China can support the GCF in programming more globally. As a co-investor, we could hopefully find ways to bring capital, technology, and know-how to other areas that are also priorities for China, such as Africa, the Pacific Islands, or other regions.