This guidance outlines how banks can set and implement measurable targets to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment across leadership, portfolios, financial inclusion and ecosystems, aligned with the Principles for Responsible Banking and Women’s Empowerment Principles.

This report reviews sustainability disclosure standards and regulatory uptake, focusing on climate-related risk management. Using case studies, it examines IFRS S1 and S2 implementation, materiality assessments and transition plans, highlighting disclosure gaps, data challenges and practical approaches to improve decision-useful climate risk reporting.

IFRS S2 sets mandatory climate-related disclosure requirements for entities, covering governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. It integrates TCFD recommendations and SASB guidance to improve consistency, comparability and decision-useful information for users of general purpose financial reports.

IFRS S1 sets general requirements for sustainability-related financial disclosures, requiring entities to report material sustainability risks and opportunities affecting cash flows, access to finance and cost of capital, using consistent governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics disclosures.

AASB S2 establishes mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements for Australian entities, aligned with IFRS S2. It requires reporting on governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets, including greenhouse gas emissions, where climate risks and opportunities may affect cash flows, access to finance, or cost of capital.

AASB S1 is a voluntary Australian standard setting general requirements for sustainability-related financial disclosures. It outlines objectives, materiality, governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics to inform users about risks and opportunities affecting cash flows, access to finance, and cost of capital.

This report assesses Australia’s escalating climate risks and argues for scaling adaptation investment. It recommends improved valuation methods, a nationally coordinated adaptation investment framework, and diversified public-private financing mechanisms to reduce long-term economic damage and enhance resilience.

The study analyses 1,041 corporate emissions targets ending in 2020, finding limited accountability. Thirty-one per cent of targets disappeared and 9% failed, with minimal disclosure, media attention or market penalties. By contrast, target announcements improved media sentiment and ESG scores, raising concerns for future climate targets.

This study analyses how experts interpret “polycrisis” using Q-methodology. It identifies four coherent framings, showing consensus on cross-scale, interconnected crises but disagreement on drivers and governance. The authors argue polycrisis is an analytical lens, not a buzzword, informing sustainability science and policy.

This study compares ESG ratings with SDG scores across major providers. It finds little correlation. SDG scores align with investor exclusions and EU Taxonomy assessments, while ESG ratings largely measure financial risk exposure, not real-world environmental or social impacts.

Two preregistered online experiments (N≈1,550) show that framing climate actions as “do more good” increases self-reported action likelihood and anticipated happiness compared with “do less bad”, with effects varying by specific action.

This UK national security assessment finds global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose high risks to food security, economic stability and geopolitics. Degradation is widespread, with potential ecosystem collapse from 2030–2050, intensifying migration, conflict, supply chain disruption and strategic competition without decisive intervention.

The report argues that behavioural public policy has over-emphasised individual-level (“i-frame”) solutions, often aligning with corporate interests and weakening systemic reform. It contends that structural (“s-frame”) interventions, alongside institutional changes in research and policy design, are necessary to address entrenched social and economic problems effectively.

UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2026 finds global finance remains heavily skewed towards nature-negative activities. In 2023, US$7.3 trillion harmed nature versus US$220 billion for nature-based solutions. Meeting Rio Convention targets requires more than doubling nature investment by 2030.

This literature review assesses evidence on how delayed, failed or uneven climate transitions affect UK and global financial stability. It finds intensifying physical and transition risks, potential mispricing and spillovers, and significant uncertainty, highlighting EMDE transitions as central to managing systemic financial risk.

This white paper analyses how climate change and nature loss are widening insurance protection gaps in advanced economies. It outlines impacts on affordability and coverage, and recommends combining climate mitigation, nature-based solutions, and regulatory reforms to strengthen resilience and maintain insurability.