The European Commission clarifies that the EU sustainable finance framework and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive apply neutrally to the defence sector. Defence investments are permitted, assessed case by case, with disclosure and due diligence obligations focused on risk mitigation and exclusion limited to internationally prohibited weapons.

The report sets a pragmatic policy on defence investments for Towards Sustainability-labelled funds, permitting defensive, non-lethal and dual-use activities with strict ESG due diligence, while excluding weapons producers. It affirms defence funding as primarily a government responsibility.

The report outlines the EU’s White Paper on European Defence and the ReArm Europe Plan, targeting defence readiness by 2030 through closing capability gaps, strengthening the defence industrial base, and mobilising over €800 billion via public, EU, and private funding mechanisms.

Bpifrance’s European Defence Bond Framework defines principles for issuing use-of-proceeds bonds financing eligible defence-sector projects, mainly SMEs, to support European sovereignty. It details eligibility criteria, exclusions, ESG safeguards, governance, reporting, and proceeds management, while stating the bonds are not ICMA-aligned sustainable instruments.

The report analyses global financial links to arms production, showing significant funding for weapons despite rising conflict. It contrasts this with values-based banks, particularly GABV members, which largely exclude arms financing, arguing divestment supports peace, reduces risk, and aligns finance with social and environmental objectives.

The report examines how asset owners integrate nature and biodiversity into investment. Based on interviews with 20 global asset owners and managers, it finds growing recognition of financial materiality, limited governance and data maturity, early TNFD adoption, and reliance on climate-aligned ESG processes.

The report outlines practical frameworks for integrating climate adaptation into financial decision-making, linking physical risk assessment to credit, investment, sovereign risk and financial products. It promotes the ABC framework, data transparency and adaptation-inclusive transition plans to improve resilience, pricing and capital allocation.

GARP benchmarks 13 vendors’ asset-level climate physical risk models, finding wide dispersion in hazard and damage estimates due to differing data, assumptions and methods. The report stresses due diligence, transparency and improved asset data when selecting vendors.

The report examines how climate-related data are used in investment decision-making, highlighting limitations in availability, consistency, and comparability. It reviews greenhouse gas metrics, evolving global disclosure standards, and regulatory milestones, and outlines practical strategies for investors managing imperfect climate data.

The report distinguishes planetary, economic and financial climate risks, clarifying their differing scopes, timeframes and responsible actors. It argues that conflating these risks weakens policy and investment responses, and calls for clearer delineation to improve risk assessment, accountability and targeted climate action.

The report reviews approaches to modelling portfolio changes in long-term climate stress tests, comparing static portfolios with macro, ex ante, and ex post adjustments. It outlines trade-offs, shows results are sensitive to assumptions, and argues approach choice should match supervisory objectives.

This report argues that insurability is a strategic indicator of financial viability in a climate-disrupted economy. It explains how insurance, risk modelling, resilience investment, and policy alignment shape access to capital, asset values, and transition finance, urging leaders to embed insurability into decision-making.

The report reviews 109 financial institutions with policies excluding nuclear weapon producers, assessing policy scope and implementation. It finds 55 institutions apply comprehensive exclusions, while others retain gaps or exposures, reflecting growing financial-sector alignment with the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The article argues that while climate disclosure and green finance initiatives have expanded since Mark Carney’s “tragedy of the horizon” speech, they have failed to shift capital at the scale required to address climate and nature risks. It contends that deeper structural reforms to financial valuation, incentives and capital allocation are needed to move beyond managing symptoms toward financing real-world solutions.

The report evaluates 3D investing, extending mean–variance optimisation to include sustainability. It shows how integrating forward-looking climate metrics enables portfolios to balance risk, return, and decarbonisation, supporting alignment with Paris-aligned net-zero pathways under realistic investment constraints.

The report finds European pension funds and insurers have limited capacity to scale EMDE investment. Even doubling allocations by the 35 largest asset owners would yield about USD 120 billion annually, concentrated in investment-grade assets. Regulation constrains insurers more than pension funds.