This report argues that corporate reporting must incorporate absolute, location-specific environmental impacts aligned with planetary boundaries. It proposes science-based disclosures and the Earth System Impact score to improve assessment of cumulative nature-related risks, support credible investment decisions, and enhance comparability beyond carbon-focused metrics.

The article defines “climate finance justice” as a framework for analysing how financialised climate action shapes equity, power, and outcomes. It critiques climate finance mechanisms, including UNFCCC processes and voluntary carbon markets, and argues for justice-centred approaches that address historical responsibility, governance, and uneven impacts.

The report argues that limiting warming to 1.5°C is no longer realistic and may hinder preparedness. It calls for acknowledging higher warming scenarios, accelerating mitigation, and adopting disruptive policy, financial, and governance approaches to manage climate and nature risks in a likely 2°C-plus world.

The report outlines an investor-led 10-year vision for a responsible, resilient mining sector. It sets goals to align capital, governance and stewardship with social and environmental standards, supporting mineral supply for the low-carbon transition while managing risk and long-term value.

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.