The post Interview of the month: Martin Rohner from Global Alliance for Banking on Values first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>Can you tell us about the Global Alliance for Banking on Values? When and why was the alliance formed? How many members does it have today?
The Global Alliance for Banking on Values, or GABV for short, is a global movement of frontrunners in values-based banking. Our vision is centered on the idea of finance for both people and the planet—banking as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. The alliance was formed about 15 years ago by a group of leading sustainable banks from around the world. Today, we have 70 member banks globally, representing a very diverse movement that spans both the global North and South. While our members operate different banking models, they are all united by the same core principles and values.
At the heart of our business model is a strong social and environmental focus. Our members are deeply grounded in the real economy, which means they have a unique understanding of the communities they serve and the risks and opportunities they face. They’ve also proven to be highly resilient during crises, are extremely transparent, and practice inclusive and diverse governance. All of these principles are deeply embedded in the culture and strategy of each member organization.
Interestingly, our primary audience within these banks are the CEOs and non-executive directors of our member banks. They are the ones who ultimately shape the strategy and focus of an institution. The key question they face is whether their institution is primarily focused on profit and commercial success, or whether it also has a purpose. How do they balance these two dimensions? What guiding values drive their business decisions? These are the questions we encourage them to ask.
Values are a core part of your organization’s name and philosophy. What are the principles of values-based banking and why are they important?
Every bank, and really every business, operates on a set of values—whether they’re aware of it or not. The important question is: What values are driving the business? What is the purpose and intention behind their actions? Banks are not just neutral intermediaries, even though they might like to think they are. Every decision a bank makes has an impact on society, the environment, and all the stakeholders involved.
At the GABV, we acknowledge the immense responsibility that comes with being a bank. That’s why we encourage a reflected and intentional approach to banking. We ask ourselves—and we encourage our members to ask—the tough questions: What are the social, environmental, and economic challenges of the communities we serve? What can we do as a bank to address these challenges? What kind of change do we want to see in the world? And importantly, where do we draw the line to ensure we’re not harming the environment or creating inequity?
Conventional banks might ask similar questions, but they often arrive at different answers—answers that reflect their own values and what matters most to them.
How do you assess membership and ensure that your members are truly values-based?
We use a structured tool called the GABV Scorecard to evaluate where financial institutions are on their journey toward values-based banking. This Scorecard helps us assess new members and stay engaged with existing ones, though it can be applied to any financial institution. In values-based banking, there’s no absolute right or wrong. What we focus on is understanding how a bank reflects its values and integrates them into its daily operations. We want to see how they balance the social and environmental needs of the communities they serve with the need to remain financially resilient. The Scorecard takes a holistic approach, considering both quantitative metrics and qualitative aspects of the business model.
What are the themes or issues that are most interesting and relevant to your member banks right now?
Several themes are front and center for our member banks at the moment. Transformation is a big one—how to navigate and lead in a changing financial landscape. Impact measurement is also key; we’re all looking at how to quantify the positive impact we’re making. Social equity and inclusion are increasingly critical, as is biodiversity. And then there’s technology and AI—how these advancements play out within values-based banking is something we’re watching closely.
If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about the financial system, what would it be and why?
If I had a magic wand, I’d focus on internalizing externalities—essentially making sure that the costs of negative impacts, like environmental damage, are borne by those who cause them, rather than society at large. This would go a long way in terms of making the financial system more inclusive and sustainable. I’d limit the profits that can be paid out to shareholders to ensure the stability and resilience of the system. And I would implement diversity requirements in terms of skills, gender, and other relevant criteria at the governance level within financial institutions. I’d like to see capital markets restructured so that impact and sustainability, rather than just risk and return, drive investment decisions. And I’d require financial institutions to report transparently and in a way that’s easy for shareholders and depositors to understand where their money is going and what impact it has.
What are some concrete actions you would like to see non-member banks in the industry at large take to be more values-based?
First, it’s crucial for non-member banks to recognize that impact and sustainability are not just side topics—they’re strategic priorities. These issues can’t be relegated to a CSR officer; they need to be an integral part of the strategy discussion at the board level. Tools like ESG, greenhouse gas accounting, and TCFD are useful, but what really matters are the conclusions the board draws from these instruments and how they shape corporate strategy.
Boards should spend as much time discussing values, purpose, and impact as they do on compliance and risk management. This isn’t just about making the organization more sustainable; it’s also about differentiation and strategic positioning—core tasks of any board. Along those lines, boards should regularly review whether they have the right mix of skills and the necessary diversity. The same goes for the leadership team, which needs to carry forward a values-based strategy and establish a culture that will ensure success.
Finally, I’d encourage any bank interested in learning more about values-based banking to reach out to us at the GABV. We’re always happy to engage and share our insights.
The post Interview of the month: Martin Rohner from Global Alliance for Banking on Values first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Interview of the month – David Albertani from Catalytic Finance first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>
To kick off, can you provide our readership with an overview of the Catalytic Finance Foundation and your mission?
Catalytic Finance Foundation (formerly known as R20- regions of Climate Action) was founded in Geneva in 2011. It was initially created by Arnold Schwarzenegger, in close collaboration with UNDP, after his tenure as the Governor of the State of California to create a technical and financial ecosystem, acting in facilitating the identification, development, and financing of subnational sustainable infrastructure projects.
Initially, we started with project finance and managed to close a few transactions in energy and waste management. Reaching financial close always took longer than expected and we felt, that to have more impact, we needed to scale up and work deeper on the ecosystem. To do so we focused on creating new investment products dedicated to this type of infrastructure blending public and philanthropic capital with private capital. We also deployed Technical Assistance to support project sponsors in the development phase.
Today, we have become specialized in managing Technical Assistance Facilities to develop strong infrastructure project pipelines and accelerate the design and deployment of finance vehicles for sustainable infrastructure. We have a strong focus on developing and emerging economies.
Why do you focus specifically on sustainable infrastructure?
In a world grappling with climate change and environmental degradation, the need for sustainable infrastructure has become more critical than ever. Our definition of sustainable infrastructure encompasses various sectors such as energy, water, waste management, agriculture, and transportation. It involves integrating economic, social, and environmental considerations into the planning, design, construction, and operation phases of infrastructure projects.
Sustainable infrastructure projects not only address pressing environmental challenges but also have the potential to create positive social and economic impacts. By prioritizing inclusivity and community engagement, these projects can improve access to essential services, create employment opportunities, and enhance the quality of life for vulnerable populations. Also, sustainable infrastructure can foster local innovation and entrepreneurship, driving economic growth and resilience in the face of global uncertainties.
Can you elaborate on what blended finance is and how it can be used to develop sustainable infrastructure?
We define catalytic finance as a type of financing that seeks priority to create positive social and environmental impacts in addition to generating financial returns.
In that sense, the term “catalytic” refers to the ability of the initial financing to attract additional investments, leading to a multiplier effect that creates even greater positive impacts. It is understood that without catalytic financing, a project may not be funded at all or in a different and less impactful way. At its core, catalytic finance is a response to the environmental and societal challenges facing society today.
Public fundings have always been used to subsidize and incentivize transformative infrastructure projects. However, traditionally this was done at the project level to reduce the specific risk of specific projects. In order to scale up, the blended models include public and philanthropic funds in the capital structures to de-risk whole portfolios and make sustainable infrastructure more attractive to private investors at scale.
We understand that the Catalytic Finance Foundation has always pursued sub-national climate solutions. What is meant by sub-national and why do you believe solutions at this level are important?
Subnational is part of the UN Jargon and is meant as levels of administration within a country that are below the level of the central or national government, such as regions or cities. We initially focused on regions as Governor Schwarzenegger was responsible for signing into law groundbreaking legislation that translated the Kyoto Protocol into Californian law. This and other initiatives are what led President Obama to ask Governor Schwarzenegger to obtain similar commitments from thirty other US States. His success in implementing action at the subnational level, and his ability to demonstrate the potential to scale this impact by replication at this level is ultimately what gave us our focus.
Besides, according to UNDP, 70% of solutions to climate change need implementation at the subnational level but conventional climate finance has failed to catalyze the potential of mid-scale climate investments. The same study claims demonstrate that at least 105 of the 169 targets underlying the 17 SDGs will not be reached without subnational governments.
Today, we are running two projects that are targeting specifically subnational climate solutions:
What is one thing you would like to see from the broader financial community when it comes to engaging with blended finance solutions?
Thousands of high-merit subnational projects are bypassed by commercial financing because investors tend to prefer (perceived) safer investments. We believe catalytic finance will unlock capital from both public investors (MDBs, DFIs, Sovereign Funds …) and even more importantly, private investors (pension funds, insurance funds, family offices, private banks, philanthropies, high-net-worth individuals, and other institutional investors).
Convergence just reported that blended finance deals have reached a five-year high (following a 10-year low in 2022), with multilateral development banks (MBD) and development finance institutions (DFIs) leading the charge. A growing number of private investors have sustainable policies and targets and are more and more investing in those types of products delivering high impact. Unfortunately, “traditional money flows” only focus on risk-return ratios and are not yet actively looking at those products and we believe they are good investment opportunities on top of delivering a positive impact.
We would like to see more private investors crowd in those new deals so that they would become a regular asset class.
We are inviting the broader financial community to learn about those models and are available to have open discussions to understand the barriers that remain today to create more impact.
The post Interview of the month – David Albertani from Catalytic Finance first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post SFG is Hiring: Communications Intern first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>Starting date: August 19th
Compensation: paid internship, exact offer dependent on the profile of the candidate
Sustainable Finance Geneva (SFG) is a pioneer association dedicated to promoting sustainable finance in the Swiss market. Established in 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland, we strive to be the trusted knowledge partner, committed to engaging with the financial industry, civil society, international organizations, and policy-makers to shape sustainable business practices and value creation. SFG has over 375 individual members and over 45 institutional members including banks, asset managers, and asset owners.
SFG is looking for a Communications Intern to support in delivering the organization’s communication strategy and activities.
Reporting to the SFG Community Manager, the intern will:
Please complete this application form (including submission of CV) by July 4th, 2024.
The post SFG is Hiring: Communications Intern first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Interview of the Month: Noora Puro on GRI’s new mining standard (GRI14) first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>
The GRI recently launched its new mining sector reporting standard, why did you choose to focus on this sector?
The Sector Standards, which are the newest addition to the GRI Standards family, were introduced to increase quality, completeness, and consistency of reporting by companies in a sector. The first sectors to tackle were determined by the extent and severity of impacts – currently we have standards covering oil, gas and coal; agriculture, aquaculture and fishing; and mining.
While GRI reporting has been embraced by many leading mining organizations – with over two-thirds of the largest mining companies in the world using GRI to report sustainability information, the quality of reporting by the sector is widely considered inadequate and not up to stakeholder expectations. Especially the practice of aggregating information to company level has been identified by investors, academia, civil society and many others as not sufficient level of detail to reflect on key local impacts.
The importance of the sector managing its impacts well is also growing, with mining being at the intersection of the many crises the world faces: climate change, biodiversity loss, conflict, and inequality. Failure to manage impacts could have profound implications for clean energy transitions, fuel biodiversity loss, and jeopardize the wellbeing and rights of people affected by mining.
What kind of companies does this standard target? Or put another way, how do you define the mining sector?
GRI 14 covers organizations involved in exploration, extraction, and primary processing of all types of minerals, metallic and non-metallic, except for oil, gas, and coal – as these already have existing Sector Standards. The scope also includes organizations that undertake supporting activities for mining, such as transport and storage, when integrated into the mining organization’s core operations, as well as suppliers of specialized products and services to mining organizations.
Metal processing, commodity trading are excluded and will be covered by further Sector Standards.
What sustainability topics are covered within the standard? Are there some topics that are particularly unique to mining?
The standard addresses a comprehensive range of issues, listing 25 topics as likely to be material for most companies in the sector. They are roughly divided into five main groups: environmental issues, local community impacts, workers, transparency over payments and ethical business practices, and a few cross-cutting topics.
The environmental issues feature topics like climate change and GHG emissions, biodiversity, air emissions, waste and tailings management, and water. For local communities, economic contributions such as employment, procurement, community investments are covered, as well as social impacts on health and well-being. Topics also include specific impacts related to land rights and resettlement, rights of Indigenous Peoples and issues related to security personnel.
The worker topics include health and safety, training, wages, benefits, and diversity, alongside other fundamental rights at work, such as child and forced labor, discrimination, and freedom of association and collective bargaining.
The standard also has a cluster of financial transparency topics, building on GRI Topic Standards on tax, anti-corruption and public policy, but supplemented with disclosures from the EITI 2023 Standard, including on beneficial ownership, contract transparency, and project-level reporting of financial flows.
Finally, a few topics that cross-cut many dimensions of sustainability: critical incident management, closure and rehabilitation, and conflict-affected and high-risk areas. These all have potential to have serious impacts on communities, the environment, and workers. I should also mention gender which runs as a common theme across throughout the standard, with expectations for gender-specific management approaches and disaggregation of data per gender in various topics.
One topic included in the list is completely new to the GRI system and is quite unique to mining, which is artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM). The framing of the topic is on the interactions of large-scale mining organizations with ASM, which are often informal operations but important sources of income for many rural communities, especially in lower-income countries. Due to the frequency of these interactions, ASM is seen as an important stakeholder group for larger mines, and expectations are rising for large-scale organizations to manage these relationships well. Companies are also expected to mitigate negative economic or human rights impacts that might occur from the interactions, and in some cases even support ASM operators in improving their activities and help them formalize.
Mining companies can also be involved with negative impacts from ASM such as mercury pollution or child labor through their business relationships – meaning, if they purchase minerals from ASM, which is by some accounts expected to increase in the future.
Linking to one of SFG’s key impact themes, peace, does this standard have additional reporting requirements for companies operating in conflict-affected or fragile settings?
The standard lists a dedicated topic for operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, where there is a higher risk of human rights abuses, such as forced labor, child labor, sexual violence, and other violations of international humanitarian law. The expectation is that operating in these situations – or sourcing from organizations located in areas affected by conflict – requires enhanced due diligence. The topic puts a spotlight on the efforts companies undertake to identify red flags and potential risks, and enquires about adherence to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.
How will this standard be helpful to investors?
Investors are increasingly interested in information detailing the impacts of mining companies on the external world – not only how sustainability issues might affect the company’s prospects.
As we know, there is a major need for investments targeting climate solutions, many of which rely on minerals and metals. Investors know that the sector has traditionally been plagued with human rights violations, corruption, and environmental issues, and there is a certain nervousness about fast-tracking critical minerals projects without fully understanding the impacts down the line. As Adam Matthews, Chair of the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030 pointed out during the launch of the GRI Mining Standard, investors need to have assurance that companies across jurisdictions are operating according to the same standards, and to assurance that they are supporting the companies that are adhering to the best possible standards, especially in the light of the low-carbon transition.
Investors have leverage with companies and can trigger improvements towards common global sustainability goals, but they need better and more granular data in order to fully understand the impacts and compare across companies, mine sites, and commodities.
We hope that investors will embrace this standard as the baseline for transparency for mining companies, to engage on the themes and topics and urge more disclosure, which will help direct efforts towards a more sustainable and accountable mining sector.
Download the standard: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/sector-standard-for-mining/
The post Interview of the Month: Noora Puro on GRI’s new mining standard (GRI14) first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post 🔈Call for mentors: Geneva Impact Investing Association first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>Sustainable Finance Geneva (SFG) and the Geneva Impact Investing Association (GIIA) have joined forces to empower the next generation of sustainable finance professionals. We are proud to launch the GIIA-SFG Mentorship Program.
This program will provide an opportunity for students to learn from experienced sustainable finance professionals and build their skills and knowledge. SFG is calling on its members and community to participate in this unique program as mentors. All details can be found below.
The GIIA-SFG Mentorship Program offers you the unique chance to share your expertise, wisdom, and connections to help young professionals navigate the intricate landscape of sustainable finance and impact investing. Being a mentor is a fulfilling experience and a great opportunity to share what you have learned throughout your career to help someone just beginning their own journey.
To keep the program accessible to the largest number of people, three sessions between mentees and mentors are structured into the program. Mentors and mentees may, of course, keep in touch after the program if they choose to do so. GIIA and SFG provide helpful resources like discussion questions, mock interview guides, etc. to help the pairs navigate their meetings.
Anyone interested in being a mentor should complete this form by March 1st.
About Geneva Impact Investing Association (GIIA):
Established in September 2021, GIIA is a student-led initiative at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), focusing on impact investing, sustainable finance, and ESG. Our mission is to foster the next generation of leaders in these fields by providing them with knowledge, networking opportunities, and practical experiences. Through this partnership with SFG, we aim to bridge the gap between academic understanding and professional practice in sustainable finance by offering mentorship to the students of IHEID, UNIGE and HEG.
The post 🔈Call for mentors: Geneva Impact Investing Association first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Preventing greenwashing in the Swiss financial sector: latest developments first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>
This first section provides a brief overview of the notion of greenwashing in Swiss law/self-regulation and the measures in force to prevent the risk of greenwashing in the financial sector.
a. What is greenwashing?
To date, the notion of greenwashing has not been defined in law or in the self-regulations issued by the Swiss Banking Association (SBA)[1] or the Asset Management Association Switzerland (AMAS).
However, some scattered attempts at definition can be found. In particular, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) refers to greenwashing as practices that have, intentionally or unintentionally, the effect of misled investors and clients about the sustainable characteristics of financial products and services.[2]
As for the Federal Council, it considers that greenwashing occurs in the financial sector when, for example, a financial instrument or service is portrayed as having sustainable characteristics or pursuing sustainability goals, and this portrayal does not adequately reflect reality.[3]
In the context of financial products and services, defining greenwashing raises a preliminary question that needs to be answered: what is a sustainable investment? Yet, the notion of “sustainable investment” remains vague under Swiss regulations.
As it stands, only the AMAS Self-Regulation on transparency and disclosure outlines a definition of what is meant by sustainable investment: an investment is considered sustainable if it has a link with sustainability. Such a link exists if the investment is described or positioned as sustainable with reference to the ESG approaches described in the Self-Regulation (e.g., thematic investment, stewardship, climate-alignment).
b. What measures are in place in Switzerland to combat greenwashing?
The measures adopted to date to prevent greenwashing are essentially self-regulatory. The AMAS Self-Regulation[4]and the SBA Guidelines on ESG Preferences[5] aim, among other things, to combat greenwashing by creating greater transparency at the level of the financial institution and with regards to product characteristics (AMAS Self-Regulation), as well as at the level of information communicated to the customer (point of sale) (SBA Guidelines).
These measures are based on a strategy of transparency. The approach is to set up a system where clients can access reliable information, enabling them to compare products and make informed investment decisions. However, these self-regulations are only binding on SBA and, respectively, AMAS members.
In its position of December 16, 2022, the Federal Council noted that the responses provided by self-regulation were not sufficient. In particular, it advocates the introduction of a uniform framework applicable to all financial products and services. The goal is to move away from the fragmented approach that prevails today.
The key elements of the proposed new regulation are the following:
a. Moving closer toward binding regulation in the financial sector
Following its position of December 2022, the Federal Council decided on October 25, 2023 that the measures it advocates to combat greenwashing in the financial sector should be regulated by ordinance.
The Federal Department of Finance (FDF) has until the end of August 2024 to draw up a draft ordinance. However, the option of countering greenwashing through self-regulation by industry associations has not been entirely ruled out. The Swiss government will refrain from intervening if the industry associations submit a proposal for a self-regulatory framework that achieves the same objectives as those supported by the Federal Council.
Given that the key elements described in the position of December 2022 include the establishment of legal remedies for clients, it seems unlikely that a solution based on self-regulation alone will be sufficient. State legal means cannot be introduced through self-regulation, which is private in nature. Moreover, self-regulation can only be binding on the members of the organization that issued it (unless such self-regulation is recognized by FINMA as a minimum industry standard, and is therefore binding on all players in the industry).
However, it would seem appropriate for the ordinance to be supplemented by self-regulation, which would specify the details of the obligations on greenwashing and their implementation.
b. Advertising guidelines with reference to the environment
On December 19, 2023, the Swiss Commission for Fair Trading published a new Guideline about advertising using the environment or climate claims.[6]
The Swiss Commission for Fairness is a private body set up in 1966 by the communications industry to monitor advertising and prevent unfair advertising practices within the meaning of the Federal Act on Unfair Competition (UCA).
As an independent private-law body, this Commission is not vested with public authority, and is therefore not empowered to impose sanctions or measures under the UCA. Nevertheless, it is possible to lodge a complaint with the Swiss Commission for Fairness concerning advertising which the complainant (e.g., consumers, clients or competitors) considers to be unfair pursuant to Article 3 UCA. Once the complaint has been examined, the Commission renders a decision and, if the complaint is upheld, issues recommendations to ensure that the unfair practice ceases.
The new Guideline reiterates the fundamental principles of advertising under Swiss law, namely the principles of truthfulness and clarity. In particular, the Guideline specifies what a bona fide consumer/ client is entitled to expect when indications such as “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly”, “CO2 neutral” or “climate neutral” are used in an advertising context.
Although this Guideline is not specifically aimed at financial institutions, nor is it binding, it does serve as a reminder that greenwashing is a form of misleading advertising that is already subject to the provisions of the UCA. The information and clarifications contained in this Guideline could serve as inspiration for courts when examining the merits of a claim against green marketing.
Similarly, the principles developed by the Swiss Commission for Fairness may provide financial institutions with useful guidance when they design their marketing practices for sustainable products.
|
Other topics and recent developments to be tuned in:
· First update of the Swiss Climate Scores[7]: The “Swiss Climate Scores” rating tool, launched in June 2022, was partially updated on December 8, 2023 to make it easier for financial institutions and investors to use. The Swiss Climate Scores remain however non-binding. · Draft of the new FINMA Circular on nature-related financial risks[8]: FINMA launched a public consultation procedure regarding its new Circular on nature-related financial risks on February 1, 2024. The procedure will run until March 31, 2024. The new Circular is scheduled to come into force in January 2025. · ESG reporting[9]: Companies subject to extra-financial reporting obligations under Articles 964a et seq. of the Swiss Code of Obligations will be required to publish their first ESG report this year.
|
Your contacts at OBERSON ABELS SA
Antoine Amiguet
T +41 58 258 88 88
Philipp Fischer
T +41 58 258 88 88
Sonia De la Fuente
T +41 58 258 88 88
[1] See, however, the three aspects of greenwashing described by the SBA on its website: https://www.swissbanking.ch/en/topics/sustainable-finance/greenwashing.
[2] FINMA Guidance 05/2021 “Preventing and combating greenwashing”, 3 November 2021, p. 2.
[3] The Federal Council’s position on the prevention of greenwashing in the financial sector, 16 December 2022, p. 1.
[4] Self-regulation on transparency and disclosure for sustainability-related collective assets, as of 1st November 2023.
[5] Guidelines for the financial service providers on the integration of ESG-preferences and ESG risks into investment advice and portfolio management, October 2023.
[6] The Guideline (in French and German) is available here.
[7] See press release: Federal Council decides on further development of Swiss Climate Scores, 8 December 2023.
[8] See press release: Nature-related financial risks: FINMA launches consultation on new circular, 1st February 2024.
[9] See Increased transparency in the context of non-financial reporting duties (Part II), Newsletter The Bridge, March 2022.
The post Preventing greenwashing in the Swiss financial sector: latest developments first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Annual Report 2023 first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Annual Report 2023 first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post SFG at the UN Business and Human Rights Forum first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were adopted in 2011 as a global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights involving business activity. The principles are made up of three main parts:
(a) States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms
States have a duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including businesses. The principles require that States take steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress private actors’ abuse. This includes by promoting the rule of law and setting a clear expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory respect human rights throughout their operations. States should set and enforce appropriate policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication that require businesses to respect human rights, provide appropriate guidance to businesses, and encourage or require businesses to report on how they address their human rights impacts.
(b) The role of business enterprises as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights;
The responsibility to respect human rights is a global expectation for all businesses no matter where they operate, in their own activities and throughout their value chains. This responsibility exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations. It exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations. Businesses must take adequate measures to prevent, mitigate and, where appropriate, remediate adverse human rights impacts.
(c) The need for rights and obligations to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached.
States must take appropriate steps to investigate, punish and redress business-related human rights abuses when they do occur. Remedy may include apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, financial or non-financial compensation, punitive sanctions, as well as injunctions or guarantees of non-repetition. In addition, to make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish effective grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted by their operations.
In practice, the UNGPs require businesses to implement 4 main things:
The finance industry is not performing well on the UNGPs. The Bank Track Benchmark evaluated the disclosures of 50 of the world’s largest banks against a set of 14 criteria covering four key operational areas of the UNGPs. The Benchmark found that no bank is implementing the UNGPs fully. Of the 50 banks reviewed, 38 (76%) achieved a score of less than 7 out of 14, indicating that they are implementing less than half of the requirements, and no bank achieved a score higher than 9 out of 14.
Now that you have the big picture on the UNGPs, let me go over a few key takeaways that I think may be of interest to the SFG Community.
The post SFG at the UN Business and Human Rights Forum first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post Key Takeaways from Building Bridges 2023 first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>Pitch: Launch of Ecosystem Map and Peace Finance Hub
On Tuesday, SFG held a pitch where we launched two new interactive tools that support our community.
Rethinking Finance for a Post Growth Economy
On Thursday, SFG, Greenpeace and the Impact Hub Geneva convened a workshop on Post-Growth. The session started with two context-setting presentations and then gave participants the opportunity to explore the topic in table discussions.
Activism in the 21st Century: Driving Change in Finance
On Thursday, SFG, UNEP FI and Alliance Sud convened a fishbowl conversation on Activism that explored the role of activists and how we can increase their space for action with the finance industry.
The post Key Takeaways from Building Bridges 2023 first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>The post SFG is Hiring: Communications Intern first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>Compensation: paid internship, exact offer dependent on the profile of the candidate
Sustainable Finance Geneva (SFG) is a pioneer association dedicated to promoting sustainable finance in the Swiss market. Established in 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland, we strive to be the trusted knowledge partner, committed to engaging with the financial industry, civil society, international organizations and policy-makers to shape sustainable business practices and value creation. SFG has over 375 individual members and over 45 institutional members including banks, asset managers, and asset owners.
SFG is looking for a Communications Intern to support in delivering the organization’s communication strategy and activities.
Reporting to the SFG Community Manager, the intern will:
Please complete this application form (including submission of CV) by August 21, 2023.
The post SFG is Hiring: Communications Intern first appeared on Sustainable Finance Geneva.
]]>