Revamped Team for Impact’s Trillion Dollar Challenge

UK-based non-profit evolves top-tier structure to support five-year plan to mobilise £1 trillion of impact capital.

The task of realising the Impact Investing Institute’s (III) recently unveiled five-year strategy – which sets out three core competencies to help accelerate the expansion of impact investing – will fall on experienced shoulders, albeit in new roles. To mobilise £1 trillion (US$1.3 trillion) of new impact capital by 2029,…

Subscribe

Subscribe to ESG Investor to gain access to the leading platform for news, analysis, and interviews across sustainable investing. Select subscribe below to view our subscription packages or you can email us at subscriptions@esginvestor.net to discuss your options.

Subscribe

Request a Trial

Get in touch today to discuss a trial giving you unrestricted and unlimited access to ESG Investor for you and/or your team(s) for a limited period. Email us at subscriptions@esginvestor.net

Recommended for you

Take Five: Twin Peaks

A selection of the major stories impacting ESG investors, in five easy pieces. 

Developed countries have belatedly reached a target for climate finance, only to be set a new one for nature.

Ten years after – It might have taken them a little more than a decade, but at last they got there. Developed nations mobilised US$115.9 billion of climate finance for developing countries in 2022, it was revealed this week, exceeding for the first time the US$100 billion annual level set in Copenhagen in 2009. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), last year saw a record 30% annual rise in climate finance, meaning the target – originally unveiled at COP 15 – was reached two years late. The total includes more than US$20 billion in attributable private finance, as well as bilateral and multilateral public sector funding, plus export credits. Importantly, adaptation finance accounted for US$32.4 billion of the total – three times the 2016 level. Discussions on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance for the post-2025 period, which made little progress at COP28, should progress next week’s Bonn Climate Conference, where the agenda will also include carbon credits, adaptation finance and the Global Stocktake, ahead of COP29. In anticipation of the NCQG, the OECD released an analysis recommending use of public sector interventions to directly or indirectly finance climate action. But measures to support the goals of the Paris Agreement must now sit alongside those needed to realise the objectives of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). At a Nairobi summit that concluded yesterday, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity called for investments of at least US$200 billion a year from all sources, and for reform of US$500 billion in harmful subsidies to achieve the GBF’s Goal D: invest and collaborate for nature. These and other recommendations will be discussed at COP16 in Colombia in October.

Gap analysis – A lack of progress on gender equality in the workplace has been underlined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in a report reflecting fewer jobs and lower pay for women, especially in low-income countries. According to an update to the ILO’s annual World Employment and Social Outlook, the ‘jobs gap’ – which measures the number of persons without a job but who want to work – stands at 22.8% for women in low-income countries, versus 15.3% for men. This contrasts with a gap

Mining Linked to Human Rights Abuses

Investors, companies urged are being urged to increase their focus on the social impacts of the climate-critical sector.

Investors, companies urged are being urged to increase their focus on the social impacts of the climate-critical sector.  Natural minerals underground are essential to the world’s energy transition, but new research has found that their extraction was linked to a surge in human rights-related abuses by mining companies.   International NGO…

Subscribe

Subscribe to ESG Investor to gain access to the leading platform for news, analysis, and interviews across sustainable investing. Select subscribe below to view our subscription packages or you can email us at subscriptions@esginvestor.net to discuss your options.

Subscribe

Request a Trial

Get in touch today to discuss a trial giving you unrestricted and unlimited access to ESG Investor for you and/or your team(s) for a limited period. Email us at subscriptions@esginvestor.net

Recommended for you

Diversify for a Just Transition

Anita Dorett, Director of the Investor Alliance for Human Rights, warns of the pitfalls of relying on social audits to address state-sponsored forced labour risks.

Given multinationals’ complex global supply chains and trading relationships, the vast majority of today’s goods are sourced and produced far from where they are sold and consumed. For this reason, to meet their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies must ‘know and show’ where human rights risks may be present at every link in their global supply chains.

To address supply chain risks, companies are expected to disclose all their suppliers and business relationships throughout the entire supply chain, develop stringent supplier codes of conduct, and implement robust monitoring systems to ensure their codes are being enforced on the ground. Third-party social and labour audits and related supplier certifications have long been the go-to method for supply chain monitoring, noting that there are significant shortcomings with these programmes. Where these programmes fail, however, is in geographies where state-imposed forced labour is prevalent. In these cases, even the best-intentioned of such risk-assessment schemes are rendered wholly unverifiable and, therefore, meaningless.

Prohibited practices

Distinct from forced labour imposed by private actors like companies or individuals, state-imposed forced labour is compulsory labour enforced by state or governmental authorities. According to Walk Free’s Global Slavery Index, in 2021, 3.9 million people were forced to work by state authorities.

The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) convention No 105 expressly prohibits state-imposed forced labour. State-imposed forced labour is often implemented as a means of political coercion or ‘re-education’ or as a punishment for expressing dissenting political views; as a method of mobilising labor for economic development; as a means of labour discipline; or as a means of racial, social, ethnic, or religious discrimination. State-imposed forced labour can be found in 17 countries including Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, North Korea, and China.

Nowhere is this pernicious form of human rights abuse better illustrated than the Chinese government’s long-term repression and enslavement of people in the Xinjiang Province (Uyghur region). The pervasive use of state-imposed forced labour programmes, enforced through an extensive surveillance system in the Uyghur region, vividly illustrates the impossibility of conducting credible supply chain human rights due diligence where the state controls the outcome.

According to auditors, they are only given limited access to worksites, can only inspect a curated ‘snapshot’ of factory conditions,