登入新浪財經APP 搜索【信披】查看更多考評等級

專題：對話ESG全球領導者

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心提供包括資訊、報告、培訓、諮詢等在內的14項ESG服務，助力上市公司傳播ESG理念，提升ESG可持續發展表現。點擊查看【ESG評級中心服務手冊】

　　文 | 新浪財經 李欣然

　　當前，全球氣候行動正從承諾向落地深化，在ESG投資理念逐步普及、各國國家自主貢獻（NDCs）目標加速推進的背景下，聯合國綠色氣候基金（Green Climate Fund, 簡稱GCF）作為全球重要的多邊氣候孖展機制，正通過資金催化與夥伴協作助力全球低碳轉型。但當前氣候孖展領域仍面臨諸多阻礙：ESG被部分地區過度政治化、中小企業減碳孖展門檻高、最脆弱羣體及社區的氣候項目易被忽視，這些問題如何破解？綠色氣候基金在撬動私營部門參與、支持發展中國家氣候項目上已取得哪些切實成效？針對氣候項目中「短期成本壓力」與「長期可持續影響」的核心矛盾，綠色氣候基金的資助模式又具備哪些創新優勢？近日，新浪財經對話聯合國綠色氣候基金首席投資官亨利·岡薩雷斯（Henry Gonzalez），共同深入探討全球氣候孖展的現實瓶頸與突破路徑，以及綠色氣候基金如何為各國氣候行動提供兼具資金支持與系統性解決方案。

　　以下為對話實錄：

　　Q：我們瞭解到您在可持續發展與影響力投資領域擁有超過25年的專業經驗，在ESG及影響力投資領域積累了豐富實踐。基於您的經驗，將ESG要素納入投資決策是否能帶來更可觀的財務回報？

　　A：我們以往評估投資主要依據風險與回報，這是一種非常簡單的邏輯，投資者也對此表示認可。但隨着時間的推移，投資者的需求不斷升級——他們不僅想了解財務層面的風險與回報，還希望知曉自身投資可能對實體經濟產生的潛在影響。年輕投資者和女性投資者更多參與市場後，這種轉變尤為明顯。當前全球正經歷一場值得關注的財富轉移，即財富正從二戰前後出生的一代人轉移至下一代。

　　衆多大型金融機構的調查顯示，投資者對了解投資對實體經濟的影響，以及對環境、氣候和社會基礎設施的影響抱有明確興趣。從這一角度看，ESG要素的整合已變得至關重要。

　　對於長期投資者而言，我們確實希望保持參與度。這些要素之所以關鍵，是因為當下氣候變化的影響在未來會更加顯著。今年夏天，歐洲已遭遇史無前例的火災和熱浪，這充分說明我們必須將這些因素納入決策過程。

　　反之，如果不納入這些要素，就可能出現「擱淺資產」——即不再可用的資產，這會帶來巨大風險。同時，有限資源也會面臨枯竭，進而阻礙創新與增長的可持續性。此外，人口結構變化若未得到重視，也會引發一系列後果，比如人口老齡化、青壯年人口問題，以及部分地區勞動力市場參與率不足等。最後，影響實體經濟的因素衆多，我們應將其更多地納入投資決策，從簡化的「風險-回報」模型轉向「風險-回報-可持續性」模型，並以此作為投資決策的新核心。

　　Q：您提到歐洲出現了更多極端天氣事件，比如火災和熱浪。但我們似乎也觀察到對氣候行動的抵制情緒，例如部分金融機構正退出淨零聯盟。您認為這一現象的根本原因是什麼？他們為何會對氣候治理和氣候行動產生這種抵制？

　　A：我相信，許多投資者和資產所有者始終對ESG持有嚴肅態度，並將長期堅守相關承諾。

　　但有一部分投資者受地緣政治形勢及美國等一些國家輿論的影響，因避免損害短期利益而被迫選擇妥協。遺憾的是，ESG相關討論已陷入政治化漩渦。但我想明確，ESG本身不涉及政治，它只是一種投資篩選工具。它從未試圖強加任何東西，只是為投資者提供一種新的、不同的投資評估方式——投資者可自主選擇是否使用，絕非強制要求。但尤其在美國，ESG被賦予了政治屬性，陷入過度政治化的境地，這影響了人們對它的認知。

　　但有一點讓我感到欣慰：儘管言論紛雜，但顯然有部分投資者在長期堅持ESG理念。我最近看到一篇報道，某大型資產所有者從貝萊德（BlackRock）撤資數十億美元，原因是貝萊德未能兌現其ESG戰略承諾。因此，歐洲的資產所有者和投資者羣體中，肯定有部分主體仍對此保持長期堅定的投入。

　　亞洲的發展也給我留下了非常積極的印象。亞洲在ESG和可持續發展的諸多方面起步較晚，因為亞洲投資者往往以收益為導向，更青睞高收益資產。但如今，家族辦公室和大型主權財富基金（如阿布扎比的主權財富基金等）顯然已在向ESG原則靠攏。澳大利亞等市場也出現了類似趨勢。因此，我相信那種將ESG與收益對立起來的二元化論調，其實已並非主流。在全球多地，投資者如今更渴望看到投資所產生的積極影響力，要求證明他們的投資確實會對社會產生積極效益。這是好事，體現了問責精神。但我堅信，迴避或否認納入這些要素的必要性，本質上是一種短期思維，與長期投資視角相悖。

　　Q：您剛強調了氣候治理的重要性，因為這是一項長期考量。但部分企業（尤其是中小企業）可能會表示，他們需優先關注短期利潤和運營，缺乏對長期收益的預判能力。那在您看來，該如何平衡短期與長期目？

　　A：我一直認為，中小企業是經濟體的支柱，我們需要與它們合作，找到切合實際需求的ESG工具。不能簡單地將適用於《財富》500強企業的ESG框架直接套用於中小企業。在許多方面，各方的看法基本一致。例如，中小企業需遵守勞動法——這在治理層面至關重要；由於供應鏈規模較小，它們往往能更緊密地管理價值鏈，從而對原材料採購擁有更強的控制權；此外，多數中小企業為家族企業，往往深度參與社區事務，從創立之初就帶有強烈的使命感。

　　我們不能像對待大型企業那樣，向中小企業強加一套ESG工具包。我們需要結合中小企業的實際情況，提供更貼合其需求的方案。中小企業通常具有長期導向——它們的經營週期往往長達數十年，要麼通過家族傳承，要麼通過成立控股公司引入其他投資者實現延續。因此，它們本質上傾向於長期發展。

　　當前，我們需要確保的是，在納入ESG參數時不會因不必要的報告要求而增加其負擔，這正是制定標準的重要性所在。我對部分標準遭遇抵制感到非常遺憾，但也有一些機制經受住了考驗，例如負責任投資原則（PRI），該原則已存在多年，能夠應對並化解各類問題，這點至關重要。

　　另一個要點是，許多中小企業並非上市公司，它們通常尋求私募債和私募股權孖展。將ESG和氣候標準應用於私募股權與私募債領域，這與在公開市場的應用方式存在差異。在私募領域，投資者往往進入董事會，能提供寶貴見解，也更關注實際執行過程。有一些私募股權投資者專門聚焦可持續發展領域，並與中小企業開展深度合作。因此，這是另一種差異化的實施路徑。鑑於並非所有中小企業都上市，我們完全可以量身定製ESG整合方案。

　　Q：您剛纔提到不應給中小企業增加過多負擔。今年2月，歐盟推出了「綜合一攬子方案」（Omnibus Package），旨在簡化可持續發展及信息披露相關法規，目標是為企業營造有利的經營環境。有人認為這是好事，因為它簡化了披露流程；但也有人擔憂這會降低數據的可信度。您如何看待歐盟的這項政策？

　　A：歐盟分類法（EU Taxonomy）可視為一項非常完善的標準，但如你所言，它需要進行一些調整。俗話說得好：「追求完美，反成畫蛇添足」（the perfect is the enemy of the good），這一點在新興經濟體應用這些標準時尤為突出，畢竟新興經濟體的實際情況與歐洲經濟體存在顯著差異。

　　我認為，制定更具靈活性和適用性的標準，未必會導致標準掩蓋或縮水，但前提是相關主體需承擔責任。它們需要制定清晰（即便簡單）的問責標準，且能夠提供實證支持。

　　實現這一目標的最佳方式，是採用一套各方普遍理解且包含覈查機制的標準。歸根結底，任何人都可能試圖鑽制度的空子，但最終都會被發現。這也可以是一個漸進的過程：起初可制定具有雄心但並非遙不可及的政策，先推動運營模式轉型，再隨着機構能力的提升逐步提高標準。例如，機構可從初級起步，逐步升級，每一級都需滿足更多要求。

　　或許這種漸進式整合的體系纔是正確的路徑。我認為我們不需要「一刀切」的解決方案，但即便沒有統一標準，所有主體在報告中都應做到問責透明，且報告內容最好能接受外部覈查。

　　Q：接下來，讓我們把焦點轉移到您所在的機構。作為《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》（UNFCCC）資金機制的組成部分，GCF旨在通過資金支持幫助發展中國家開展氣候行動。您認為GCF目前面臨哪些挑戰？

　　A：GCF已運營10年。我們在巴黎氣候變化大會（COP 21）召開前批准了首個資助項目，截至目前，已承諾投入193億美元自有資金；包括該筆資金在內，共撬動了790億美元資金。我們已在140個國家開展了300多筆交易，其中約36%投向私營部門，其餘投向公共部門。具體而言，36%的資源投向非洲，32%投向亞太地區，22%投向拉丁美洲，10%投向中亞。這無疑是一項顯著的成就。

　　如你所言，我們是《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》及《巴黎協定》的資金運營機制。儘管我們的資源有限——在三輪籌款週期中已籌集近300億美元，且採用四年運營週期——但我們計劃在2023至2027年間投入106億美元。今年，我們有望創下紀錄，承諾投入超30億美元資金。但我們面臨的最大挑戰，是如何以最具催化效應的方式運用這些資源。

　　我們肩負着一項明確的使命：按贈款當量計算，將一半的資金用於氣候減緩項目，另一半用於氣候適應項目。必要情況下可以承擔更高風險、進行更大規模投資。但我們真正需要明確的是，我們的干預措施是否能幫助各國實現其國家自主貢獻（NDCs）和國家適應計劃。這意味着要為各國的氣候優先事項創造價值。

　　第一個挑戰是確保我們的項目支持各國向低碳經濟轉型；第二個挑戰是確保項目產生變革性影響——我們聚焦於測試新技術、新模式或處於創新前沿的項目，核心在於國家主導、目標對齊、成果導向和影響力優先。第三個挑戰是調動更多資源（尤其是私營部門資源），我們希望提高私營部門的參與度。另一個重要方向是確保覆蓋最脆弱的人羣和社區——那些常被忽視的羣體，我們希望將他們納入行動體系。

　　我們是全球最大的多邊氣候基金，具有獨特性，與150多個合作伙伴開展合作，涵蓋銀行、非政府組織、政府、多邊開發銀行及發展金融機構等。由於我們通過合作伙伴而非直接開展項目，因此需要確保合作伙伴能進一步選擇最優執行方。因此，在氣候領域真正發揮催化作用，對我們而言意味着助力各國實現其宏偉的氣候減緩與適應目標。

　　Q：您認為未來發展中國家或新興經濟體是否在全球氣候行動孖展方面所做的貢獻更多？

　　A：在最新一輪資金補充或籌款週期中，我們已收到35個不同來源的捐款，其中不乏新興經濟體。事實上，無論是初始資金動員階段，還是第一期（GCF-1）和當前第二期（GCF-2）籌款中，我們都已看到發展中國家的參與。但正如你所指出的，我們完全可以期待更多國家以及經濟體的參與，尤其是那些有能力調動更多資源的大型經濟體。這正是我們積極探索的方向。

　　不過，我們也認為，發達國家有責任去支持這一轉型，因為它們的歷史碳足跡是造成當前諸多問題的重要原因。因此，我認為發展中國家更多的參與並不會免除發達國家的責任；相反，這有望強化整體行動力度，推動所有相關方取得更大進展。

　　Q：您認為中國在未來全球氣候治理中將扮演何種角色？您如何評價中國目前在綠色發展領域的進展？您期待中國採取哪些行動以對全球氣候治理產生積極影響？

　　A：事實上，我與GCF的中國籍董事會成員以及中國其他合作伙伴保持着密切合作。最近，我們對亞洲基礎設施投資銀行（簡稱「亞投行」）的資格給予認可。我們也見證了中國在碳目標、可再生能源、綠色債券及南南合作等領域的發展歷程與堅定承諾。在全球其他地區立場出現波動的背景下，中國對自身開啓的轉型之路目標明確，並決心在2060年實現碳中和。這種承諾絕非空談，因為中國已拿出了實實在在的成果。

　　在合作層面，我們正與部分中國投資者探討聯合投資的可能性，也在與亞投行溝通，希望將其部分投資錨定在太平洋、中亞等重點國家。同時，我們還將繼續與中國籍董事會成員及中國政府溝通，評估中國為GCF議程貢獻力量的最佳方式。這是我們每年在執行主任牽頭的年度項目規劃交流中都會探討的議題。過去兩年，我還牽頭了另一項深化合作的工作，我們圍繞技術轉讓、南南合作、聯合孖展及研發等領域展開了討論。此外，中國希望在多個領域發揮作用，我們也希望找到更緊密的合作路徑。

　　在與亞投行的合作中，我們的業務覆蓋整個亞洲大陸，從而能充分利用其專業優勢。我們與亞洲開發銀行在中國有一個合作項目，同時也與部分中方成員進行了交流。中方成員認為，中國不應僅聚焦於國內項目規劃，還可支持GCF開展更廣泛的全球項目規劃。作為聯合投資方，我們有望找到路徑，將資金、技術和專業知識引入非洲、太平洋島國等中國同樣關注的重點地區。

　　以下為英文對話實錄：

　　Q: We learned that you have over 25 years of professional experience in sustainable and impact investing, and that you have extensive experience with ESG and impact integration strategies across finance. So, based on your experience, do you think incorporating ESG elements into investment decisions leads to more favorable financial returns?

　　A: We used to assess investments mostly based on risk and reward. It was a very simple equation, and investors were happy with that. However, over time, there has been a growing demand from investors to understand not only the financial risks and returns but also the potential impact their investments could have on the real economy. This shift has been particularly noticeable as younger investors and women have become more involved in the market. The world is currently undergoing an interesting wealth transition, as wealth moves from the generation born around World War Two to the next generations.

　　If you look at surveys conducted by many large financial players, there is a clear interest in understanding the impact that investments can have on the real economy, as well as the environmental, climate, and social infrastructure impacts. From this perspective, the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors has become extremely important.

　　If investors are in it for the long term, we really want to stay engaged. These elements are crucial because the impacts of climate change today will be even more palpable in the future. We've already seen an unprecedented number of fires and heat waves in Europe during the summer. It's clear that these factors need to be integrated into our decision-making.

　　Otherwise, if we don't incorporate these elements, there will be stranded assets—assets that are no longer usable, which poses a huge risk. There will also be depletion of finite resources, which would hinder our ability to sustain innovation and growth. Additionally, demographic changes are happening that, if not taken into consideration, will have consequences. We will see these consequences in aging populations, young populations, and in other parts of the world where people are not accessing the labor market. There are many factors impacting the real economy, and we need to incorporate more of these elements into our investment decisions; we need to shift from a simplified risk-reward model to a risk-reward-sustainability model as a new anchor for making investment decisions.

　　Q: So you mention that there are more and more extreme weather events in Europe, such as fires and heat waves. But we also seem to be witnessing a backlash against climate action. For example, some companies and institutions, particularly some banks, are withdrawing from net-zero commitments. What do you think is the fundamental reason for this phenomenon? Why are they having this kind of backlash against climate governance and climate action?

　　A: I believe there are many investors and asset owners who have always been serious about ESG and will remain committed to it for the long term.

　　However, there were others who, given the geopolitical conditions and the discourse in the U.S. and other countries at the time, felt pressured to align a little bit in order not to jeopardize their short-term opportunities. Unfortunately, the ESG debate became politicized. Let me just focus on ESG. ESG is not political. It's simply a screening tool for making investments. It was never about imposing anything; it was about providing investors with a new, different way to assess investments. Investors could choose whether to use it or not. It was never imposed. But in the U.S., in particular, it took on a political angle and became overly politicized, which affected its perception.

　　But one thing that reassures me is that despite the rhetoric, it's clear that certain investors are sticking to ESG for the long term. I actually recently saw an article about a major asset owner pulling billions from BlackRock because BlackRock wasn't delivering on its ESG strategies. So, there are definitely elements of the European asset owner and investor base that remain fully committed to this for the long run.

　　And I'm also very positively impressed by what's happening in Asia. Asia was a bit of a latecomer to many aspects of ESG and sustainability because Asian investors tend to be very yield-driven. They were looking for high-yielding assets. However, it’s clear now that family offices and large sovereign wealth funds, like the one in Abu Dhabi and others, are really aligning with ESG principles. You also see this in Australia and other markets. So I do believe that perhaps this binary discourse, which suggests that ESG and returns are mutually exclusive, is not a widespread view. In many parts of the world, investors are now asking for more evidence of impact, more proof that their investments are actually helping the real economy. And that's good—it's accountability. But I do believe that avoiding or not acknowledging the need to take these elements into account is a short-term bias and not aligned with a long-term horizon.

　　Q: So you emphasized the importance of climate governance because it's a long-term consideration. But some companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), might say that they need to focus on their short-term profits or operations first. They may not have the vision to see the long-term benefits. So, how do you balance the short term and the long term?

　　A: I've always said that SMEs are the backbone of our economies, and we need to work with them to see what ESG tools are fit for purpose. You can't just translate an ESG framework for a Fortune 500 company and apply it to an SME. Estimates are usually pretty aligned on a lot of things. For example, SMEs need to comply with labor laws, which are extremely important on the governance side. They also tend to manage their value chains more closely because their supply chains are smaller, so they can have more control over how they source their materials. And a lot of them, because most SMEs are family businesses, tend to be very active in their communities. They often have a sense of purpose right from the start.

　　What we can't do is impose an ESG toolkit on SMEs in the same way we do for larger companies. We need to adjust to the realities of SMEs and provide something that is more fit for purpose. SMEs usually have a long-term orientation. They often stay in business for many years, either through family transfers or by creating holding companies that bring in other investors. So, they tend to be long-term oriented.

　　Now, what we need to ensure is that when we incorporate ESG parameters, they don't become too burdensome with unnecessary reporting. That's why it's important to have standards. I'm extremely sorry to see that some of these standards have been pushed back. But there have been initiatives like the Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) from the UN, which have existed for many years and have been able to withstand and sustain all these issues. I think this is important.

　　Another important point is that many SMEs are not publicly traded companies. They often seek private debt and private equity. Applying ESG and climate standards to private equity and private debt is different from how you do it in the public markets. Here, investors are often on the boards and provide valuable insights. They are more invested in how these things happen. We have private equity investors who focus solely on sustainability and work closely with SMEs. So, I think this is another different approach. Not all SMEs are listed, and therefore you can tailor how you apply ESG integration.

　　Q: You just mentioned that maybe we shouldn't put too much workload on SMEs. In February this year, the EU introduced an Omnibus Package aimed at simplifying the code related to sustainability and information disclosure. Their goal was to create a favorable business environment for companies. Some people think this is a good thing because it simplifies the disclosure process. However, others worry that it might reduce the credibility of the data. So, what do you think about this policy published by the EU?

　　A: The EU taxonomy is considered a very good standard. But as you said, there needs to be some adjustment. As we say in English, 「the perfect is the enemy of the good.」 This is especially true when applying these standards to emerging economies. In emerging economies, we have different realities compared to European economies.

　　I feel that creating something more flexible and applicable doesn't necessarily translate into greenwashing or falling short of admission, as long as entities are held accountable. They need to have clear, even if simple, accountability standards that they can demonstrate with evidence.

　　The best way to do this is to use a standard that everyone understands and that includes some form of verification. At the end of the day, anyone can try to game the system, but they will get caught. This could also be a gradual journey. One could start with a set of policies that are ambitious, but not to the point where they seem unattainable. It's about making a shift in how things operate and then increasing those standards as the organization progresses. For example, an organization could start at level 1 and move to level 2, complying with more requirements at each level.

　　Maybe a system like this, with gradual integration, is the right approach. I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all solution. But even if we don't have a one-size-fits-all approach, everyone should be accountable and transparent in their reporting and ideally have external verifications of what is reported.

　　Q: Next, let's focus on your organization. As part of the financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the GCF is designed to support climate actions in developing countries through funding. What challenges do you think the GCF is facing?

　　A: The GCF has been in operation for 10 years now. We approved our first funding proposal right before COP 21 in Paris. Fast forward to today, and we have already committed $19.3 billion of our own capital. In total, we have been able to mobilize $79 billion, including that $19 billion from the GCF. We have made investments in 140 countries, with over 300 projects approved—about 36% of which are in the private sector, and the rest in the public sector. Specifically, we have allocated 36% of our resources to Africa, 32% to the Asia-Pacific region, 22% to Latin America, and 10% to Eastern Central Asia. It's been quite an achievement.

　　As you mentioned, we are the financial and operating mechanism of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Although we have finite resources—we've been able to raise nearly $30 billion across three fundraising cycles and operate on a four-year cycle—we aim to deploy $10.6 billion between 2023 and 2027. This year, we hope to break a record by committing over $3 billion in capital. But our biggest challenge is how to use these resources in the most catalytic way possible.

　　We have a strong mandate to allocate 50% of our funds to mitigation and 50% to adaptation in grant equivalency. We can take higher risks and make larger investments if needed. But what we really need to understand is whether our interventions will support countries in meeting their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and national adaptation plans. This means adding value to the country's climate priorities.

　　The first challenge is to ensure that our projects support countries in their transition to low carbon economies. The second challenge is to ensure that the impacts of our projects are transformational. We focus on projects that are testing new technologies or business models, or are at the forefront of innovation. It's about country ownership, alignment, results, and impact. The third challenge is to mobilize as many resources as possible, especially from the private sector. We want to increase private sector participation. Another important element is ensuring that we reach the most vulnerable people and communities—those who are often overlooked. We want to bring them into the fold.

　　We are a unique fund, the largest multilateral climate fund, working with over 150 partners. These partners range from banks and NGOs to governments, multilateral development banks, and development finance institutions. Because we work through partners rather than directly, we need to ensure that they, in turn, choose the best partners to deliver the projects. So, for us, being truly catalytic in the climate space means delivering ambitious mitigation and adaptation goals that countries have set.

　　Q: Do you think that, in the future, developing countries or emerging economies might become more important contributors to financing global climate action?

　　A: For this last cycle of replenishment or fundraising, we have received contributions from 35 different sources. Some of these are emerging economies. So, both in the initial mobilization phase and in GCF-1 and now GCF-2, we have already seen participation from developing countries. But to your point, we could definitely see a bigger engagement, especially from large players who might be able to channel more resources. That is something we are actively exploring.

　　However, we also feel that there is a responsibility on the part of developed countries to support this transition, given that their historical footprint has contributed significantly to many of these issues. So, I think that having more engagement from developing countries does not take away the responsibility of developed countries. In fact, it hopefully enhances the overall effort and leads to greater progress for everyone involved.

　　Q: What do you think China;s role will be in the future in terms of climate governance? What's your view on China's progress in green development so far? And what do you expect China to do to have a positive impact on global climate governance?

　　A: Actually, I've been working closely with our Chinese board members, as well as other partners in China. We recently accredited the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which is based in Beijing. So, we've seen China's journey and commitment regarding its carbon goals, its focus on renewables, green bonds, and South-South cooperation. As the world shifts in other parts, China seems very clear that this is a journey they have started and are determined to achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by 2060. We do see that commitment, and it's genuine because they are able to show actual results.

　　Now, in terms of engagement, we are discussing with some China-based investors about the possibility of co-investing with us. We are also working with the AIIB on the possibility of anchoring some of their investments in priority countries, like the Pacific or Central Asia. But we also want to continue engaging with our board members and the Chinese government to assess how best they can contribute to the GCF agenda. This is something we discuss every year during our annual programming exchange, which our executive director leads. For the past two years, I've been leading another effort to engage further, and we've been talking about technology transfer, South-South cooperation, co-financing, and R&D. There are many areas where China would like to play a role, and we'd like to find better ways to partner closely.

　　With the AIIB, we are working across the entire Asian continent because we want to take advantage of their expertise. We have one project with the Asian Development Bank in China, but we've also discussed with some Chinese members. They feel that instead of focusing only on programming within China, China can support the GCF in programming more globally. As a co-investor, we could hopefully find ways to bring capital, technology, and know-how to other areas that are also priorities for China, such as Africa, the Pacific Islands, or other regions.

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心簡介

　　新浪財經ESG評級中心是業內首箇中文ESG專業資訊和評級聚合平臺，致力於宣傳和推廣可持續發展，責任投資，與ESG（環境、社會和公司治理）價值理念，傳播ESG的企業實踐行動和榜樣力量，推動中國ESG事業的發展，促進中國ESG評估標準的建立和企業評級的提升。

　　依託ESG評級中心，新浪財經發布多隻ESG創新指數，為關注企業ESG表現的投資者提供更多選擇。同時，新浪財經成立中國ESG領導者組織論壇，攜手中國ESG領導企業和合作伙伴，通過環境、社會和公司治理理念，推動建立適合中國時代特徵的ESG評價標準體系，促進中國資產管理行業ESG投資發展。

責任編輯：李欣然