Current market dynamics favour short-term profits over the long-term well-being of the planet. Bringing our economies within planetary boundaries requires an urgent shift in how business is done. However, without strong and standardised methodologies to assess the environmental impacts of investments, companies and financial institutions cannot minimise their negative impacts, and stakeholders cannot make informed business decisions. Our aim is to ensure sustainable finance and corporate reporting frameworks are accurate, accessible, and usable for key stakeholders – including investors, competitors, and consumers – to play their vital roles in transitioning towards a truly green economy.
Net zero dominates climate discussions, with over 1,000 companies setting a plan to get there. However, without a harmonised approach, each ‘net zero’ claim can be different from the next. Multiple definitions and methodologies have created a whirlwind of confusion, inaccuracy, and even deception.
The European Commission committed to higher transparency in the creation of a sustainable finance taxonomy following calls by the Platform on Sustainable Finance, prompted by protests of ECOS and four other NGOs. Over a month ago, nonprofits suspended their participation in the Platform on Sustainable Finance as a response to the adoption of a taxonomy proposal which ignored scientific advice.
On 22 April, the European Commission published its long-awaited ‘climate taxonomy’ or a list of ‘green’ economic activities, which aims to channel investments into activities supporting a change towards a truly sustainable world. Read on for our analysis – all you need to know, including the harsh truths.
Companies wanting to measure and communicate their carbon footprint over time need tools to help them do so. Here’s where international carbon accounting standards enter the picture. But there are many on the market – and each sets different rules for managing and reporting on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Read our factsheet to find out how they compare—and how they could be improved.
Download the pdfECOS is co-funded by the European Commission and EFTA Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or EISMEA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Website by