FoE(HK) Green Finance Blog 香港地球之友綠色金融網誌

Green Finance Engagement Team

The third primer in our GSF Spotlight series explores climate-related risks – how to identify, assess, and manage the financial impacts of climate change.

The effects of climate change are being felt across the globe, and understanding climate-related risks has become crucial for sound financial decision-making.

What are Climate-related Risks?

Climate-related risks refer to the potential impacts resulting from climate change. These may affect businesses, investments, and the broader economy through both physical changes to our environment as well as the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) divides climate-related risks into two major categories:

Physical Risks:

• Acute risks: Event-driven, such as increased severity of extreme weather events (cyclones, hurricanes, floods).
• Chronic risks: Longer-term shifts in climate patterns (such as sustained higher temperatures) that may cause sea level rise or chronic heat waves.

Transition Risks:

• Policy and legal changes: Evolving climate policies, regulations and potential litigation.
• Technology risk: Innovations that support the low-carbon transition and their impacts on organisations.
• Market risk: Shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products and services as climate-related risks and opportunities are taken into account.
• Reputation risk: Changing customer or community perceptions of an organisation’s contribution to or detraction from the low-carbon transition.

Key Developments

2024 was the hottest year on record with a global average surface temperature of 1.55°C above pre-industrial temperatures, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks Report 2025 also ranked extreme weather events as the second most critical risk on a two-year horizon, and the top risk over the next decade.

Global Disclosure of Climate-related Financial Risks

International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and TCFD:

The TCFD, established by the Financial Stability Board in 2015, provided a globally recognised framework for companies to disclose climate-related financial risks. Supported by nearly 5,000 organisations worldwide, the TCFD recommendations have now been fully incorporated into the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

The ISSB standards, which include the IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), officially launched in 2023 and now serve as the global baseline for sustainability-related financial disclosures.

IFRS S2 requires companies to report on climate-related risks and opportunities, fully integrating the TCFD’s four pillars of Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets.

Hong Kong

From January 1, 2025, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) will require all listed companies to make climate-related disclosures in alignment with IFRS S2.

Mandatory disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be required for all issuers for financial years commencing on or after January 1, 2025.

For large-cap issuers, additional climate-related disclosures – including Scope 3 emissions –will be required on a “comply or explain” basis from 2025, with mandatory disclosure of Scope 3 emissions commencing for financial years beginning on or after January 1, 2026

European Union: ESRS and CSRD

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires large companies and listed entities to disclose sustainability information using the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), developed by EFRAG. The ESRS became mandatory for the first wave of companies for financial years starting in 2024, with phased implementation for other entities.

ESRS E1 specifically addresses climate change, with disclosure requirements for climate-related impacts, risks, opportunities, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3) as well as transition plans.

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS)

The NGFS is a coalition of over 140 central banks and supervisors, launched in 2017 to strengthen the global response to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage climate and environmental risks. The NGFS develops climate scenarios and methodologies used by financial authorities and institutions around the world.

Why Should Companies and Investors Care about Climate-related Risks?

For Companies:

• Identify vulnerabilities in operations, supply chains, and markets that could be affected by climate change.
• Stay ahead of evolving disclosure requirements and meet stakeholder expectations.
• Gain a competitive advantage through proactive adaptation and resilience planning.

For Investors:

• Improve risk assessment and management within investment portfolios.
• Identify opportunities in climate-resilient sectors and companies.
• Support sustainable, climate-aware strategies that can improve long-term returns.

How to Get Started

For Companies:

1. Assess Climate Exposure:
   • Map physical and transition risks across assets, operations, and supply chains.
   • Identify sector-specific risks and opportunities.
   • Review and understand relevant disclosure standards (e.g., ISSB, TCFD, ESRS).
2. Develop Climate Risk Strategies:
   • Conduct scenario analysis under different climate futures.
   • Integrate climate considerations into governance and decision-making.
   • Set measurable climate risk metrics and targets.

For Investors:

1. Integrate Climate Risk into Investment Processes:
   • Develop and apply climate risk assessment tools and methodologies.
   • Evaluate portfolio exposure to sectors and assets most at risk.
   • Incorporate climate scenarios into asset allocation and investment decisions.
2. Strengthen Climate Risk Management:
   • Engage with investee companies on climate risk disclosure and management.
   • Use climate data and analytics in financial analysis and reporting.
   • Set clear climate risk limits or thresholds for investment portfolios.

Conclusion

The assessment and management of climate-related risks are now essential components of financial decision-making. As climate impacts intensify and regulatory requirements continue to evolve, the ability to effectively identify, measure, and manage climate risks will be crucial for financial resilience and long-term value creation.

[ESG分析師洞見分享] Joe Lam, CESGA

隨著全球投資者日益關注企業的環境、社會與管治（ESG）表現，香港上市公司也正面臨前所未有的ESG披露要求和實務壓力。香港聯合交易所（HKEX）近年陸續強化ESG資訊披露規範，並逐步與國際標準接軌（如GRI、SASB、TCFD等）。然而，在落實報告的過程中，不同行業的企業各有各的煩惱：從數據蒐集、碳排放盤查，到跨部門協調、供應鏈資料整理、甚至第三方驗證，都可能變成辦公室裡一場 「拉鋸戰」。

港交所ESG披露新規範與未來趨勢

近十年來，HKEX從自願性指引逐步走向更嚴格的強制披露要求，不斷提升上市公司的ESG透明度。2020年起港交所已要求董事會聲明承擔ESG管治責任，並將多項社會和環境關鍵績效指標（KPI）列為強制披露或「不遵守就解釋」條文。到了2024年，港交所更進一步修訂《ESG報告指引》，將其升格為《ESG報告守則》，明確引入TCFD建議的氣候相關披露框架。這些新規定體現在2024年修訂的《企業管治守則》及上市規則附錄中，標誌著香港ESG規管進入新階段。

強制溫室氣體披露與氣候相關資訊：根據最新修訂，2025年1月1日或之後開始的財政年度，所有上市公司必須強制披露其範圍1及範圍2的溫室氣體排放。同時，主板上市公司需按照「遵守或解釋」原則，報告《ESG守則》新增D部分的氣候相關信息（涵蓋管治、策略、風險管理、指標及目標四方面），鼓勵創業板公司自願跟進。再往前看一步，2026年起屬於恒生綜合大型股指數的公司將全面強制披露氣候相關資訊，不再只是「遵守或解釋」。這意味著企業需要及早準備氣候風險的管理架構、情景分析和減碳目標等內容，以符合TCFD的核心要求。

董事會ESG管治責任：新版《企業管治守則》強調董事會在ESG上的角色。上市公司必須在ESG報告中加入由董事會發表的聲明，說明董事會如何監督ESG事宜、制定ESG管理方針與策略，以及如何定期檢討ESG目標進展。尤其針對氣候風險，企業須披露董事會層面的管治架構與監控流程，讓投資者了解公司如何管理氣候相關風險與機遇。這等於把ESG提升到公司治理的核心層面。此外，2025年7月起生效的《企業管治守則》修訂也要求董事必須接受培訓，內容涵蓋企業管治與ESG事項（包括與公司相關的氣候風險與機遇）等。換言之，未來董事會成員需要對ESG知識「補課」，以便有效履行監督職責。

對接國際標準的路徑：香港作為國際金融中心，正致力於讓本地ESG披露與全球標準接軌。2024年底，香港特區政府發布了《香港可持續披露路線圖》，要求公共責任實體（如上市公司等）逐步採用ISSB國際永續準則，並明確目標：大型企業最遲在2028年前全面採用ISSB準則。這表明未來幾年香港企業的ESG報告將向IFRS S1/S2等國際標準靠攏，報告內容更一致、可比。事實上，不少香港上市公司已經超前部署：有研究顯示，本港有64%的企業在ESG報告中參考使用了除港交所指引外的其他框架，其中採用GRI標準的高達88%，明示遵循TCFD框架的約38%，另有19%參考了SASB準則。可見港企為滿足全球投資者期望，早已在自家ESG報告中同時對照多套國際準則。但多線作戰也帶來新的挑戰：如何兼顧不同框架的指標要求、避免重複工作，讓許多企業傷透腦筋。

不同行業的ESG落地困境

每家公司在編寫ESG報告時，都彷彿要進行一次企業內部「大巡禮」。不同產業的業務模式迥異，遇到的ESG操作挑戰也不盡相同。以下我們從金融業、地產業和中小企業三類，來看看它們在ESG執行上的具體痛點。

金融業：碳排放盤查與數據管理難題

對銀行、保險、資產管理等金融機構而言，ESG工作的難點往往不在自身辦公室的碳排放（範疇1和2通常不高），而在於投融資組合的排放盤查。金融業者必須處理大量第三方碳排放數據，也就是所謂的範疇3（來自所投資或貸款企業的排放）。如何計算投資組合的碳足跡無疑是複雜課題：金融機構得按照持股或貸款比例，認列被投企業的排放量。面對幾十上百個投資項目的數據蒐集，金融公司的ESG團隊經常是一頭霧水。不僅計算方法繁瑣，他們還要仰賴被投企業提供可靠數據。一位銀行的ESG負責人或許會苦笑道：「我們自己排放不多，但客戶排放的帳卻得我們來算。」這種數據不足和標準不明的狀況在金融業頗為普遍——調查顯示，許多金融機構難以取得足夠且高品質的ESG相關數據，且全球各地ESG監管要求仍在快速變化，規範差異增加了合規複雜性。金融監管機構（如香港金融管理局）近年也要求銀行進行氣候情景分析和壓力測試，進一步加劇了數據需求。

除了環境面的挑戰，金融業在社會與管治層面也需應對監管要求，如推動綠色金融產品、加強客戶盡職調查中的ESG考量等。這意味著IT系統和人員能力都要跟上。很多金融機構的CIO現在肩上多了一項任務：利用創新科技（如大數據、AI）提升ESG數據處理能力，以彌補目前數據收集和風險評估的短板。總的來說，金融業ESG團隊每天都在與數據搏鬥：對內，需要建立完善的數據管理機制；對外，還得盯緊不斷更新的監管指引，確保自己「不漏報、不違規」。

地產業：能源管理與供應鏈協調的壓力

香港的地產發展商和物業管理公司被視為ESG落實的先行者，但這不表示他們一路順風。事實上，地產業的ESG數據收集牽涉範圍廣、類型多元，常令相關團隊叫苦連天。首先，香港建築物耗電量佔全港九成，溫室氣體排放佔六成，所以房地產公司的環境表現主要體現在能源效益和碳排放管理上。然而，一家大型地產商往往擁有多元化的物業組合：寫字樓、商場、住宅、酒店，各類資產分布不同地點，能源使用情況也各異。ESG經理要蒐集這些物業的用電量、水耗、廢棄物數據，就像在拼一個碎片繁多的拼圖——物業管理部門要提供公共區用電數據，租戶可能要申報自己單位的耗能，工程部門還得匯報樓宇設備的節能改造進展。資料分散在不同部門是大問題，稍有溝通不良就可能數據缺漏。難怪有專家指出，ESG數據指標繁多且分散各處，導致資料收集困難、溝通成本高。

其次，地產業的供應鏈ESG管理也逐漸受到關注。大型發展商每年採購建築材料、聘請承包商工程，供應鏈上的環境和勞工風險需要審視。例如，混凝土、鋼材等材料的碳足跡，以及承包商的安全紀錄、工人待遇，都是ESG評估的一部分。但要取得這些供應商的資料並非易事：許多供應商本身是中小企，對ESG認知有限。當開發商寄出長長的ESG問卷時，小型供應商可能疲於應付，不是填不出數據，就是不願透露敏感資訊（擔心坦承問題會失去合約）。調查發現，對供應商而言，填寫詳盡的ESG問卷既耗時又費錢，可能得花數天蒐集資料，甚至付費請顧問協助，對小公司來說負擔沉重。結果便是供應鏈ESG信息常不完整、不準確，地產公司想做好也有心無力。

最後，地產業還面臨標準變動和人才短缺的問題。一方面，目前缺乏全球統一的ESG披露標準，各種評級、指引此起彼落，企業得時刻關注最新規定。另一方面，真正熟悉綠建築、碳管理的人才難找，內部員工對ESG的認知也需要培養。不少地產公司開始發現，要完整衡量一棟建築的碳足跡，需要動用環境科學、能源工程、數據分析等各方面知識，這對團隊是新的考驗。

中小企業：資源有限下的進退兩難

對於資源有限的中小企（SME）來說，ESG轉型更是一步一猶豫。大部分香港中小企業並非上市公司，按規定未必需要公佈ESG報告，但近年來他們也感受到來自客戶、供應鏈和投資者的壓力，被要求提供ESG相關信息或制定措施。然而，中小企老闆最關心的往往是生存與盈利，談起ESG，許多人的直覺反應是：「會不會增加很多成本？」根據一項調查，本港有超過90%的中小企業表示關注ESG，但真正制定了相關目標的還不到一成，多數企業擔心推行ESG會推高經營成本，因此抱持觀望態度。在經營壓力已經不小的情況下，讓一家小公司額外投入人力物力去做碳盤查、員工培訓、制度改造，確實有難度。

中小企推行ESG的內部阻力也不容忽視。很多時候，員工和管理層對ESG概念的認識不足，覺得這是「大企業才需要理會的事」。一位在製造業打拼的老闆坦言，公司裡連財務、品質這些基本管理都忙不過來，更別說抽人手去統計什麼社會責任指標了。缺乏知識和意識，導致ESG執行困難。因此，有業界人士建議中小企可採取「先易後難」的策略來起步，例如先從節能減廢、關懷員工做起，把簡單的環保措施和員工關懷制度建立起來。這些都是立竿見影、成本較低的改變，讓企業看到一些成果和回報，再逐步拓展到更全面的ESG項目。

此外，中小企在數據紀錄和報告編寫上也面臨技術挑戰。許多小公司沒有完善的數據收集系統，甚至缺少基本的紀錄習慣。有些環境數據（例如生產過程的廢料回收率）過去從未統計過，一時要他們拿出精確數字，簡直無從入手。再者，撰寫ESG報告需要一定的專業知識和文書能力，中小企往往沒有專人負責，只能臨時委派現有人員兼任，寫出來的內容可能流於空泛或者不合國際框架要求。如果聘請顧問或第三方驗證，對他們來說又是一筆不小的開支。因此，不少中小企陷入兩難：不做吧，擔心未來被市場淘汰；要做吧，又覺得自身實力撐不起。難怪有學者指出，若能讓中小企看到ESG帶來的即時回報（例如節能省錢、提升形象帶來新訂單），他們才會更投入落實。換句話說，激勵和支援對中小企非常重要，例如政府或大企業客戶提供一些稅務優惠、綠色貸款等誘因，將有助於更多中小企邁出ESG轉型的第一步。

小結：各行各業在ESG執行上都有獨特的痛點。金融業埋首於數據和氣候風險，地產業忙於能源管理和供應鏈協調，中小企則苦於資源和知識不足。但不管規模大小，幾乎所有企業都碰到一個共通難題：要滿足ESG報告標準，就得跨部門合作、統籌海量資料。接下來，我們再看看中資與外資公司在香港推行ESG時，文化和制度上的差異如何帶來另一層挑戰。

中資企業 vs 外資企業：文化差異與接軌摩擦

香港市場匯聚了本地、中資和跨國企業，大家都在同一套ESG規則下競技，但由於背景不同，在實踐中也展現出些許落差。中資企業（包括內地背景的在港上市公司）與外資／跨國公司在企業文化、管理習慣方面的差異，反映在ESG執行上，形成了頗有意思的對比。

首先是標準理念的差異。許多外資企業（尤其歐美公司）早在全球範圍內推行ESG多年，對GRI、SASB、TCFD等框架駕輕就熟。他們習慣從投資人視角看待ESG表現，重視多元共融、平等薪酬、供應鏈勞工權益等議題。而部分中資企業起步稍晚，更傾向於從監管合規出發，先滿足硬性披露要求，再談額外提升。此外，文化背景不同也導致關注重點不一：西方ESG評級體系往往強調性別平等、包容性等社會議題，甚至會考慮地緣政治風險（例如某些地區被視為高風險，當地業務會被打低分）。對中國企業而言，一方面可能覺得有些西方標準未必完全適用本土情況，另一方面也需適應國際投資者的評價邏輯。例如，同樣是女性高管比例這項指標，內地過去不是關注重點，但在國際ESG評分中卻舉足輕重。這種價值判定差異，需要中資企業去理解和橋接，否則容易出現「各說各話」的情況。

其次，在內部管控與審核習慣上也有分野。跨國公司大多建立了完善的內部控制體系，財務也好、非財務（ESG）也罷，都有明確的責任分工與審計流程。他們傾向於定期進行第三方核查/驗證，確保數據可靠，以維護投資者信心。相較之下，不少中資企業對ESG數據的內控還在摸索階段。某些內地企業習慣了報喜不報憂的匯報文化，在編寫ESG報告時可能傾向於強調亮點、淡化不足，這與外資講求誠實披露、直面問題的期望並不完全吻合。當國際投資者或審核師介入時，雙方在溝通語言和期待值上會出現摩擦。例如，審核師要求查看環境數據的原始記錄和證據，但企業相關負責人可能因過去沒保存完整紀錄而一時無法提供，導致審核過程反覆拉鋸。再例如，外資企業通常有專門的可持續發展部門，直接向高層匯報，中資企業則常由董事會秘書處或戰略部門兼管ESG事務，資源投入和權限都有限，執行起來難免力不從心。

還有一個明顯差異是對持份者的關注面。根據香港中文大學的一項研究，比起內地公司偏重滿足投資者需求，香港本地及外資企業往往更全面平衡各持份者的期望，包括員工、客戶、社區等。這點反映在ESG實踐上，就是外資/本地企業更常設立多元化的項目，如義工服務、社區關懷計劃、員工身心健康計畫等等，務求在社會層面展現責任。而部分中資企業可能更專注於宏觀議題（如國家戰略方向下的環保減排目標），對微觀的社區或員工議題著墨較少。隨著ESG評價越來越重視全面性，中資企業也開始調整步伐，在社會議題上趕上國際步調，以免被評為「不夠人情味」。

值得一提的是，香港作為內地與國際接軌的平台，雙方企業其實都在互相學習。內地監管機構正參考香港經驗，加快建立強制披露制度，而香港市場也因中資企業的加入，更加關注與內地標準協調統一。有專家形容，關鍵在於建立一套「符合中國國情、又被國際認可」的ESG體系，讓中國企業說好自己的ESG故事，同時國際投資者也「聽得懂」。這需要一段磨合期。在此過程中，中資企業勢必要提升ESG風險管理和內控能力，主動盤點自身ESG表現並改進；而外資企業和評級機構也應更理解中國市場的獨特情境，不盲目套用一把尺子衡量所有人。當大家逐漸在標準和文化上找到交集，才能減少摩擦，共同推動ESG在香港乃至整個區域的良性發展。

結語：從壓力走向動力

在ESG這條道路上，香港企業正經歷著一場深刻的轉型。政策環境在變嚴，國際標準在逼近，企業內部從高層到基層都感受到不小的壓力。但正如有人所說，痛苦也是成長的一部分。透過這些挑戰，企業開始正視以往被忽略的環境足跡、社會責任和管治薄弱環節。每天在辦公室為ESG數據據理力爭的同事們，他們的努力正在一點點改變公司的文化和決策考量。當年報中的ESG章節不再是公式化交差，而是真正反映出企業的改變時，這份壓力終將轉化為企業提升競爭力的動力。

未來，隨著監管趨勢明朗，企業也會逐漸適應新的常態。或許幾年後回頭看，今天為收集一堆碳排放數字跑上跑下的情景，會變成企業可持續轉型歷程中的一段佳話。希望在不久的將來，ESG報告不再被視作額外負擔，而是企業日常營運中自然而然的一環。

#本文章由 EFFAS 環境、社會及管治分析師 (CESGA) 所撰寫。CESGA在歐洲以及全球都具有高度認受性，全球報名人數持續上升。CESGA是首個獲歐洲財務報導資訊小組（EFRAG）歐洲永續發展報告準則（ESRS）官方認證的課程。EFRAG為歐盟可持續發展報告標準制定機構，負責制定歐洲 ESG 資訊披露準則（2025年起在歐盟强制實施）。有志報讀的人士，請參閱：https://bit.ly/3tFUQ1M

[Certified ESG Analyst Insights Sharing] Martin Choi, CESGA

As Hong Kong continues its journey toward becoming a leading sustainable finance hub in Asia, the need for skilled professionals has never been more critical.

The Earth Forum 2025, held recently on Earth Day (April 22), convened a panel of industry leaders, regulators and practitioners to discuss the crucial role of capacity building in advancing sustainable finance markets – highlighting both the progress made and the challenges ahead.

Building Human Capital for Sustainable Banking

Whenever Hong Kong’s de facto central bank rolls out a new sustainable banking policy, a capacity building campaign follows to ensure the market and its participants can adapt and operate effectively, said Ronald Young, Head of Sustainable Banking Development at the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). He was speaking at the Earth Forum 2025 panel, “The Role of Capacity Building in Advancing Sustainable Finance Markets”.

“An institution consists of people, and people’s capacity is key for the success of any bank’s management of transition risks and opportunities,” he said.

Recognising the importance of building capacity for the banking industry, the HKMA launched the core level of its Enhanced Competency Framework for Green and Sustainable Finance (ECF-GSF) back in July of 2023, expanding to a professional level in November 2024. Under the ECF-GSF, nearly 2,000 professionals have already earned certification in areas such as climate risk management, sustainable finance products and servicing, and sustainability strategy, Young said.

Reliable, Comparable Data: Meeting Investor Demands

Reliable and comparable information from companies is also of paramount importance to enable investors to make informed decisions, according to Elaine Ng, Associate Director of International Affairs and Sustainable Finance at the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), also speaking on the same panel.

“The challenges that we are seeing in terms of putting out reliable, consistent and useful disclosure, is really being able to put a sustainability lens on all of the things that a business is doing,” said Ng. “Mainstreaming sustainability [and] climate considerations into every part of your business…is super important.”

Ng highlighted the challenge of aggregating data across international supply chains and pointed to technology – especially artificial intelligence (AI) – as a critical enabler for trustworthy disclosures.

Bridging Knowledge and Practice

Technical knowledge must also go hand in hand with practical expertise, according to Dr. Valeria Fauner, Director of Training and Certification at The European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies (EFFAS), contributing to the same panel.

EFFAS’s programmes, such as the Certified ESG Analyst (CESGA) and the newly announced EFFAS Climate Risk Analyst (ECRA), equip professionals to combat greenwashing and apply sustainability insights to real-world scenarios.

“Sustainability literacy must become a core competency, not a niche skill,” she asserted. By integrating regulatory standards like the ISSB and EU’s CSRD into training, EFFAS ensures professionals stay ahead of evolving requirements.

Moving Beyond the ESG Binary

The asset management industry needs to focus more on understanding what ESG means for both themselves and their investors, according to Sam Yu, Chairman of the Hong Kong Investment Funds Association (HKIFA), also on the panel.

“The biggest step is to move away from the binary thinking about what ESG is and isn’t, and focus on when it is used for value versus values,” said Yu. “It’s very important for people to understand and to have a comprehensive picture of what ESG means for them and for their next generation.”

Insurers & Climate Risk: A Data Dilemma

A candid perspective on the insurance industry’s climate risk challenge was shared by Luke Liang, Senior Manager of the Policy and Legislation Division at the Insurance Authority (IA), during the panel.

Despite their role as risk managers, insurers face “a lack of robust and forward-looking data,” as traditional models often rely on historical data that cannot adequately address the unpredictability and rising severity of climate events, said Liang.

Effectively assessing and managing climate risk will require professional development to narrow the skills gap, but also enhance governance and industry collaboration, according to Liang.

“Targeted professional development is supportive for all levels in an organization, but I would say it’s particularly critical for the board and senior management, because they are the ones to determine the strategy,” said Liang.

As the Earth Forum 2025 panel on The Role of Capacity Building in Advancing Sustainable Finance Markets made clear, Hong Kong’s sustainable finance ambitions will be realised not just through policy – but through people: their skills, adaptability, and drive to learn. Capacity building is both the sector’s greatest challenge and its best opportunity to lead Asia toward a resilient, low-carbon future.

This article is written by a holder of the EFFAS Certified Environmental, Social, and Governance Analyst (CESGA). CESGA is a globally recognised qualification whose prominence continues to grow worldwide. CESGA has recently achieved a significant milestone as the first programme accredited by European standard setter EFRAG for compliance with the ESRS sustainability disclosure requirements in the EU (mandatory from 2025). For enrolment details, please visit https://bit.ly/40chuOR .

Discover engaging green finance events this May 2025. Browse the calendar and register for events that align with your interests through the links below:

以上一圖看清2025年5月精彩的綠色金融活動！如欲參加及了解活動詳情，歡迎瀏覽以下網址:

8 May [1] Availability and Credibility of ESG Data

13 May [2] Development of ESG Information Disclosure Regulations in China

21 May [3] SFi Impact Summit 2025: The Power of Momentum

28 May [4] A Nexus of Sustainability, Financial Markets, and Scientific Innovation

28 May [5] Ocean Investment Protocol: Aligning Financial Flows with the Transition to a Sustainable Ocean Economy

[Certified ESG Analyst Insights Sharing] Spencer Liu, CESGA

In the 2020s, momentum behind sustainable transportation is unmistakable – from electric vehicles (EVs) to charging infrastructure, we’ve seen a groundswell of adoption and investment. Yet the full sustainability potential across transport modes remains untapped. Emerging solutions like sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), green methanol and ammonia, and e-fuels are gaining some ground, but they continue to carry a green premium: higher capital expenditures and operating costs compared to their fossil-fuel counterparts.

Finance plays an inseparable role in closing this gap. The ability to scale these technologies hinges not only on innovation, but also on access to patient, risk-tolerant capital that can support early deployment, aggregate demand, and eventually drive costs down.

In an ideal world, carbon emissions would be fairly priced, regulatory signals would be clear and stable, and green investments would offer both climate and financial returns. Over time, economies of scale and technological learning curves would shrink the green premium. But in today’s fragmented global context, recent developments are pushing us further away from that equilibrium.

Take maritime shipping as an example. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently advanced plans to introduce a global cap on carbon emissions for ocean shipping, including a significant penalty for ships exceeding carbon intensity thresholds starting from 2028. While this is a major step toward internalizing emissions costs, it’s far from universally supported. For example, the current US administration has voiced opposition to these mechanisms, citing concerns about competitiveness and economic burden, adding uncertainty for investors and operators alike.

In addition, an emerging wave of trade protectionism – reflected in rising tariffs on goods – is disrupting supply chains and delaying the cost reductions that green transport technologies, such as EVs, batteries, and clean tech components, depend on. These measures not only raise the cost of deploying clean technologies but also undermine returns on critical infrastructure – such as EV charging networks, battery recycling plants, and low-carbon fuel bunkering hubs – by creating uncertainty around future utilization and demand.

The result is a prolonged vicious cycle that keeps the green premium high and adoption low: green solutions are expensive not just because of high costs, but because the returns are distant, uncertain, and vulnerable to political risks.

• Trade barriers raise deployment costs, making early-stage projects harder to finance and scale.
• Infrastructure build-out lags behind, reinforcing hesitancy. For instance, why commit to deploying electric heavy-duty trucks if fast-charging hubs or grid capacity are not in place?
• Fragmented carbon pricing mechanisms distorts competition. Without consistent, global participation, some players bear the cost of decarbonization while others bypass/ create arbitrages against it.
• Green infrastructure requires long-duration capital, yet returns are often insufficiently de-risked to meet financiers’ thresholds to provide credit.

Despite these challenges, today presents a critical moment for leadership. The costs of inaction – regulatory lock-ins, stranded assets, and geopolitical exposure – are rising. At the same time, first movers in clean transportation are shaping the next decade of supply chains, trade corridors, and capital flows. Here is what businesses and financiers can do to stay ahead:

1. Anchor investments with strategic intent
Businesses should view green investments as enablers of long-term competitiveness, not just short-term returns. Investing in SAF or green bunkering infrastructure, for example, may not yield immediate margins, but helps secure future market access, compliance readiness, and brand value. This also applies to financiers: transition-aligned portfolios require reallocation of capital now, recognizing future fuel cost shifts and regulatory tightening. Integrating forward-looking metrics – such as internal carbon pricing or emissions trajectories – into credit portfolios is key.

2. Deploy blended finance and de-risking tools
Public-private capital stacks can unlock projects that otherwise fail conventional hurdle rates. Financiers should work with multilateral banks, public agencies, and philanthropic funds to design blended finance structures with concessional or first-loss tranches. These tools have proven effective in clean energy and are highly transferable to transportation – from bus electrification to green port infrastructure.

3. Shape sustainable financing principles through cross-market collaboration
Businesses and financiers can work together across borders to establish consistent aligned sustainable financing principles. Collaborative efforts – such as the Poseidon Principles for climate-aligned shipping finance – demonstrate how cross-market standards can reduce regulatory fragmentation, increase investment predictability, and create a level playing field.

4. Aggregate demand through alliances
Pooling commitments through coalitions like the First Movers Coalition, Cargo Owners for Zero Emission Vessels (coZEV), and the Sustainable Freight Buyers Alliance helps justify infrastructure investments and reduce counterparty risk. Demand aggregation (while complying with competition laws and regulations) increases certainty for financiers and enables lower-cost capital deployment.

The transition to sustainable transportation is undeniably complex.  Timely investment in infrastructure and technologies, alongside collective demand, would be necessary for such transition to scale and green premium to be reduced or potentially eliminated.  For financiers and businesses, the opportunity now lies in designing strategies that reward leadership, hedge against delay, and build the systems we will depend on tomorrow.

This article is written by a holder of the EFFAS Certified Environmental, Social, and Governance Analyst (CESGA). CESGA is a globally recognised qualification whose prominence continues to grow worldwide. CESGA has recently achieved a significant milestone as the first programme accredited by European standard setter EFRAG for compliance with the ESRS sustainability disclosure requirements in the EU (mandatory from 2025). For enrolment details, please visit https://bit.ly/40chuOR.