Executive Deputy Director and Head of Public Policy and ESG,
HKU Global Society and Sustainability Lab (GSSL)
Climate adaptation is often treated as a technical issue—a matter of engineering better flood defences, deploying green infrastructure, or unlocking more climate finance. But our new study “Populism vs. the Planet”, just published in Research & Politics, reveals that the real challenge goes much deeper. It lies in politics—specifically, in how different kinds of leaders shape a country’s institutional readiness to adapt.
Climate Adaptation: The Governance Test
Our results show that leadership style isn’t just a background factor—it’s a determinant of resilience.
Populist governments, whether left- or right-leaning, tend to weaken a country’s climate adaptation capacity, but they do so in different ways:
- Right-wing populists often reject climate science or dismiss international norms, redirecting funds toward infrastructure or nationalist development projects. While such spending can produce incidental benefits—like improved flood defences—it rarely forms part of a coherent adaptation strategy.
- Left-wing populists, by contrast, prioritize redistribution and short-term welfare spending. In doing so, they may unintentionally undermine the fiscal stability and institutional capacity needed for long-term adaptation planning.
The key takeaway: climate resilience depends not only on finance and technology but also on institutional trust, policy continuity, and governance credibility.
Why This Matters for ESG and Sustainable Finance
For ESG and green finance professionals, these findings have direct implications. Markets and investors often assume that adaptation is mainly about project pipelines, risk modelling, and access to capital. But our data suggest that political context can amplify or erode the effectiveness of climate investments.
In countries where populist rhetoric erodes institutional independence, adaptation finance faces higher political risk. This isn’t just about volatility—it’s about credibility.
When governments undermine regulatory stability, international financiers and development banks hesitate to invest. Conversely, strong governance and predictable institutions act as de-risking mechanisms, enabling blended finance and long-term adaptation partnerships.
This insight resonates with the global ESG community’s ongoing shift from “what to fund” to “how governance shapes outcomes.” Climate resilience cannot be built on weak foundations; ESG credibility is inseparable from institutional integrity.
Hong Kong’s Wake-Up Call
Just days ago, Super Typhoon Ragasa battered Hong Kong with record-breaking winds and rainfall. The flooding, fallen trees, and disruptions reminded us that adaptation is not abstract—it’s immediate, local, and deeply social.
The storm exposed the same governance challenges we write about: fragmented coordination, underinvestment in infrastructure resilience, and the public’s uneven trust in institutions.
Yet it also showed what works—transparent communication, well-resourced emergency systems, and community cohesion.
These are not merely administrative details; they are the ESG foundations of resilience.
When institutions function transparently and consistently, communities recover faster, businesses rebound sooner, and investors stay confident.
From Political Risk to Political Opportunity
Our study doesn’t end with critique—it offers a path forward. If political leadership shapes climate readiness, then so can deliberate design of institutions that outlast leaders.
For governments and businesses alike, this means:
- Embedding adaptation into fiscal and regulatory frameworks, not just project portfolios.
- Framing climate policy in terms that resonate politically—jobs, public health, and equity.
- Empowering local and community-level actors who maintain continuity amid national political swings.
In short, climate adaptation can thrive even in turbulent political environments—if we invest in institutions, not just infrastructure.
A Call to ESG Practitioners
In the ESG and green finance world, we often focus on taxonomies, disclosures, and carbon metrics. But the politics behind them—the credibility of institutions, the leadership that implements them—determine whether our efforts translate into real resilience.
As populist movements reshape global governance, the ESG community must learn to read political signals as part of climate risk.
That means integrating political-institutional analysis into due diligence, risk assessment, and sustainable finance frameworks.
Adaptation is not merely about surviving climate shocks—it’s about governing through uncertainty.
The more we understand the political economy of resilience, the better we can deploy capital to where it matters most.
