"The architecture of the global financial system has been transformed to achieve the net zero target", that is, the elimination of net greenhouse gas emissions. This is the promise made by Mark Carney, former Governor of the Bank of England, at Cop26 in Glasgow, who went on to add: "Every financial decision must take climate into account." It is now incontrovertible: vast amounts of capital will be needed to tackle an ecological transition of such breadth and depth. But what do the latest data on ESG investments — those aligned with environmental, social and governance criteria — tell us? And has the pandemic had any impact on this sector? We put the question to Davide Tentori, researcher at the Geoeconomics Observatory of Ispi (Istituto per gli studi di politica internazionale).

What role will ESG investments play in the ecological transition?
Investments that meet the so-called ESG criteria have grown significantly in recent years. Here we are referring to the E for environment — investments that have an impact on environmental sustainability. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2021 investments meeting these criteria reached 40 billion dollars globally, and 80 per cent of listed companies comply with these criteria in any case. We are therefore in a very favourable position.

What is the main obstacle to be addressed?
The main problem is the homogeneity and uniformity of these criteria, given that rating agencies assess them in a manner that is often disjointed or, in any case, not coordinated with one another. International organisations have the task of finding a response to this need. Last year, during the Italian presidency of the G20, a working group was established (the Sustainable finance working group) whose objectives include precisely the harmonisation of ESG criteria. Meanwhile, Cop26, held in Glasgow, also in coordination with the Italian G20, helped bring about the establishment of the International sustainability standards board, a body that will be tasked with finding a solution to the need to harmonise these criteria. The European Union is also at the forefront, with the recent publication of the taxonomy on green investments, which will help to bring clarity.

Many have called for a green and sustainable recovery after the pandemic. Is that really how things are unfolding?
According to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, in the three-year period 2018–2020 there was a 15 per cent increase in sustainable investments compared with the previous period, reaching 35,000 billion dollars globally. The expectation is that from now on growth will be even more significant, in light of what has happened and of the recovery plans that have been launched in the United States, Europe and other parts of the world. To give an example, the European Green Deal has set the goal of allocating 100 billion euros in green investments between now and 2030, which should act as a catalyst for at least three times as much in private investment.

The outlook is therefore very favourable, also from the perspective of the energy transition — an imperative that must now be followed. There is, however, the problem of greenwashing: companies might simply make commitments to sustainability without honouring them. According to a recent report, on average only 40 per cent of overall commitments are actually implemented by companies; steps must be taken to ensure that this percentage continues to rise. As I mentioned earlier, the definition of more transparent and more consistent ESG criteria could create a more favourable environment.

This interview was conducted before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and therefore cannot take into account its implications for the energy market.