Summary: B4NZ has responded to the Transition Finance Market Review (TFMR) Call for Evidence. We agree that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the scope of transition finance, and we acknowledge the importance of addressing this issue to facilitate the deployment of transition finance by banks and financial institutions. It is crucial that policymakers, regulators, financial institutions, and other stakeholders coordinate efforts to overcome the barriers that currently hinder companies’ access to capital or the ability to deploy it. SMEs face particularly significant challenges in this regard, which must be addressed. This response, from a finance perspective, offers insights into the role of transition plans, the barriers, and the opportunities that transition finance presents to financial institutions.


Bankers for Net Zero convenes the UK Country Chapter of the UN-convened Net Zero Banking Alliance. The initiative brings together banks, businesses, policymakers and regulators to define and implement the interventions needed to accelerate the UK economy’s transition to net zero.     

We shall be primarily responding in our role as an organisation that represents a large part of the banking industry in the UK and works with other relevant stakeholders to accelerate the flow of finance into sustainable solutions. 


Chapter 2 – Scope of Transition Finance 

Q1) Do you consider there to be a lack of clarity around the scope of transition finance? Why / Why not? 

We acknowledge the lack of clarity surrounding the scope of transition finance. Transition finance initiatives often span multiple jurisdictions, each with its own unique context, priorities, and regulatory frameworks. We advocate for harmonising definitions and standards across different regions despite the current challenges, particularly in the absence of international consensus on critical issues related to transition finance. The UK Government should promote harmonization through various policy tools, including corporate disclosures, taxonomies, transition plans, etc.  

This work should draw on existing definitions of transition finance (e.g., OECD, ICMA, GFANZ, etc.). For instance, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) has put forward a broad interpretation of transition finance, defining it as “investment, financing, insurance, and associated products and services crucial for facilitating a structured transition of the real economy toward achieving net-zero emissions.”1 However, numerous frameworks focus specifically on transition finance as financial support to enable the decarbonization of high-emission entities and/or challenging-to-transform sectors.  

The exact scope and definition of transition finance vary across industries and governments. Different organizations, financial institutions, and stakeholders may interpret transition finance differently and have varying views on which activities qualify for funding under this umbrella. Additionally, the evolving landscape of sustainability standards and regulations can further contribute to the lack of clarity. The government thus has a role to play in collaborating with the private industry to explore ways to foster convergence around broad definitional principles and frameworks for transition finance. 

Moreover, the lack of standardisation in reporting practices and metrics for measuring the impact of transition finance can also contribute to the lack of clarity. Without consistent and comparable data, stakeholders struggle to assess the effectiveness of transition finance initiatives and compare progress across different sectors and regions. 

Therefore, the government must build consensus not only on a definition of transition finance but also on the general approach to this matter, aligning it with the regulatory frameworks of other jurisdictions. This entails defining eligibility criteria, imposing reporting requirements, establishing taxonomies and transition plans, allocating funding, and fostering stakeholder collaboration. We hope to see these principles addressed in this review to provide certainty, clarity, and transparency to the industry.  

Q2) Have you faced challenges in accessing or deploying transition finance because of a lack of clarity around its scope? 

Numerous banks and financial institutions have raised concerns about their ability to deploy transition finance because of a lack of clarity around its scope. Banks and insurance companies need to integrate considerations of just transition into their strategic planning. This integration is crucial for ensuring solid organisational risk management practices enabling financial institutions to effectively identify and mitigate various financial and non-financial risks associated with their client and investment portfolios.i2 

A wide range of approaches and frameworks have emerged as a result of not having an agreed definition. This has created uncertainty for lenders, borrowers, and banking supervisors, potentially increasing costs. The absence of an agreed core scope also presents a barrier to building confidence in the transition finance market. Investors, businesses, and other stakeholders may hesitate to engage with transition finance if uncertain about what it entails and how it aligns with their sustainability goals. Clarity and consensus on the scope of transition finance are essential to foster trust and encourage investment in activities that support the transition to a more sustainable and low-carbon economy.  

Policymakers are pivotal in shaping the transition finance landscape through legislative frameworks and regulatory measures. For instance, the EU Taxonomy and the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) mandate financial institutions to disclose the environmental sustainability of their investments, encouraging greater transparency and accountability in investment decisions. Therefore, delivering a comprehensive UK Taxonomy in the UK is crucial to help corporates adapt to the transition finance market and address greenwashing risks. Policy frameworks should also provide clarity and set sector-specific roadmaps that identify each sector’s investment gaps.  Moreover, policymakers can incentivise the adoption of transition finance through targeted financial incentives, such as tax credits, grants, and subsidies for investments in clean technologies and sustainable infrastructure. These incentives encourage companies to prioritize sustainability initiatives and accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy. 

Addressing the challenges posed by the lack of clarity around the scope of transition finance requires collaborative efforts from policymakers, financial institutions, industry associations, and other stakeholders. Establishing a clear and universally agreed-upon definition and scope of transition finance is paramount to fostering trust, encouraging investment, and accelerating the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.  

Q3) Do you agree with the approach that transition finance includes all sectors of the economy to the extent that it is part of a credible net zero transition? Why / Why not? If not, please specify which should be excluded and why.  

We agree that, while transition finance should remain inclusive of all sectors to some extent, directing resources towards hard-to-abate and high-emitting areas reflects a strategic approach to maximising the impact of financial interventions in achieving broader climate goals. The transition should be just and fair, it is understood that there are business and assets that will be obsolete in the long term e.g. 2030 or even some 2050 but robust timelines should be produced by the UK government for sectors and assets that should align with wider climate change science. This is a point that has been made by our member banks, so banks and industry comprehend the transition’s demands, allowing them to adjust their business strategies, customer financing, and education accordingly.  

Many definitions of transition finance assume the importance of hard-to-abate sectors owing to their significant challenges in curtailing carbon emissions and transitioning towards sustainable practices. These industries, spanning heavy manufacturing, aviation, and cement production, exhibit high reliance on fossil fuels, confronting substantial financial and technical impediments in adopting low-carbon technologies. 

However, excluding specific sectors from transition finance could hinder overall progress towards achieving net-zero emissions. The definition should clarify that transition finance includes all sectors to ensure that no industry is left behind in the transition to a sustainable future while targeting resources where they are most needed to drive meaningful change.  

Furthermore, international cooperation and alignment of regulatory frameworks are essential to promote consistency and coherence in transition finance initiatives across jurisdictions. Policymakers can collaborate with international organizations, standard-setting bodies, and other stakeholders to develop harmonized standards, methodologies, and best practices for transition finance. This collaboration facilitates cross-border investment flows, enhances market transparency, and strengthens global efforts to address climate change and environmental degradation. 

Q4) Do you agree that the primary focus of transition finance should be on a credible net zero transition in hard to abate and high emitting areas of the economy? Why / Why not? 

Yes, as stated previously in our response, we agree with this prioritisation as this will allow policymakers and investors to direct resources on those sectors may specifically necessitate substantial capital investments to drive significant emissions reductions and accelerate the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy. 

Q9) Do you agree with the approach that non-emissions-based and non climate-based considerations are included in the scope of transition finance? Why?/ Why not? 

We agree with the approach that non-emissions-based and non-climate-based considerations should be included in the scope of transition finance. It is important to incorporate non-emissions-based and non-climate-based considerations broadens the scope of transition finance to encompass various environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors that contribute to the overall sustainability of businesses and industries. Additionally, it is essential that the review explores the integration of other aspects such as nature, biodiversity, adaptation into the approach to transition finance. 

Including non-emissions-based and non-climate-based considerations acknowledges the complexity of transitioning to a sustainable economy and recognises that factors such as biodiversity conservation, resource efficiency, social equity, and human rights are integral to achieving long-term sustainability goals. Transition finance can play a vital role in supporting initiatives that promote biodiversity protection, circular economy principles, social inclusion, and ethical business practices, among other non-climate-related objectives. 

Furthermore, integrating non-emissions-based and non-climate-based considerations into transition finance aligns with broader sustainable development objectives, such as those outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Transition finance can contribute to achieving multiple SDGs by financing projects and initiatives that address a diverse set of environmental and social challenges, thereby fostering holistic and inclusive sustainability outcomes. 

Overall, including non-emissions-based and non-climate-based considerations in the scope of transition finance reflects the interconnected nature of sustainability challenges and the need for comprehensive approaches to address them. By embracing a broader range of environmental, social, and governance factors, transition finance can effectively support the transition to a more sustainable and resilient economy that benefits both present and future generations. 

Chapter 3 – Ensuring the Credibility and Integrity of Transition Finance 

Q10) Do you agree there is a significant role for good quality transition plans aligned with the TPT Disclosure Framework in the provision of transition finance? Why/ Why not? If yes, please describe this role.  

There is a significant role for good quality transition plans aligned with the TPT Disclosure Framework in the provision of transition finance. Transition plans serve as essential roadmaps for companies and organizations seeking to navigate the complex process of transitioning to a more sustainable and low-carbon future. When these plans are of high quality and aligned with recognized frameworks such as the TPT Disclosure Framework, they provide valuable information and assurance to investors, financial institutions, and other stakeholders involved in transition finance. However, transition finance should not solely rely on transition plans as the criterion. Transition finance will be necessary for companies and activities lacking established transition plans or where they may not be proportionate such directing finance to SME transitions or in regions with less developed practices.  

Nevertheless, good quality transition plans provide transparency and clarity regarding a company’s strategic approach to addressing climate-related risks and opportunities. Secondly, transition plans aligned with the TPT Disclosure Framework facilitate better risk management and decision-making for financial institutions and investors. They enable more informed assessments of the economic implications of climate-related risks and opportunities associated with companies’ transition efforts.  

Therefore, The TPT’s disclosure framework has the potential to become the leading “gold standard” in the realm of climate transition plans. It is crucial for the UK Government to prioritize efforts aimed at fostering interoperability between the TPT’s framework and established entities such as the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB), GFANZ, EU, and the OECD. This strategic alignment will facilitate consistency and coherence across international standards, enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of transition plans on a global scale. 

Eventually, we hope that transition plans become mandatory for large listed and unlisted companies in the UK, following the path of the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) Article 153, which will require large companies to align their strategy and business model with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Policymakers play a crucial role in shaping the scope of transition finance through these measures. 

Q13) Do you consider current guidance for transition finance to have credibility and demonstrate integrity from an economic, environmental and a broader sustainability perspective? Why / Why not? 

We believe that current guidance on transition finance presents a lack of uniform definitions, which diminishes their credibility and integrity.  

The credibility and integrity of current guidance for transition finance vary depending on the specific frameworks, standards, and practices employed. From an economic, environmental, and broader sustainability perspective, some guidance may demonstrate high credibility and integrity, while others may have limitations or room for improvement. 

From an economic standpoint, credible guidance for transition finance should provide investors and financial institutions with precise and reliable information to assess the financial risks and opportunities associated with transition investments. Currently, lack of clear guidance is blocking financial flows towards net zero. 

From an environmental perspective, credible guidance should ensure that transition finance initiatives contribute to meaningful ecological outcomes, such as greenhouse gas emissions reduction, biodiversity conservation, and resource efficiency. In this case, attention should be paid to greenwashing risks. This requires alignment with established environmental standards and best practices, as well as mechanisms for monitoring, reporting, and verifying environmental impact. Guidance that integrates science-based targets, environmental impact assessments, and lifecycle analysis can demonstrate integrity in addressing environmental challenges and promoting sustainable outcomes. 

Q15) Do you consider there to be a role for taxonomies in the provision of transition finance? Why / Why not? If yes, please describe this role and consider any interaction with the role of transition plans. 

Yes, taxonomies could play a crucial role in providing transition finance by providing a standardised framework for classifying and identifying transition-related activities and investments. Taxonomies serve as classification systems that categorise economic activities based on their environmental sustainability characteristics, such as their contribution to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and other sustainability objectives. However, the role of taxonomies in providing transition finance would depend on the specifics of each taxonomy and its purpose. Taxonomies should also be grounded in scientific principles and consider regional and policy contexts. 

One of the primary roles of taxonomies in transition finance is to facilitate transparency and clarity for investors, financial institutions, and other stakeholders by defining what qualifies as transition-related activities. Taxonomies should establish clear criteria and eligibility requirements, helping investors identify investment opportunities that align with their sustainability goals and preferences. This enables capital to be channelled more effectively towards activities that support the transition to a low-carbon and sustainable economy. If, unlike the EU taxonomy, the UK taxonomy identifies sectoral pathways, it will guide investors on how to align their financing with these pathways, thus allowing the provision of transition finance. 

The UK Government should clarify its approach to the expected UK Green Taxonomy as a matter of urgency for businesses to keep progressing with their sustainability objectives.   

Q16) What are the specific challenges in ensuring both the credibility and integrity of transition finance, whilst addressing the contextual needs of local decarbonisation pathways? What can the UK market for financial and professional services do to address these challenges? 

Identifying companies committed to a credible net-zero transition is hindered primarily by information gaps and the absence of comparable data. A study by the OECD shows that 80% of financial markets respondents viewed lack of detailed information from corporates on the content and format of their transition plans as a key obstacle. In addition, 76% consider a lack of comparability of relevant data and transition plans as a critical challenge.4 

Additionally, differences in countries’ net-zero commitments and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) exacerbate existing data complexities. Consequently, international investors and financial institutions encounter difficulties in comparing the environmental integrity of company strategies across various jurisdictions. Likewise, without sector-specific pathways at the national level, companies frequently face challenges in formulating robust, long-term climate transition plans. Additionally, the lack of credibility leads to reputational risks as it can increase the risk to firms of accusations around greenwashing.  

Apart from data challenges, gaps and deficiencies within the enabling environment remain, encompassing the policy, legal, and institutional frameworks at the country or regional level, which must be addressed to fully support a transition towards lower emissions. This includes the absence of fiscal incentives, such as inadequate carbon pricing or public investments, and a scarcity or fragmentation of the relevant policy frameworks affecting the real economy. These frameworks may involve restrictions or limitations on polluting technologies, pertinent environmental impact assessments, and procedures related to tendering and procurement. 

Guiding credible corporate transition plans has the potential to alleviate some of these challenges, particularly those stemming from information and data gaps. Therefore, the UK financial and professional services market can spearhead initiatives to enhance transparency and comparability. Firstly, advocating for adopting standardized reporting frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), can ensure companies disclose their transition plans and progress towards net-zero goals consistently. Collaborating with national and international organizations and standard-setting bodies can further harmonize data across jurisdictions, enabling easier comparison of company strategies and performance. 

Q17) Do you think there is a need for different approaches to transition finance across different jurisdictions, considering they may have different transition pathways?  

Different jurisdictions require tailored approaches to transition finance due to the diversity of transition pathways, priorities, and contextual factors. Transitioning to a sustainable, low-carbon economy involves a complex process influenced by factors such as resource availability, regulatory frameworks, economic structures, and cultural considerations. Therefore, adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to transition finance may overlook each region’s unique challenges and opportunities. If transition finance approaches are tailored to specific jurisdictions, stakeholders can address the distinct circumstances and transition pathways of each region more effectively, thus maximizing the impact of sustainable finance initiatives.  

Moreover, considering the varying levels of infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and access to capital across jurisdictions, customised transition finance approaches can address specific barriers to financing sustainable projects. For instance, in developing countries, transition finance may need to focus on building capacity and providing technical assistance to overcome challenges related to project implementation and financing mechanisms. 

Q19) Are there any unintended consequences of scaling up transition finance in the UK or internationally that you are concerned about? If so, what can be done to avoid or mitigate them? 

While essential for accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy, scaling up transition finance may also entail unintended consequences that warrant consideration. One potential concern is the risk of greenwashing, where companies use deceptive practices to portray themselves as more environmentally friendly than they are. Regulatory authorities should establish clear criteria and standards for transition finance to mitigate this risk, ensuring transparency and accountability in reporting and disclosure. Additionally, robust verification mechanisms and independent audits can help identify and address instances of greenwashing, safeguarding the integrity of transition finance initiatives. 

Policy frameworks, including the EU CSRD, must ensure that the wording is not vague and does not leave room for greenwashing risks. The government should clearly state what needs to be included in a transition plan and establish an enforcement mechanism. Companies may superficially comply with the legislation without these measures, but there will not be real corporate climate action. Therefore, besides being a mere regulatory requirement, the Government must ensure that companies provide robust transition plans so that banks and investors feel confident in their investment decisions. 


Chapter 4 – Barriers to the Applications of Transition Finance 

Q20) Do you consider there to be major barriers that currently limit your ability to access or deploy capital or financial services to support a credible net zero transition? Why / Why not? If so, what are these? 

Yes, major barriers currently limit our ability to access or deploy capital and financial services to support a credible net zero transition. These barriers stem from various factors. One significant barrier is the lack of clear and consistent definitions, standards, and frameworks for transition finance. Without universally agreed-upon guidelines, investors may struggle to identify suitable investment opportunities aligned with their sustainability objectives. Regulatory uncertainty poses another obstacle. Inconsistent or evolving regulations across jurisdictions can create ambiguity and increase the perceived risk of investments in transition finance projects. Clear and stable regulatory frameworks are essential to give banks and investors the confidence they need to effectively deploy capital. The Government should deliver on the Green Finance Strategy, including on the much-awaited Green Taxonomy.  

Access to reliable and standardised data on companies’ and projects’ environmental and social performance is crucial for assessing investment risks and opportunities. However, data availability and quality remain significant challenges, particularly in emerging markets and sectors with complex supply chains. Transition finance projects may be perceived as riskier than traditional investments due to uncertainties surrounding technological, regulatory, and market developments. As a result, investors may demand higher returns or impose stricter risk management requirements, making it more challenging to access affordable capital. Building internal capacity and expertise to evaluate, structure, and manage transition finance projects can be resource-intensive and time-consuming. Many investors may lack the knowledge and experience to navigate the complexities of sustainable finance effectively. Moreover, the transition finance market is still relatively fragmented, with many stakeholders operating across different sectors and regions. Fragmentation can lead to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and difficulty scaling up investments to achieve meaningful impact.  

Addressing these barriers will require concerted efforts from policymakers, regulators, financial institutions, and other stakeholders. Measures such as establishing clear regulatory frameworks, enhancing data transparency and accessibility, promoting capacity building and knowledge sharing, and fostering collaboration and standardization initiatives can help overcome these challenges and unlock the full potential of transition finance to support a credible net zero transition. 

Q23) Do you consider risk a major barrier to accessing or deploying capital or financial services to support a credible transition? If so, please provide examples and highlight any supportive de-risking tools. 

Yes, investors may perceive these transitions as risky due to potential regulatory changes, market disruptions, or technological uncertainties. Green finance policies and standards, established by governments and regulatory bodies, are pivotal in driving the transition to a sustainable economy. Governments incentivise investment in environmentally friendly projects through tax incentives, subsidies, and regulatory mandates while integrating environmental and social considerations into financial decision-making processes. For instance, tax credits for renewable energy investments and grants for energy efficiency upgrades encourage capital flows towards projects supporting a credible transition to a low-carbon economy.  

Moreover, green finance standards and certification schemes provide clarity and credibility in the market by standardizing definitions and criteria for sustainable investments. Investors benefit from clear guidelines for identifying credible green projects, while certification schemes, like green bonds certifications, signal adherence to environmental criteria, reducing information asymmetry and bolstering market confidence. Capacity building initiatives and technical assistance further support the development of green finance markets, equipping financial institutions, investors, and project developers with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate sustainable finance practices effectively. By aligning financial incentives with sustainability objectives and promoting transparency and accountability, green finance policies and standards accelerate the transition to a resilient, low-carbon economy. 

Additionally, several studies, such as one by the Stockholm Environment Institute, have found that customer demand and preferences are important de-risking tools. Institutional investors are exerting pressure on asset managers in private equity and mutual funds to enhance their ESG efforts and demonstrate advancements in sustainable finance. Entities with direct connections to retail investors, such as pension funds and mutual funds, increasingly emphasise the importance of marketing funds and solutions that carry labels such as green or ethical.5 

Q27) Do SMEs face particular barriers to the access and deployment of transition finance? If so, please provide examples and highlight any good examples of efforts to address these. 

SMEs face numerous barriers to the access and deployment of transition finance. Lack of knowledge is one of the main ones, given that SMEs are not aware that they may be expected to produce a transition plan for business partners or regulators, nor are they aware of the impact and value the transition planning process could bring to their organisation. In the UK, 34% of business owners and managers attributed a lack of knowledge as the main barrier to having a sustainability strategy for net zero action. 6 This lack of understanding could lead to unintentional greenwashing. Despite nearly 60% of UK SMEs being reasonably aware of net zero concepts, over half (53%) are not ready to prioritise decarbonisation.7 As SMEs may continue to face increasing transition plan and emissions disclosure requests from their banks and buyers, it is critical to ensure that trustworthy, credible transition planning resources are available for SMEs access and develop their climate strategies. 

Additionally, without dominant frameworks for SME emissions reporting, there is no consistent approach to collecting, measuring, and storing data and no common process for SMEs to report GHG emissions. Larger disclosure standards were developed to account for national and international issues and were modelled after the needs and resources of large companies, SMEs typically act on a local/regional level. Disclosure requirements are therefore often complex and disproportionate to each SME’s size and sector.   

SMEs are navigating a wide range of inconsistent and technically challenging data requests from multiple stakeholders and struggle to determine what topics are relevant and applicable to their business. For example, a British Business Bank study found that 65% of SMEs state current reporting standards are too complex and that they would be more likely to engage if standards were tailored and simpler. 8 Larger corporations and financial services providers, who are obligated to measure and report their Scope 3 emissions have emphasised how irregular data collection methods mean they cannot effectively report on sustainability performance or ensure the credibility and reliability of their climate risk management practice. The Government should establish a clear, proportionate, and realistic guidance for SMEs to report GHG emissions.  


Chapter 5 – The opportunity for investments, products, and services to advance transition finance globally 

31) How should the government, and other public bodies such as public finance institutions and local authorities, collaborate with industry, the finance sector and investors to create a supportive ecosystem for transition finance? Please consider factors such as i) the balance of public and private capital risk responsibility and ii) where expertise is located.  

Understanding of where expertise is concentrated is essential for optimising collaboration efforts. Leveraging this dispersed expertise through strategic partnerships can enhance the effectiveness of transition finance initiatives.  

34) Do you think the UK government could better use blended finance approaches to de-risk and scale up transition finance? Why / Why not? If yes, please explain. 

The UK government could significantly enhance its efforts in transition finance by embracing blended finance approaches. Blended finance, which combines public and private sector resources to fund projects with social or environmental objectives, offers a powerful mechanism for de-risking and scaling up investments in sustainability.  

The EU’s Green Deal seeks to leverage regional budget allocations to trigger €372bn in private investment by employing guarantees and other blended finance mechanisms. Meanwhile, America’s Inflation Reduction Act allocates $369bn towards a combination of tax credits, loan guarantees, and grants for energy- and climate-focused initiatives, resulting in evident redirection of global investments into the nation. These established strategies offer proven pathways for the UK to narrow the gap. The UK Government has numerous opportunities to establish partnerships and catch-up with their counterparts.  

A report by the Grantham Research Institute shows that, if done well, blended finance initiatives could mobilise the capital needed to create more jobs, better health, increased housing, and cleaner energy. The report provides numerous local examples that show how blended finance approaches can mobilise finance to address the social and environmental challenges that the UK faces. 

One recommendation to Government is the establishment of a Net Zero Investment Plan, which would provide the policy certainty that the private sector needs to encourage the use of limited public resources to attract private finance. A national assigned independent body would then propose measures for the Government to address market obstacles and mobilize the private investment required to achieve the UK’s climate objectives. 

Overall, the UK Government has a significant opportunity to optimise its transition finance efforts through the strategic use of blended finance mechanisms, unlocking new opportunities for sustainable development and climate action. 

Q36) Do you think there is a role for the UK to facilitate the development of global thought leadership on transition finance, and if so, what strategies could it employ to influence and facilitate this development? 

The UK can significantly foster global thought leadership on transition finance by employing various strategies. These include establishing knowledge-sharing platforms to facilitate collaboration and learning, allocating funding for research and development initiatives, and fostering public-private partnerships. The UK will again have to show its thought leadership in the upcoming G20 Summit and COP29.  


Elena Pérez Celis 

Head of Policy & Public Affairs