《ZYen：2025全球綠色金融指數報告（第15期）（英文版）（75頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《ZYen：2025全球綠色金融指數報告（第15期）（英文版）（75頁）.pdf（75頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、The Global Green Finance Index 15 April 2025 Sustainable Futures Beginning in March 2018,as part of its Long Finance initiative,Z/Yen published the first five editions of the Global Green Finance Index with the generous support of the MAVA Foundation,and more recently with support from Abu Dhabi Glo

2、bal Market.Z/Yen continues this work and is pleased to present the fourteenth edition of the Global Green Finance Index(GGFI 15).Z/Yen helps organisations make better choices-our clients consider us a commercial think-tank that spots,solves,and acts.Our name combines Zen and Yen-a philosophical desi

3、re to succeed-in a ratio,recognising that all decisions are trade-offs.One of Z/Yens specialisms is the development and publication of research combining factor analysis and professional assessments.Long Finance is a Z/Yen initiative designed to address the question“When would we know our financial

4、system is working?”This question underlies Long Finances goal to improve societys understanding and use of finance over the long-term.In contrast to the short-termism that defines todays economic views the Long Finance time-frame is roughly 100 years.The authors of this report,Mike Wardle,Simon Mill

5、s,and Professor Michael Mainelli,would like to thank Bikash Kharel,Sasha Davis,and the rest of the Z/Yen team for their contributions with research,modelling,and ideas.Cover Photo by Danist Soh on Unsplash Global Green Finance Index 15 1 Foreword It gives me great pleasure to introduce this new edit

6、ion of the Global Green Finance Index,an essential barometer of the worlds progress towards green and responsible finance.At Casablanca Finance City(CFC),we are firmly committed to accelerating the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in Morocco and beyond.As a leading African fi

7、nancial centre,we recognize the urgency of mobilising capital,technical expertise,and human talent toward the most transformative and sustainable projects.Our strategic location at the crossroads of continents makes CFC an ideal platform to catalyse cross-border investment in climate-positive initia

8、tives.Despite current headwinds,I strongly believe sustainability to be a foundational pillar for long-term economic resilience,social well-being,and planetary preservation for the generations to come.Over the past decade,CFC has actively promoted ESG principles among its community of investors,fina

9、ncial institutions,and corporates.Our efforts included raising awareness,contributing to the capacity building effort,advocating for sustainability disclosure,or promoting innovation across several verticals from capital markets to investment funds and FinTechs.Looking ahead,we are proud to be spear

10、heading the development of a regional voluntary carbon market initiative.This ambitious project will serve as a much-needed platform for businesses and governments alike to trade carbon credits transparently and efficiently,while supporting nature-based solutions and emissions reduction across the c

11、ontinent.We see this as a vital mechanism to both channel green investment and contribute to the global effort against climate change.Africa has a crucial role to play in the global sustainability agenda,and financial centres must lead by example.Through collaboration,innovation,and purpose-driven l

12、eadership,we can unlock the full potential of green finance to drive inclusive and sustainable growth.I commend Z/Yen for their valuable work,and I trust the report will provide you with significant and actionable insights.Said IBRAHIMI CEO Casablanca Finance City Authority Global Green Finance Inde

13、x 15 2 Summary Overview This is the fifteenth edition of the Global Green Finance Index(GGFI 15).The GGFI is a factor assessment index,based on a range of instrumental factors-quantitative measures-and a worldwide survey of finance professionals assessments on the quality and depth of green finance

14、offerings in financial centres.GGFI 15 features 95 financial centres.There has been a continuing drop in confidence in the development of green finance in financial centres.In the last edition of the index,the average rating was down 1.96%,whereas in this edition the average rating is down 5.91%comp

15、ared with GGFI 14,with all centres dropping in the ratings.This may reflect changes in the outlook for the economy generally and the change in government direction in the US.We continue to see strong performance from Western European centres,which reflects their history of developing green finance p

16、roducts and expertise.US centres perform less well in GGFI 15,reflecting uncertainty over the future policy direction in the US.Canadian centres perform well.The general commitment of a city or jurisdiction to sustainability is a strong influence on the depth and quality of green finance in a financ

17、ial centre.Among those responding to the GGFI survey,Green Loans,Renewable Energy Investment,and Social and Impact Investment are rated as the areas of green finance with most impact,while ESG Analytics,Renewable Energy Investment,and Sustainable Infrastructure are seen as the areas of most interest

18、.Policy and Regulatory Frameworks,Public Awareness,and Renewables are listed by respondents as the major drivers of green finance.These underline the importance of regulatory frameworks and demand in green finance.In the supplement to this edition of the GGFI,we provide an update on the development

19、of sovereign sustainability-linked bonds(SSLBs)and their potential to provide support in emerging economies in particular.We also review recent changes in the frameworks governing their issuance provided by international,national,and regional authorities.Index Results London retained its first posit

20、ion in the index,while Zurich,Singapore,and Geneva retained second,third,and fourth positions.Oslo and Toronto entered the top 10 in this edition of the index,replacing New York and Los Angeles.Western European centres take seven of the top 10 places,with Canadian centres taking two.Singapore is the

21、 only Asia/Pacific centre in this leading group.No US centres feature in the top 10.The margins separating centres at the top of the index are small.Among the top 10 centres the spread of ratings is only 13 points out of 1,000.Fifteen centres rose 10 or more places in the rankings.Six centres fell 1

22、0 or more places.Western Europe Seven Western European centres feature in the top 10 in GGFI 15 and a further six centres feature in the top 20.Brussels,Vienna,Malta,and Liechtenstein rose 10 or more rank places.The average rating among Western European centres fell 5.7%.Global Green Finance Index 1

23、5 3 North America Montreal,Toronto,and Vancouver lead in the region,while New York and Los Angeles fell to 16th and 14th place respectively.Vancouver,Minneapolis/St Paul,Calgary,and Miami rose 10 or more places.The average rating for centres in North America fell 6.05%.Asia/Pacific Singapore maintai

24、ned its third position overall and leads the Asia/Pacific region,ahead of Busan,Seoul,and Sydney.The majority of centres in the region fell in the rankings,with only Busan,Shanghai,Melbourne,Qingdao,Osaka,and Bangkok Improving their rank.The average decrease in the ratings in Asia/Pacific was 6.52%.

25、Middle East&Africa Dubai led in the Middle East&Africa,rising one place to 34th position.Tel Aviv rose seven rank places to regional second place followed by Abu Dhabi and Casablanca.Casablanca continues as the leading GGFI centre in Africa.Most centres in the region rose in the rankings,with Maurit

26、ius,Bahrain,and Nairobi gaining more than 10 places.The average rating in the region fell 5.41%,the smallest reduction among the regions.Latin America&The Caribbean Sao Paulo and Santiago continued to lead the Latin America&The Caribbean region with Rio de Janeiro overtaking Mexico City to take thir

27、d position.All centres in the region either maintained or improved their rank position.The average rating in the region fell by 5.55%.Eastern Europe&Central Asia Kaunas took the leading position in Eastern Europe&Central Asia,with Prague overtaking Astana to take second position.Kaunas,Prague,and Wa

28、rsaw rose 10 or more places in the ranking.The average rating in the region fell 5.64%.GGFI 15 GGFI 15 was compiled using 124 instrumental factors.These quantitative measures are provided by third parties including the World Bank,the OECD,and the United Nations.Details can be found in Appendix 5.The

29、 instrumental factors were combined with 4,024 financial centre assessments provided by respondents to the GGFI online questionnaire.A breakdown of the 582 respondents is shown in Appendix 3.Further details of the methodology behind GGFI 15 are in Appendix 4.The 95 centres listed in GGFI 15 are thos

30、e which received a minimum of 25 assessments from survey respondents located outside of those centres.Assessments of respondents home centres were excluded from the data,in order to avoid home centre bias.Global Green Finance Index 15 4 GGFI 15 Ranks And Ratings Table 1|GGFI 15 Ranks And Ratings Cen

31、tre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating London 1 598 1 634 0 36 Zurich 2 597 2 633 0 36 Singapore 3 592 3 630 0 38 Geneva 4 591 4 628 0 37 Copenhagen 5 590 9 622 4 32 Oslo 6 589 11 620 5 31 Stockholm 7 588 6 625 1 37 Montreal 8 587 10 621 2 34 Luxembourg 9 586 8 6

32、23 1 37 Toronto 10 585 16 615 6 30 Paris 11 584 18 613 7 29 Vancouver 12 583 22 609 10 26 Lugano 13 582 13 618 0 36 Los Angeles 14 581 7 624 7 43 Amsterdam 15 580 23 608 8 28 New York 16 579 5 626 11 47 Brussels 17 578 27 604 10 26 Edinburgh 18 577 19 612 1 35 Washington DC 19 576 12 619 7 43 Madrid

33、 20 575 28 603 8 28 Minneapolis/St Paul 21 574 31 599 10 25 Frankfurt 22 573 20 611 2 38 San Diego 23 572 14 617 9 45 Busan 24 571 30 600 6 29 Munich 25 570 26 605 1 35 Seoul 26 569 21 610 5 41 Hamburg 27 568 25 606 2 38 Calgary 28 567 49 581 21 14 Chicago 29 566 15 616 14 50 Sydney 30 565 29 602 1

34、37 Shanghai 31 564 34 596 3 32 San Francisco 32 563 17 614 15 51 Shenzhen 33 562 24 607 9 45 Dubai 34 561 35 595 1 34 Melbourne 35 560 37 593 2 33 Qingdao 36 559 40 590 4 31 Atlanta 37 558 41 589 4 31 Vienna 38 557 52 578 14 21 Glasgow 39 556 36 594 3 38 Beijing 40 555 33 597 7 42 Boston 41 554 32 5

35、98 9 44 Hong Kong 42 553 38 592 4 39 Tel Aviv 43 552 50 580 7 28 Rome 44 551 43 587 1 36 Kaunas 45 550 58 572 13 22 Lisbon 46 549 48 582 2 33 Osaka 47 548 51 579 4 31 Global Green Finance Index 15 5 Table 1(continued)|GGFI 15 Ranks And Ratings Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating R

36、ank Rating Rank Rating Abu Dhabi 48 547 39 591 9 44 Berlin 49 546 44 586 5 40 Casablanca 50 545 47 583 3 38 Milan 51 544 46 584 5 40 Tokyo 52 543 42 588 10 45 Dublin 53 542 56 574 3 32 Sao Paulo 54 541 59 571 5 30 Santiago 55 540 64 566 9 26 Prague 56 539 66 564 10 25 Miami 57 538 67 563 10 25 Guang

37、zhou 58 537 54 576 4 39 Philadelphia 59 536 53 577 6 41 Malta 60 535 73 557 13 22 Isle of Man 61 534 57 573 4 39 Jersey 62 533 60 570 2 37 Astana 63 532 62 568 1 36 Mauritius 64 531 74 556 10 25 Sofia 65 530 69 561 4 31 Warsaw 66 529 83 547 17 18 Guernsey 67 528 61 569 6 41 Riga 68 527 76 554 8 27 R

38、io de Janeiro 69 526 79 551 10 25 Mexico City 70 525 71 559 1 34 Liechtenstein 71 524 86 544 15 20 Doha 72 523 75 555 3 32 Bahrain 73 522 90 540 17 18 Jakarta 74 521 63 567 11 46 Kigali 75 520 80 550 5 30 New Delhi 76 519 68 562 8 43 Johannesburg 77 518 70 560 7 42 Bangkok 78 517 82 548 4 31 Bermuda

39、 79 516 84 546 5 30 Kuala Lumpur 80 515 78 552 2 37 Cape Town 81 514 85 545 4 31 Moscow 82 513 87 543 5 30 Riyadh 83 512 88 542 5 30 Nairobi 84 511 95 530 11 19 Istanbul 85 510 77 553 8 43 Monaco 86 509 72 558 14 49 Manila 87 508 81 549 6 41 St Petersburg 88 507 New New New New Bahamas 89 506 89 541

40、 0 35 Cyprus 90 505 92 538 2 33 Almaty 91 504 94 536 3 32 Lagos 92 503 97 524 5 21 Cayman Islands 93 501 93 537 0 36 British Virgin Islands 94 499 96 527 2 28 Mumbai 95 497 91 539 4 42 Global Green Finance Index 15 6 GGFI Dimensions The GGFI ascertains the green finance performance of international

41、financial centres by asking practitioners to rate them on two dimensions:The depth to which green finance has penetrated the business of the financial centre,i.e.the prevalence of green financial services and products within the financial centre in question.The quality of the green finance products

42、and services on offer.The purpose of tracking both aspects is to enable respondents to rate a financial centre independently from its market volumes.For example,if a centre adopts weak green labelling standards in a bid to boost volumes,this may show up in the GGFI as a lower quality rating.The addi

43、tional data generated through this approach increases granularity.This allows the identification of trends and can assist policy makers to track the impacts of their decisions.The detailed ratings of the dimensions for the top 15 centres are shown in table 2.Additional details are in Appendix 1.Tabl

44、e 2|Top 15 Centres-Rating Details For Depth And Quality Dimensions GGFI 15 Rank GGFI Dimensions Centre Green Finance Depth Green Finance Quality Rank Rating Rank Rating 1 London 2 292 2 306 2 Zurich 7 289 1 308 3 Singapore 7 289 3 303 4 Geneva 2 292 6 299 5 Copenhagen 5 290 5 300 6 Oslo 1 295 14 294

45、 7 Stockholm 11 287 4 301 8 Montreal 2 292 11 295 9 Luxembourg 11 287 6 299 10 Toronto 11 287 9 298 11 Paris 14 285 6 299 12 Vancouver 7 289 14 294 13 Lugano 14 285 10 297 14 Los Angeles 5 290 21 291 15 Amsterdam 14 285 11 295 Global Green Finance Index 15 7 Chart 1 shows the relationship between ra

46、tings of the depth and quality dimensions in the index and the generally close correlation between the assessments of each factor by respondents.Centres close to the trend line are balanced for depth and quality,centres further away have either a better rating for depth,or for quality.The relative s

47、core of Munich,Philadelphia,and Bangkok for green finance quality are high compared with their scores in depth.On the other side of the line,Oslo,Beijing,and Astana have high relative scores for depth.Chart 1|Relationship Between Ratings Of Depth And Quality Chart 2 shows the contribution of each of

48、 the dimensions to the overall rating for the top 40 centres in the GGFI.London came first for green finance quality but equal third for green finance depth.Successful financial centres focused on green finance have both good quality products and services in their green markets,and depth of investme

49、nt.“Regulation will not help until there is a global shift to common reporting standards-in the last 10 years carbon loading in particular has shifted to jurisdictions that just do not care.”CEO,PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM,HONG KONG Global Green Finance Index 15 8 Chart 2|The Contribution Of The Dime

50、nsions To The Overall Rating-GGFI 15 Top 40 Centres Global Green Finance Index 15 9 Regional Performance The average rating of the top five centres in all regions fell,with Western Europe just ahead of North America on this measure.The leading Asia/Pacific centres follow,and the leading centres in t

51、he Middle East&Africa dropped back a little compared with other regions.Chart 3|Average Ratings Of The Top Five Centres In Each Region“Financial centres with progressive policies and regulations that support green finance,such as green taxonomies,mandatory climate risk disclosures,and incentives for

52、 sustainable investment are better positioned to develop and expand their green finance markets.For instance,the European Unions Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation(SFDR)has played a significant role in mainstreaming green finance.”HEAD OF COMMUNICATIONS,BANK,MAURITIUS Global Green Finance Ind

53、ex 15 10 Examination of the quality and depth dimensions demonstrates that on both measures,the average rating for the top five centres in all regions fell.In the depth scores,the leading centres in the Middle East&Africa lost ground against the leading Eastern European&Central Asia centres.In the q

54、uality measure,the leading centres in North America fell back and those in Eastern Europe&Central Asia narrowly overtook those in Latin America&The Caribbean.Chart 4|Average Ratings For Depth Of The Top Five Centres In Each Region Chart 5|Average Ratings For Quality Of The Top Five Centres In Each R

55、egion Global Green Finance Index 15 11 Top Five Centres Competition at the top of the index continued to be fierce.Only eight points separate London in first position from Copenhagen in fifth.Chart 6|The Top Five Centres Over Time When the depth dimension is examined,Geneva matches London,and Copenh

56、agen takes third position.The leading centres are closely matched with only three rating points separating them on the depth rating.Chart 7|Ratings For The Depth Dimension In The Top Five Centres Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 12 On the quality measure,Zurich takes the top position followed

57、 by London and Singapore.Nine points separate the top five centres on this measure.Chart 8|Ratings For The Quality Dimension In The Top Five Centres Over Time“Developing expertise in green finance requires specialised knowledge.Training programmes,workshops,and certification can enhance professional

58、s skills in areas like sustainable investment analysis,ESG integration,and green project financing.Financial centres also benefit from partnerships with universities and research institutions.These collaborations foster research,innovation,and talent development.”COMPLIANCE ANALYST,PROFESSIONAL SERV

59、ICES FIRM,MAURITIUS Global Green Finance Index 15 13 Leading Financial Centres It is notable that some leading financial centres perform less well than expected in the GGFI,considering their performance in the Global Financial Centres Index(GFCI),which has been measuring financial centre competitive

60、ness since 2007.We can compare the centres which rank in the top 20 in the GFCI with their performance in the GGFI.This shows some disconnection between the highest performing centres in the GFCI and performance on green finance in the GGFI.In total,nine centres feature in the top 20 in both measure

61、s with London and Singapore featuring in the top 10 in both indices.Table 3|Leading Financial Centres-Comparison of GGFI And GFCI Rankings Centre Global Green Finance Index 15 Green Finance Depth Green Finance Quality Financial Centre Competitiveness New York 16 18 11 1 London 1 2 2 2 Hong Kong 42 3

62、6 52 3 Singapore 3 7 3 4 San Francisco 32 31 35 5 Chicago 29 29 30 6 Los Angeles 14 5 21 7 Shanghai 31 36 25 8 Shenzhen 33 28 38 9 Seoul 26 25 25 10 Frankfurt 22 19 22 11 Dubai 34 33 36 12 Washington DC 19 19 18 13 Dublin 53 44 58 14 Geneva 4 2 6 15 Luxembourg 9 11 6 16 Paris 11 14 6 17 Amsterdam 15

63、 14 11 18 Boston 41 41 40 19 Beijing 40 33 49 20 Source GGFI 15 Rank GGFI 15 Depth Rank GGFI 15 Quality Rank GFCI 37 Rank Global Green Finance Index 15 14 GGFI 15 Further Analysis Expected Change In Centres We asked respondents whether the centres they rated would improve,decline,or stay the same in

64、 relation to their green finance offering over the next two to three years.The results for the top 10 centres are displayed in Chart 9,showing high levels of confidence,with the majority of respondents predicting an improvement by all centres in this group,and with very high levels of confidence in

65、Geneva,Zurich,London,and Singapore.Chart 9|Top 10 Centres-Expected Change In Green Finance Offering“I would like to see much more profiling of the use and advantages of carbon credits in Chinas private sector.”CHAIRMAN,PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM,SHANGHAI Global Green Finance Index 15 15 Instrumental

66、 Factors The GGFI is a factor assessment index,based on a worldwide survey of finance professionals assessments on the quality and depth of green finance offerings in financial centres.These assessments are run through a statistical model which uses 127 instrumental factors relating to a range of as

67、pects of financial centre competitiveness.These include measures of sustainability,the business environment,infrastructure,and human capital.Table 4 shows the top 15 instrumental factors correlation with the GGFI ranking.The closest correlation is with the Urban Mobility Readiness Index,the Safe Cit

68、ies Index,and the Future Growth Report.Table 4|Top 15 Instrumental Factors By R-Squared Correlation Instrumental Factor R-Squared Urban Mobility Readiness Index 0.694 Safe Cities Index 0.682 The Future Growth Report 0.658 Blavatnik Index Of Public Administration 0.638 Legatum Prosperity Index 0.637

69、IESE Cities In Motion Index 0.613 Global Cities Outlook ranking 0.610 Quality Of Living City Rankings 0.604 Sustainable Economic Development 0.577 International IP Index 0.576 The Green Future Index 0.567 Adjusted Net National Income Per Capita 0.567 The Global Financial Centres Index 0.560 Global I

70、nnovation Index 0.557 Energy Transition Index 0.538“The regulatory environment is slow in adapting to a changing ecosystem.”TRADER,JOHANNESBURG Global Green Finance Index 15 16 Focusing only on the instrumental factors which relate to sustainability,the factors most closely correlated in terms of th

71、eir R-Squared relationship with the GGFI rankings are set out in Table 5.The leading factors continue to focus on cities as sustainable places and on the development of the green economy.Table 5|Top 15 Sustainability Instrumental Factors By R-Squared Correlation Sustainability Factors R-Squared Urba

72、n Mobility Readiness Index 0.694 The Future Growth Report 0.658 IESE Cities In Motion Index 0.613 Quality Of Living City Rankings 0.604 Sustainable Economic Development 0.577 The Green Future Index 0.567 Energy Transition Index 0.538 World Energy Trilemma Index 0.524 Sustainable Cities Index 0.521 T

73、he Global Green Economy Index 0.434 Environmental Performance 0.414 Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 0.403 Proportion Of Population Using Safely-Managed Drinking-Water Services(%)0.265 Global Green Growth Index 0.244 Quality Of Life Index 0.244 Global Green Finance Index 15 17 Areas Of Compe

74、titiveness The instrumental factors used in the GGFI model are grouped into four broad areas:Sustainability Infrastructure Human Capital Business These areas,and the instrumental factor themes which comprise each area,are shown in Chart 10.Chart 10|GGFI Areas Of Competitiveness Global Green Finance

75、Index 15 18 To assess how financial centres green finance offerings perform against each of these areas,the GGFI statistical model is run for each area of competitiveness separately,allowing a picture to be built of centres strengths and weaknesses.The performance of the top ranked 15 centres in eac

76、h of these areas is illustrated in table 6.The leading centres in the GGFI have strengths across all four areas of competitiveness.Some centres are strong in a particular area,for example,Luxembourg in Infrastructure or Los Angeles in Sustainability.Table 6|Top 15 Centres By Area Of Competitiveness

77、Rank Sustainability Business Human Capital Infrastructure 1 Luxembourg Zurich London London 2 London London Luxembourg Los Angeles 3 Oslo Luxembourg Zurich Luxembourg 4 Zurich Copenhagen Geneva Singapore 5 Geneva Geneva Copenhagen Paris 6 Singapore Oslo Singapore Oslo 7 Copenhagen Lugano Oslo Zurich

78、 8 Amsterdam Singapore Montreal Geneva 9 New York Stockholm Stockholm Copenhagen 10 Los Angeles Montreal Paris Montreal 11 Paris New York Amsterdam New York 12 Stockholm Paris New York Lugano 13 Montreal Toronto Toronto Vancouver 14 Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Toronto 15 Toronto Amsterdam Los Ange

79、les Stockholm Global Green Finance Index 15 19 Index Ranking For Sustainability We can compare the overall index ranking with the ranking based on the sustainability area of competitiveness,using only the instrumental factors that have a direct relationship to sustainability.This analysis produces s

80、lightly different results to the main index,as shown in the comparison in Table 7.The plus and minus figures show the difference between the main index and the index calculated using only sustainability factors.Where only sustainability factors are included in the analysis,Paris retains its position

81、.Luxembourg,Amsterdam,and New York gain seven or more places,while Lugano drops out of the top 15.Table 7|Top 15 Centres Using All Factors And Only Sustainability Factors Rank All Factors Sustainability Factors 1 London Luxembourg(+8)2 Zurich London(-1)3 Singapore Oslo(+3)4 Geneva Zurich(-2)5 Copenh

82、agen Geneva(-1)6 Oslo Singapore(-3)7 Stockholm Copenhagen(-2)8 Montreal Amsterdam(+7)9 Luxembourg New York(+7)10 Toronto Los Angeles(+4)11 Paris Paris 12 Vancouver Stockholm(-5)13 Lugano Montreal(-5)14 Los Angeles Vancouver(-2)15 Amsterdam Toronto(-5)“Charting carbon tax or ETS on carbon emissions i

83、s essential.Also providing subsidies to R&D and capital spending related to low carbon energy and products and services.”PROFESSOR,UNIVERSITY,TOKYO Global Green Finance Index 15 20 Commentary On Factors The GGFI survey asks respondents to comment on factors that affect the uptake of green finance,an

84、d in particular on regulation,taxation,and the availability of skills.The responses are summarised in Table 8.Table 8|Commentary On Areas Of Competitiveness Area Of Competitiveness Number Of Mentions Main Themes Regulatory Environment 96 A robust regulatory framework,including mandatory ESG disclosu

85、re and clear green taxonomies,is crucial to integrate green finance.Stricter regulation may discourage financial institutions and investors,without consistency across jurisdictions.Developing and enforcing carbon credit standards and strengthening taxonomy implementation are key green finance growth

86、.The Availability Of Skills In Green Finance 84 Green finance requires specialised skills in sustainability,ESG criteria,and capacity building,which can be enhanced through training programs,certifications,and collaborations with academia.There is a significant need for upskilling in green finance,e

87、specially through accessible educational programs,to address knowledge gaps and drive broader adoption in the financial sector.Taxation 88 Tax incentives,such as credits for renewable energy and energy-efficient projects,are crucial for driving green finance investments and adoption,as seen in Mauri

88、tius and other global examples.Carbon pricing mechanisms,including taxes or cap-and-trade systems,along with tax incentives for green financing instruments,are necessary to encourage companies to reduce emissions and invest in sustainable technologies.Broader,deeper tax incentives are needed for gre

89、en infrastructure development,climate mitigation,and to address regulatory harmonization and cross-border taxation challenges.Other 23 Financial centres that support innovation through R&D funding,green startups,and industry-academia collaboration can drive advancements in green finance and create n

90、ew financial products.Governments should clarify transition finance criteria and taxonomy,especially regarding lock-in assets,to encourage smoother transitions to greener economies.Expanding green rating institutions to micro levels globally,alongside profiling the benefits of carbon credits,can hel

91、p improve awareness and incentivize the financial industrys participation in green finance.Global Green Finance Index 15 21 Connectivity One factor where financial centres green finance performance differs is the extent to which centres are connected to other financial centres.One way of measuring t

92、his connectivity is to look at the number of assessments given to and received from other centres in the GGFI survey.Charts 11 and 12 use Luxembourg and Brussels as examples to contrast the different levels of connectivity that the two centres enjoy.Both cities are well-connected with other European

93、 centres,but Luxembourg has a depth of connections across all regions of the world,including better connections with major financial centres.Chart 11|GGFI 15 Connectivity-Luxembourg Chart 12|GGFI 15 Connectivity-Brussels Global Green Finance Index 15 22 Financial Centre Profiles We conduct further a

94、nalyses based on three measures(axes)that determine a financial centres profile in relation to three different dimensions.Connectivity the extent to which a centre is well known among GGFI survey respondents,based on the number of inbound assessment locations(the number of locations from which a par

95、ticular centre receives assessments)and outbound assessment locations(the number of other centres assessed by respondents from a particular centre).Diversity the instrumental factors used in the GGFI model give an indication of a broad range of factors that influence the richness and evenness of fac

96、tors that characterise any particular financial centre.We consider this span of factors to be measurable in a similar way to that of the natural environment.We therefore use a combination of biodiversity indices(calculated on the instrumental factors)to assess a centres diversity.This takes account

97、of the range of factors against which the centre has been assessed the richness of the centres business environment;and the evenness of the distribution of that centres scores.A high score means that a centre is well diversified;a low diversity score reflects a less rich business environment.Special

98、ity the depth within a financial centre of green finance and sustainability.A centres speciality or performance is calculated from the difference between the overall GGFI rating and the ratings when the model is calculated based only on sustainability factors.In Table 9,Diversity(Breadth)and Special

99、ity(Depth)are combined on one axis to create a two-dimensional table of financial centre profiles.The 97 centres in GGFI 15 are assigned a profile on the basis of a set of rules for the three measures:how well connected a centre is,how broad its services are,and how specialised it is.The Global Lead

100、ers(in the top left of the table)have both broad and deep green finance activity and are connected with a greater range of other financial centres.Other leading centres are profiled as Established International Centres.Chart 13|GGFI Dimensions Global Green Finance Index 15 23 Broad and Deep Relative

101、ly Broad Relatively Deep Emerging Global Global Leaders Global Diversified Global Specialists Global Contenders London New York Shanghai*Luxembourg Zurich Tokyo*Qingdao Nairobi Singapore Washington DC Beijing*Mauritius Toronto*Dubai Paris Hong Kong Kigali International Established International Inte

102、rnational Diversified International Specialists International Contenders Stockholm Amsterdam Geneva Kaunas*Montreal*Sydney Edinburgh*Dublin*Los Angeles San Francisco Abu Dhabi*Prague*Madrid Melbourne*Jersey Malta*Frankfurt*Boston Jakarta Astana*Munich*Berlin New Delhi*Guernsey Seoul*Kuala Lumpur Ban

103、gkok Doha Calgary Bermuda Cape Town*Chicago British Virgin Islands Istanbul Rome Almaty*Santiago Mumbai Local Established Players Local Diversified Local Specialists Evolving Centres Vancouver*San Diego Copenhagen Oslo Brussels*Atlanta*Lugano Minneapolis/St Paul*Busan*Glasgow*Shenzhen*Vienna Hamburg

104、*Lisbon*Guangzhou*Tel Aviv*Milan*Isle of Man Osaka Miami*Moscow*Casablanca*Philadelphia*Monaco Sao Paulo*Warsaw Manila Sofia St Petersburg*Riga Cayman Islands*Rio de Janeiro*Mexico City Liechtenstein*Bahrain Johannesburg Riyadh*Bahamas Cyprus Lagos*An asterisk denotes a change since GGFI 14 Table 9|

105、Financial Centre Profiling Global Green Finance Index 15 24 46 The GGFI 15 World-Centres In The Index For Europe,See Detailed Map Below 15 4 1 7 11 8 12 41 25 2 9 50 53 27 10 17 32 5 38 22 20 44 28 51 29 6 66 39 18 67 93 61 79 60 71 62 94 54 56 69 70 49 55 68 65 92 37 57 23 14 59 19 16 89 86 13 45 2

106、1 Global Green Finance Index 15 25 The numbers on the map indicate the GGFI 15 rankings.Broad and Deep Relatively Broad Relatively Deep Emerging Global Leaders Global Diversified Global Specialists Global Contenders Established International International Diversified International Specialists Intern

107、ational Contenders Established Players Local Diversified Local Specialists Evolving Centres 52 3 40 42 63 30 26 35 80 31 36 33 48 82 85 43 76 34 24 78 64 58 73 72 47 88 95 81 77 91 74 84 83 92 75 87 90 Global Green Finance Index 15 26 Momentum Builds On Sovereign Sustainability-Linked Bonds Introduc

108、tion Sustainability-linked bonds(SLBs)are a subset of green bonds,the financial instruments that allow issuers to borrow money for investments that have positive environmental impacts.However,SLBs differ from green bonds in several crucial ways:First,and most importantly the funds raised are not tie

109、d to a specific project,but a corporate(or national)objective.Second,SLBs are issued with specific sustainability performance targets(SPTs),which contain key performance indicators(KPIs).Third,if the SPT is missed the bond is subject to a“step-up”clause,meaning the bond interest increases.Sovereign

110、sustainability-linked bonds(SSLBs)which are issued by governments in order to finance national sustainability objectives was the topic of the supplement to the ninth edition of The Global Green Finance Index1.We are returning to this subject topic in this supplement to track the progress that has be

111、en made in the issuance of SLBs and to examine the challenges and opportunities which have emerged since our initial report.Who is issuing SLBs?The last decade has seen an exponential rise in the issuance of green bonds,although SLBs have remained only a small part of the global green bond market(se

112、e graph 1)Graph 1|Green Bond Issuance 2014-2023(Billion$)Source:Bloomberg2 1.Bouzidi B,Mills S 2022 The Global Green Finance Index 9 Supplement:Chile Sets A High Bar https:/ 2024 Green bonds reached new heights in 2023 https:/ Green Finance Index 15 27 The type of organisation issuing these bonds ha

113、s seen a substantial shift over time.Initially green bonds were the purview of private sector institutions,however,in recent years sovereign bonds have been catching up-as of the end of the third quarter of 2024 58 sovereigns,had issued green bonds worth a cumulative amount of USD 630.5 billion3.Of

114、these three bonds are SSLBs.Sovereign issuance made up 16%of global sustainable bond volume issued in 20233.Graph 2|Green Bond Issuance By Issuer Type In 2023 Source:BNP Paribas5 Despite the growing enthusiasm of central banks for sovereign green bonds,SSLBs are rarer.Chile issued the first SSLB in

115、2022 swiftly followed by Uruguay.The latter introduced an innovation which allowed for both a step up(on interest payments)should targets fail to be met and a step down if targets are exceeded.In late 2024,Thailand became the first country outside South America to issue an SSLB.Thailands THB30 billi

116、on bond includes a step-up and step-down mechanism tied to two sustainability performance targets(SPTs)-total greenhouse gas emissions and new electric vehicle registrations.The bond has a duration of 16 years with a coupon rate of 2.70%paid semi-annually.3.CBI 2024 Sustainable Debt Market Summary Q

117、3 2024 https:/ 4.Nordea 2024 Sustainability-linked bonds in sovereign financing:A new frontier https:/ Paribas 2024 Sovereign green bonds Bigger,stronger,and more diverse in 2024 https:/viewpoint.bnpparibas- Green Finance Index 15 28 The concept of SSLBs is gaining ground.South Africa6 and Kenya7 ha

118、ve floated the prospect of issuing SSLBs.In Europe,Slovenia has become the first European sovereign to publish a sustainability-linked bond framework8.Slovenia aims to reach climate neutrality by 2050,and the KPIs contained in the framework include total greenhouse gas emissions,share of energy from

119、 renewable sources,and energy efficiency.Slovenia has taken its lead from Uruguay and Thailand in including the option of a step-down coupon,rewarding the country if it exceeds its targets.Slovenia plans to allocate around 5.5%of GDP to public investment projects focusing on green transition for 202

120、5-2028.Who Is Buying SLBs?188 investors from Europe,Asia,the United States,and Latin America bought into Uruguays SSLBs,of whom one-fifth were new holders of the countrys national debt9.These investors included pension funds,asset managers,and other large financial institutions.Retail investors are

121、also increasingly participating in the SLB market.A significant portion of SLB investors come from outside the country of the issuer,as seen in the case of Uruguays 2022 SSLB issuance.Investors are drawn to SLBs because they allow them to invest in companies or governments that are committed to achi

122、eving specific sustainability goals.SLBs can provide diversification opportunities for investors,as they are a relatively new asset class compared to traditional bonds.Why Are SSLBs Attractive To Developing Economies?Global debt(public plus private debt)amounted to almost USD 250 trillion in 202310.

123、As a share of GDP,its value remained high at 237%of GDP,higher than the pre-pandemic level when total global debt corresponded to 229%of GDP.80%of this new debt burden came from emerging markets,where total debt is now approaching$100 trillion.It can be argued that existing sovereign debt markets ar

124、e not fit for purpose.Vulnerable nations are excluded from accessing the affordable capital and investment that is urgently needed to create sustainable economic growth and adequate fiscal head space.6.Lester A 2024 South Africa considering SLB as sovereign sustainable bond debut looms https:/www.en

125、vironmental- 7.Lester A 2024 Kenya planning$500m sovereign SLB in 2024 https:/www.environmental- 8.Walsh T 2025 Slovenia publishes SLB framework https:/ 2023 What are sustainability-linked bonds and how can they help developing countries?https:/www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-are-sus

126、tainability-linked-bonds-and-how-can-they-help-developing-countries/#:text=To%20take%20the%20case%20of,foreign%20investment%20in%20national%20debt 10.IMF 2024 2024 Global Debt Monitor https:/www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GDD/2024%20Global%20Debt%20Monitor.pdf Global Green Finance Index 15 29 This

127、can lead to a downward spiral of debt defaults,debt restructuring,and further environmental degradation,as sustainability risks,particularly through climate impacts,have a significant effect on countries economic growth and resilience.This is why emerging market governments are taking notice of SLBs

128、 flexibility and potential for accessing a deeper pool of international finance,especially to finance energy transition.Unlike other forms of sustainability-linked debt financing,such as green bonds or debt-for-nature swaps(use-of-proceeds bonds that finance specific conservation projects),SSLBs all

129、ow governments to maintain control over budget priorities and expenditure.With SSLBs the issuer decides how the funds that are raised are used instead of ringfencing funds for a particular project.The only caveat being that the issuer meets predetermined key performance indicators(KPIs).Figure 1|SSL

130、Bs And The Virtuous Circle To this end SSLBs can help tackle the problems associated with sovereign debt by:Creating financial flexibility to support increased public spending.Encouraging foreign investment that improves resilience and economic productivity,thus lowering the cost of repayments acros

131、s a countrys entire debt portfolio.Directly rewarding sustainable outcomes through reduced costs of debt repayments.Reducing the need for post debt structuring by advancing smarter risk sharing between debtors and creditors.“Sovereign SLBs carry game-changing potential,aligning public finance with c

132、limate ambition through long-term,patient action.Like fugu preparation(the delicious but potentially poisonous Japanese fish),success demands precision and ambition.Chile led the way.Uruguay pioneered step-downs and biodiversity KPIs.Slovenias new framework builds on this momentum in Europe.Rigorous

133、 structuring will be key to building scale,avoiding lemons,and unlocking the full promise of this transformative tool.“Djellil Bouzidi,Economist,Founder Emena Advisory Global Green Finance Index 15 30 What Are The Challenges Facing SSLBs?As discussed above,governments growing interest in the SSLBs i

134、s a function of their apparent flexibility and simplicity.However,as with all public debt instruments,implementation comes with considerable practical and political challenges.The challenges facing SSLBs fall into two camps.The first concerns their credibility and is potentially existential as it st

135、rikes at their attractiveness to both institutional and retail investors seeking to diversify ESG risk.Unless the targets and their associated KPIs are carefully constructed,serious questions arise regarding materiality and additionality.The European Sustainability Reporting Standards11 state that a

136、 sustainability topic is material from an impact perspective,if it is connected to actual or potential significant impacts on people or the environment over the short,medium,or long term.In other words,it is important to ensure that the target of the SSLB will have an impact on the intended outcome.

137、For example,in the case of Thailands SSLB there are two targets:a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in new electric vehicle registrations.The second of these targets could have materiality issues unless it is aligned with significant investment in renewable energy generatio

138、n and distribution networks.Additionality is an equally complex issue.Investors should consider whether the trajectory of KPIs,whether they are sufficiently stretching,or whether they would have been achieved anyway without any additional effort12.In some cases,a KPI may relate to a long-term struct

139、ural trend which the issuer has limited power to affect,and the step up may be too small to provide a significant incentive for action.Issues of leakage,displacement,and substitution must also be considered.Much of Europes past success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to outsou

140、rcing manufacturing to developing economies,and the UKs record in decarbonising electricity production through the 1980s and 1990s was a result of substituting coal-powered generators which were coming to the end of their operational life with more efficient gas fired generations.The second concerns

141、 their functionality.The penalties associated with failure to meet KPIs are typically very low at around 12-25 basis points(one basis point is equivalent to 0.01%(1/100th of a percent).In in the case of Thailands SSLB for each target,a 2.5bps step-up/step-down will apply if they are missed/achieved1

142、3.These penalties are less significant than global interest rate moves.Also,as was intimated in our previous report1,binding future governments to stringent and potentially uncosted KPIs could be considered anti-democratic.Investors must ensure that the contracting government enjoys political legiti

143、macy,that the targets and KPIs have been designed through multi stakeholder consultation,and that the overall governance process is robust.Achieving buy-in across ministries and government agencies and establishing the infrastructure necessary to collect data is a significant undertaking and require

144、s strong drive and leadership.11.OJEU 2023 Commission Delegated Regulation(EU)2023/2772 https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ%3AL_202302772 12.HMG 2008 Additionality Guide.A standard approach to assessing the impact of Interventions https:/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/

145、5a7568e5e5274a467f7e44e0/Additionality_Guide_0.pdf 13.Loh E&David J 2024 Thai government embarks on SLB journey https:/anthropocenefii.org/sovereigns-centralbanks/thai-government-embarks-on-slb-journey#:text=The%20bond%20is%20linked%20to,if%20they%20are%20missed/achieved.Global Green Finance Index 1

146、5 31 Agreeing on the right KPIs is essential for both investors and issuers.Potential KPIs can span the spectrum of sustainability issues,encompassing both environmental and social themes.Ensuring that robust and independent performance data exists,which is externally verifiable and benchmarked agai

147、nst relevant external factors is critical.The costs of setting up and maintaining these systems and processes are not trivial as the data architecture of governments tends to be highly fragmented,with siloed databases and non-interoperable exchange protocols.Likewise,the decision-making authority th

148、at covers cross-cutting policy objectives such as combating climate change and safeguarding biodiversity-tends to be dispersed across multiple agencies,making them susceptible to coordination failures and bureaucratic politics and may form a significant challenge-not only for developing economies.SS

149、LB Standards The majority of the challenges described in the preceding section can be overcome with the application of appropriate standards.Since their debut,several transnational,regional,and national initiatives have been established which seek to develop standards for green bonds,including susta

150、inability linked,and sovereign sustainability linked bonds.International Standards The International Capital Markets Association published an update to its Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles(SLBP)in 2024.These provide guidelines that recommend structuring features,disclosure,and reporting and are

151、 designed to enhance the provision of information needed to increase capital allocation to such financial products.The SLBP apply to all types of issuers,including sovereigns and any type of financial capital market instrument.The 2024 version of the SLBP includes clarifications to support KPI selec

152、tion and a reference to the KPI Registry(including the notion of core and secondary KPIs).It also integrates new definitions in the glossary.Finally,Appendix II,the SLB disclosure data checklist,has been updated to bring more clarity on the expected disclosure.In March 2025,the Loan Market Associati

153、on(LMA)published a set of Sustainability Linked Loan(SLL)Principles14 setting out a framework,enabling all market participants to clearly understand the characteristics of an SLL,based around the following five core components:Selection of KPIs Calibration of SPTs Loan Characteristics Reporting Veri

154、fication The principles state that an SLL borrower shall clearly communicate to its lenders its rationale for the selection of its KPI(s)(i.e.relevance,materiality,whether it is core to the borrowers overall business)and the calibration of the SPT(s)(i.e.ambition level,benchmarking approach,and how

155、the borrower intends to reach its SPTs).Borrowers should position this information within the context of their overarching objectives,sustainability strategy,policy,sustainability commitments,and/or processes relating to sustainability.Borrowers should also inform lenders of any sustainability stand

156、ards or certifications to which they are seeking to conform.14.LMA 2025 Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles https:/ Global Green Finance Index 15 32 The LMA have also released further guidance on the Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles with clarifications to support KPI selection and a new SLB d

157、isclosure data checklist,including an expansion of the SLB KPIs Registry related to environmental themes(biodiversity,circular economy/raw materials and water)as well as additional KPIs for sovereign issuers.There is also a new annex of the Impact Reporting Handbook covering potential environmental

158、and/or social risks associated with eligible project categories for green bonds.The European Union The European Union Green Bonds Standard(EUGBS)is set to transform issuance across the EU in terms of reporting and transparency.The Standard,which is voluntary,relies on the EU taxonomy to define green

159、 economic activities,that ensuring levels of transparency in line with market best practice.The standard also establishes supervision of companies carrying out pre-and post-issuance reviews by the European Securities and Markets Authority(ESMA).Issuers of bonds under the EUGBS will be required to di

160、sclose detailed information about how the proceeds will be used to ensure alignment with the taxonomy.They must explain how the funds contribute to the sustainable transition,ensuring green investments are not negated by unsustainable activities in other areas.The areas covered by the standard are d

161、etailed in figure 2.Figure 2|Overview of disclosure requirements under the EU GBS Source:European Data Warehouse15 China Chinas Green Bond Principles(CGBP),released in July 2022,aim to promote high-quality green bonds and align the domestic market16 with international standards by requiring 100%of p

162、roceeds to be used for green projects,aligning with the ICMA Green Bond Principles.The CGBP is a self-regulated framework rather than a rule or regulation,it aims for high-level harmonisation on what a green bond in Chinas domestic markets is and the common requirements that green bond regulation sh

163、ould have.15.European Data Warehouse 2024 The EU Green Bond Standard Regulation at a Glance https:/eurodw.eu/the-eu-green-bond-standard-regulation-at-a-glance/16.ICMA 2022 Analysis of Chinas Green Bond Principles https:/www.icmagroup.org/assets/Analysis-of-Chinas-Green-Bond-Principles.pdf Global Gre

164、en Finance Index 15 33 India Indias sovereign green bond framework17 follows the International Capital Market Association(ICMA)Green Bond Principles and aims to promote transparency and disclosure.Focusing on financing or refinancing environmentally sound projects through four core components:use of

165、 proceeds,project evaluation and selection,management of proceeds,and reporting.Although the framework does not cover sustainability linked bonds,organisations such as Climate Bonds are defining sector-based Transition Finance Standards18.These standards provide clear guidelines for transition bonds

166、,SLBs,and entities moving towards sustainable practices.The involvement of Sustainability Performance Objectives(SPOs)further enhances transparency,assuring investors of the issuers commitment to fulfilling their sustainability pledges.Future Developments Sustainability linked bonds face significant

167、 headwinds going forward.Issuance declined sharply in 2024.This was the second consecutive annual decline for SLBs,leaving issuance 57.3%below 2022 levels.In part corporate SLB issuance may have been affected by the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election and the broader backlash aga

168、inst Environmental,Social,and Governance initiatives.However,the sovereign sustainability linked bond market remains strong,with Thailands SSLB attracting investor interest nearly three times the issuance amount.The book-building process for the bonds on 19 November generated huge interest from inve

169、stors,with purchase proposals totalling 55.3 billion baht,or 2.76 times the announced issue size of 20 billion baht19.Although generally offering lower yields than corporate bonds,sovereign bonds are considered less risky than corporate bonds(because governments can raise taxes to meet their obligat

170、ions,while companies face the risk of bankruptcy),and as SSLBs are tied to national policy,it is highly likely that SSLBs will remain a popular product with investors.17.Shreeprabha G 2024 Sovereign Green Bonds:Fuelling Indias Sustainability Revolution https:/www.ispp.org.in/sovereign-green-bonds-fu

171、elling-indias-sustainability-revolution/18.CBI 2024 Frameworks to Assess Transition https:/ 19.Chantanusornsiri W 2024 Huge demand for Asias first sustainability-linked bonds https:/ Sovereign SLBs directly address the core problem of green finance,why its special,by drastically reducing government

172、policy risk.It is exciting to see SSLBs holding more and more governments around the world to account for the delivery of their goals.SSLBs could provide standard market-based comparisons of carbon border adjustment calculations.I look forward to emerging comparator targets such as a minimum percent

173、age of government debt in SSLBs that commit to normative 2050 or 2060 targets.”Professor Michael Mainelli,Chairman,Z/Yen Group Global Green Finance Index 15 34 The Collaborative Sovereign Engagement on Climate Change20(an initiative led by the Principles for Responsible Investment(PRI)aims to have i

174、nvestors join forces in encouraging governments to undertake comprehensive measures to combat climate change.Members of the initiative have identified Australia as a sovereign debt issuer that would be a suitable candidate for the initiatives pilot project21,(Australia passed a Climate Change Act in

175、 2022,but has done poorly compared to peers on climate and environmental measures in sovereign risk ratings).One issue that has been attracting interest is the concept of a boarder carbon adjustment mechanism linked to sovereign debt and carbon targets.The EUs Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBA

176、M)22 aims to price the carbon emitted during the production of goods that are entering the EU in order to encourage cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries.However,high public debt levels make the financing of climate adaptation and mitigation more difficult,and compounding a climate crisi

177、s with a financial crisis is unfair to developing economies.One possible solution is to have a step up/step down mechanism associated with these border tariffs which takes into account national targets and trajectories on carbon.Obviously,nations which have issued SSLBs associated with carbon reduct

178、ion would benefit from reduced tariffs as they not only have demonstrated a commitment to achieving the Paris Goals,but have the data associated with their SSLB KPIs to prove it.To illustrate how this mechanism might work,there might be a fluctuating climate tariff based on market forces.This would

179、build up along the following rules:Countries must have either a stated and used price or a functioning carbon market.Countries must issue X%(say 10%or more)of their national debt in policy performance/sustainability-linked bonds against an international norm, zero by 2050.Then the tariff is:Base nat

180、ional import tariff.Add to this current interest being paid on the bond above issue rate.Conclusions The growing interest in the sovereign SLB financing structure is a function,on the sell-side,of the way SSLB issuance can initiate and accelerate urgently needed changes in both macro-fiscal policy m

181、aking and public financial management-regardless of whether the bond is issued or not.This is because the“back end”of an SLB the data systems and governance processes underpinning the bond can have multiple applications beyond the“front end”sustainability framework that specifies the targets and KPI

182、s.On the buy side investors are attracted by low risk and its green credentials.However,as with all public debt instruments,implementation comes with considerable practical and political challenges.Going forward,the triple challenge will be to restore debt sustainability for developing nations,to mo

183、bilise funding for climate and sustainability,and to build resilience against future shocks.20.UNPRI 2024 Collaborative Sovereign Engagement on Climate Change https:/www.unpri.org/collaborative-engagements/collaborative-sovereign-engagement-on-climate-change/10525.article 21.Takhtayeva M 2024 Sovere

184、ign green bonds Bigger,stronger,and more diverse in 2024 https:/www.bnpparibas- Hub 2023 The understated benefits of sovereign sustainability-linked bonds https:/ Global Green Finance Index 15 35 Regional Analysis In our analysis of the GGFI data,we look at six regions of the world to explore their

185、financial centres green finance depth and quality.Alongside the ranks and ratings of centres,we investigate the average assessments received by regions and centres in more detail.We display this analysis in charts,either for a region or an individual centre.These charts show:the mean assessment prov

186、ided to that region or centre;the difference in the mean assessment when home region assessments are removed from the analysis;the difference between the mean and the assessments provided by other regional centres;and the proportion of assessments provided by each region.Chart 14 shows an example of

187、 this analysis.Coloured bars to the left of the vertical axis indicate that respondents from that region gave lower than average assessments.Bars to the right indicate respondents from that region gave higher than average assessments.Assessments given to a centre by people based in that centre are e

188、xcluded to remove home bias.The additional vertical axis(in red)shows the mean of assessments when assessments from the home region are removed.The percentage figure noted by each region indicates the percentage of the total number of assessments that are from that region.Chart 14|Example:Assessment

189、s Compared With The Mean For A Region Global Green Finance Index 15 36 North America Canadian centres took the first three places in the region,led by Montreal,while most U.S.centres fell sharply in the index rankings.North American centres were rated significantly above average by people from Asia/

190、Pacific and below average by those from all other regions.Table 10|North American Centres In GGFI 15 Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Montreal 8 587 10 621 2 34 Toronto 10 585 16 615 6 30 Vancouver 12 583 22 609 10 26 Los Angeles 14 581 7 624 7 43 New Yo

191、rk 16 579 5 626 11 47 Washington DC 19 576 12 619 7 43 Minneapolis/St Paul 21 574 31 599 10 25 San Diego 23 572 14 617 9 45 Calgary 28 567 49 581 21 14 Chicago 29 566 15 616 14 50 San Francisco 32 563 17 614 15 51 Atlanta 37 558 41 589 4 31 Boston 41 554 32 598 9 44 Miami 57 538 67 563 10 25 Philade

192、lphia 59 536 53 577 6 41 Chart 15|Top Five North American Centres Ratings Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 37 Chart 16|North American Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 17|Regional Assessments For Montreal-Difference From The Mean Chart 18|Regional Assessments For Toronto-Dif

193、ference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 38 Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Dubai 34 561 35 595 1 34 Tel Aviv 43 552 50 580 7 28 Abu Dhabi 48 547 39 591 9 44 Casablanca 50 545 47 583 3 38 Mauritius 64 531 74 556 10 25 Doha 72 523 75 555 3 32

194、Bahrain 73 522 90 540 17 18 Kigali 75 520 80 550 5 30 Johannesburg 77 518 70 560 7 42 Cape Town 81 514 85 545 4 31 Riyadh 83 512 88 542 5 30 Nairobi 84 511 95 530 11 19 Lagos 92 503 97 524 5 21 Middle East&Africa Dubai leads in the region,and rose one place,with Tel Aviv overtaking Abu Dhabi to take

195、 second place in the region and Casablanca leading in Africa.Most centres in the region improved in the ranking,with Mauritius up 10 places,Bahrain up 17,and Nairobi up 11.Respondents from Asia/Pacific,North America,Latin America&The Caribbean,and those with a multi-regional background rated Middle

196、East&African centres higher than average.Table 11|Middle Eastern&African Centres In GGFI 15 Chart 19|Top Five Middle East&Africa Centre Ratings Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 39 Chart 20|Middle East&Africa Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 21|Regional Assessments For Dubai

197、-Difference From The Mean Chart 22|Regional Assessments For Tel Aviv-Difference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 40 Eastern Europe&Central Asia Although it only entered the GGFI 18 months ago,Kaunas rose a further thirteen places to maintain its leading position in the region,with Prague

198、up 10 places to take second place above Astana.Respondents from Asia/Pacific,North America,Latin America&The Caribbean,and those from a multi-regional background rated Eastern European&Central Asia centres higher than average.Table 12|Eastern European&Central Asia Centres In GGFI 15 Centre GGFI 15 G

199、GFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Kaunas 45 550 58 572 13 22 Prague 56 539 66 564 10 25 Astana 63 532 62 568 1 36 Sofia 65 530 69 561 4 31 Warsaw 66 529 83 547 17 18 Riga 68 527 76 554 8 27 Moscow 82 513 87 543 5 30 Istanbul 85 510 77 553 8 43 St Petersburg 88 507 New Ne

200、w New New Cyprus 90 505 92 538 2 33 Almaty 91 504 94 536 3 32 Chart 23|Top Five Eastern Europe&Central Asia Centre Ratings Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 41 Chart 24|Eastern Europe&Central Asia Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 25|Regional Assessments For Kaunas-Difference

201、 From The Mean Chart 26|Regional Assessments For Prague-Difference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 42 Western Europe London led the region,with Zurich in second place,followed by Geneva,and Copenhagen.Seven Western European centres feature in the world top ten.Respondents from Western Eu

202、rope,Eastern Europe&Central Asia,and the Middle East&Africa rated Western European centres lower than average.Table 13|Top 15 Western European Centres In GGFI 15 Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating London 1 598 1 634 0 36 Zurich 2 597 2 633 0 36 Geneva 4 59

203、1 4 628 0 37 Copenhagen 5 590 9 622 4 32 Oslo 6 589 11 620 5 31 Stockholm 7 588 6 625 1 37 Luxembourg 9 586 8 623 1 37 Paris 11 584 18 613 7 29 Lugano 13 582 13 618 0 36 Amsterdam 15 580 23 608 8 28 Brussels 17 578 27 604 10 26 Edinburgh 18 577 19 612 1 35 Madrid 20 575 28 603 8 28 Frankfurt 22 573

204、20 611 2 38 Munich 25 570 26 605 1 35 Chart 27|Top Five Western European Centre Ratings Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 43 Chart 28|Western Europe Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 29|Regional Assessments For London-Difference From The Mean Chart 30|Regional Assessments For

205、 Zurich-Difference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 44 Latin America&The Caribbean Sao Paulo leads the region,with Santiago in second position.Respondents from Asia/Pacific,North America,and those from a multi-regional background rated Latin America&The Caribbean centres above average.Tab

206、le 14|Latin American&Caribbean Centres In GGFI 15 Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Sao Paulo 54 541 59 571 5 30 Santiago 55 540 64 566 9 26 Rio de Janeiro 69 526 79 551 10 25 Mexico City 70 525 71 559 1 34 Bermuda 79 516 84 546 5 30 Bahamas 89 506 89 541

207、 0 35 Cayman Islands 93 501 93 537 0 36 British Virgin Islands 94 499 96 527 2 28 Chart 31|Top Five Latin American&Caribbean Centre Ratings Over Time Global Green Finance Index 15 45 Chart 32|Latin America&The Caribbean Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 33|Regional Assessments For

208、Sao Paulo-Difference From The Mean Chart 34|Regional Assessments For Santiago-Difference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 46 Asia/Pacific Singapore continued to lead the region in third place globally.Busan and Seoul are second and third in the region.Respondents from Asia/Pacific,North A

209、merica,and people operating across more than one region rated centres in Asia/Pacific above average.Table 15|Top 15 Asia/Pacific Centres In GGFI 15 Chart 35|Top Five Asia/Pacific Centre Ratings Over Time Centre GGFI 15 GGFI 14 Change In Rank Change In Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Singapore 3 592 3

210、 630 0 38 Busan 24 571 30 600 6 29 Seoul 26 569 21 610 5 41 Sydney 30 565 29 602 1 37 Shanghai 31 564 34 596 3 32 Shenzhen 33 562 24 607 9 45 Melbourne 35 560 37 593 2 33 Qingdao 36 559 40 590 4 31 Beijing 40 555 33 597 7 42 Hong Kong 42 553 38 592 4 39 Osaka 47 548 51 579 4 31 Tokyo 52 543 42 588 1

211、0 45 Guangzhou 58 537 54 576 4 39 Jakarta 74 521 63 567 11 46 New Delhi 76 519 68 562 8 43 Global Green Finance Index 15 47 Chart 36|Asia/Pacific Regional Assessments-Difference From The Mean Chart 37|Regional Assessments For Singapore-Difference From The Mean Chart 38|Regional Assessments For Busan

212、-Difference From The Mean Global Green Finance Index 15 48 Stability The GGFI model allows for an analysis of the stability of financial centres in the index,which can be useful for centres when assessing their development strategies.Chart 39 contrasts the spread or variance of the individual assess

213、ments given to the top 40 centres in GGFI 15,with sensitivity to changes in the instrumental factors.The chart shows three bands of financial centres.Most centres in the top 40 fall in the dynamic range.The stable centres in the bottom left have a lower sensitivity to change and demonstrate greater

214、consistency in their GGFI ratings.Chart 39|Stability In Assessments And Instrumental Factors Global Green Finance Index 15 49 Industry Sectors We can analyse the differing assessments provided by respondents working in various industry sectors by building the index separately using the responses pro

215、vided only from those industries.This analysis allows a relative measure of the sectoral strengths and weaknesses for each centre.Table 16 illustrates separate sub-indices for the Policy,Capital Markets,Investment,and Professional Services sectors.The table shows how the index ranking varies accordi

216、ng to industry sector.The leading centres in the index generally feature in the higher ranks of the industry sector sub-indices,with London first or second in all groups,although there are interesting strengths and weaknesses.For example,Luxembourg is first in the Capital Markets sub-index and secon

217、d for Professional Services.Paris scores highly in the Policy sub-index and New York in the Professional Services sub-index.Table 16|GGFI 15 Industry Sector Sub-Indices-Top 15 Rank Industry Sub-Sector Policy Capital Markets Investment Professional Services 1 London Luxembourg Zurich London 2 Geneva

218、London London Luxembourg 3 Luxembourg Singapore Copenhagen Montreal 4 Zurich Geneva Singapore New York 5 Paris Copenhagen Luxembourg Zurich 6 Lugano Stockholm Amsterdam Geneva 7 Los Angeles Zurich Geneva Singapore 8 Singapore Paris Oslo Copenhagen 9 Frankfurt Los Angeles Montreal Oslo 10 Edinburgh O

219、slo Stockholm Stockholm 11 Montreal Montreal New York Toronto 12 Stockholm Vancouver Los Angeles Los Angeles 13 Copenhagen Amsterdam Lugano Paris 14 New York New York Paris Amsterdam 15 Toronto Frankfurt Toronto Vancouver“There is a lack of government interest in green financing across much of Afric

220、a.”SENIOR MARKETS DEALER,BANKING,NAIROBI Global Green Finance Index 15 50 Centre Rating Adjusted Rank GGFI 15 Rank Difference London 605 2 1-1 Zurich 599 4 2-2 Singapore 590 8 3-5 Geneva 588 10 4-6 Copenhagen 606 1 5 4 Oslo 593 6 6 0 Stockholm 583 13 7-6 Montreal 586 12 8-4 Luxembourg 604 3 9 6 Toro

221、nto 581 16 10-6 Paris 580 18 11-7 Vancouver 581 16 12-4 Lugano 587 11 13 2 Los Angeles 592 7 14 7 Amsterdam 594 5 15 10 New York 578 21 16-5 Brussels 575 27 17-10 Edinburgh 590 8 18 10 Washington DC 569 38 19-19 Madrid 573 31 20-11 Minneapolis/St Paul 569 38 21-17 Frankfurt 572 32 22-10 San Diego 58

222、2 14 23 9 Busan 577 22 24 2 Munich 582 14 25 11 Seoul 580 18 26 8 Hamburg 577 22 27 5 Calgary 575 27 28 1 Chicago 569 38 29-9 Sydney 575 27 30 3 Shanghai 576 24 31 7 San Francisco 567 42 32-10 Shenzhen 579 20 33 13 Dubai 564 45 34-11 Melbourne 576 24 35 11 Qingdao 572 32 36 4 Atlanta 567 42 37-5 Vie

223、nna 569 38 38 0 Glasgow 576 24 39 15 Beijing 574 30 40 10 Boston 562 46 41-5 Hong Kong 552 55 42-13 Tel Aviv 562 46 43-3 Rome 571 34 44 10 Kaunas 570 35 45 10 Lisbon 562 46 46 0 Osaka 570 35 47 12 Centre Rating Adjusted Rank GGFI 15 Rank Difference Abu Dhabi 549 60 48-12 Berlin 565 44 49 5 Casablanc

224、a 570 35 50 15 Milan 560 50 51 1 Tokyo 559 51 52 1 Dublin 558 52 53 1 Sao Paulo 528 85 54-31 Santiago 551 58 55-3 Prague 561 49 56 7 Miami 546 63 57-6 Guangzhou 558 52 58 6 Philadelphia 523 86 59-27 Malta 546 63 60-3 Isle of Man 542 67 61-6 Jersey 529 84 62-22 Astana 542 67 63-4 Mauritius 554 54 64

225、10 Sofia 552 55 65 10 Warsaw 541 69 66-3 Guernsey 548 61 67 6 Riga 552 55 68 13 Rio de Janeiro 522 88 69-19 Mexico City 532 79 70-9 Liechtenstein 530 83 71-12 Doha 551 58 72 14 Bahrain 532 79 73-6 Jakarta 537 73 74 1 Kigali 539 71 75 4 New Delhi 532 79 76-3 Johannesburg 534 76 77 1 Bangkok 538 72 78

226、 6 Bermuda 545 66 79 13 Kuala Lumpur 547 62 80 18 Cape Town 546 63 81 18 Moscow 522 88 82-6 Riyadh 537 73 83 10 Nairobi 532 79 84 5 Istanbul 534 76 85 9 Monaco 523 86 86 0 Manila 509 93 87-6 St Petersburg 533 78 88 10 Bahamas 535 75 89 14 Cyprus 522 88 90 2 Almaty 540 70 91 21 Lagos 505 94 92-2 Caym

227、an Islands 519 91 93 2 British Virgin Islands 505 94 94 0 Mumbai 514 92 95 3 Taking the sectoral analysis further,we can also calculate the index using the responses only from those working directly in green finance in financial services organisations.The results are shown in table 17.Table 17|GGFI

228、15 Using Responses Only From Respondents Working Directly In Green Finance Global Green Finance Index 15 51 GGFI 15 Interest,Impact,And Drivers Of Green Finance In addition to requesting ratings of depth and quality for financial centres,the GGFI questionnaire asks additional questions concerning th

229、e development of green finance.Among the topics covered are:The areas of green finance considered most interesting by respondents;The areas of green finance which respondents consider to have the greatest impact on sustainability;and Factors driving the development of green finance.Areas Of Interest

230、 In Green Finance And Areas With The Most Impact We asked respondents to identify the areas of green finance which they considered most interesting and separately the areas of green finance they consider have the most impact on sustainability.The results are shown in Charts 40 and 41.With respect to

231、 interest,Environment,Social And Governance(ESG)Analytics is the leading issue mentioned by our respondents,ahead of Renewable Energy Investment,and Sustainable Infrastructure Finance.The areas considered least interesting are Natural Capital Valuation and Greentech Venture Capital.Chart 40|Interest

232、-Percentage Of Total Mentions Global Green Finance Index 15 52 With respect to impact,Green Loans,Renewable Energy Investment,and Social and Impact Investment are rated as the areas of green finance with most impact.Natural Capital Valuation,Climate Risk Stress Testing,and Greentech Venture Capital

233、are ranked lowest on this measure by our respondents.Chart 41|Impact-Percentage Of Total Mentions Chart 42|The Correlation Between Interest And Impact Global Green Finance Index 15 53 With respect to drivers,Policy and Regulatory Frameworks,Public Awareness,and Renewables are seen as the most import

234、ant drivers of green finance.Air quality,Voluntary Standards,and NGO Activism,and Air Quality are mentioned least frequently.These results underline the continuing importance of regulatory frameworks and public demand in the development of green finance,alongside risk management.Chart 43|Drivers-Per

235、centage Of Total Mentions We also asked respondents to the GGFI survey to indicate in which sectors hydrogen is likely to replace fossil fuel as a primary fuel source.The results are shown in chart 44,with power generation and road transport mentioned most frequently.Chart 44|Hydrogen Futures Global

236、 Green Finance Index 15 54 Centre GGFI 15 Assessments Rank Rating Number Average Std Dev London 1 598 128 695 188 Zurich 2 597 49 722 216 Singapore 3 592 87 675 184 Geneva 4 591 39 724 193 Copenhagen 5 590 23 724 142 Oslo 6 589 11 736 180 Stockholm 7 588 36 703 167 Montreal 8 587 33 683 207 Luxembou

237、rg 9 586 67 665 190 Toronto 10 585 38 680 177 Paris 11 584 74 660 207 Vancouver 12 583 33 746 133 Lugano 13 582 18 683 191 Los Angeles 14 581 43 719 157 Amsterdam 15 580 52 674 216 New York 16 579 107 594 229 Brussels 17 578 36 637 214 Edinburgh 18 577 30 652 182 Washington DC 19 576 50 652 169 Madr

238、id 20 575 52 686 130 Minneapolis/St Paul 21 574 21 680 138 Frankfurt 22 573 64 648 164 San Diego 23 572 14 611 213 Busan 24 571 18 586 219 Munich 25 570 20 578 238 Seoul 26 569 35 659 188 Hamburg 27 568 16 586 178 Calgary 28 567 48 717 154 Chicago 29 566 51 665 175 Sydney 30 565 25 624 188 Shanghai

239、31 564 44 651 244 San Francisco 32 563 49 709 187 Shenzhen 33 562 21 743 217 Dubai 34 561 94 515 233 Melbourne 35 560 18 611 210 Qingdao 36 559 289 843 55 Atlanta 37 558 26 681 116 Vienna 38 557 20 583 225 Glasgow 39 556 28 615 208 Beijing 40 555 60 633 236 Boston 41 554 54 676 179 Hong Kong 42 553

240、77 558 220 Tel Aviv 43 552 14 614 187 Rome 44 551 35 684 155 Kaunas 45 550 34 726 111 Lisbon 46 549 11 673 188 Osaka 47 548 19 695 161 Appendix 1:Assessment Details Table 18|Details Of GGFI 15 Assessments By Centre Centre GGFI 15 Assessments Rank Rating Number Average Std Dev Abu Dhabi 48 547 58 502

241、 241 Berlin 49 546 36 611 222 Casablanca 50 545 23 464 235 Milan 51 544 23 638 173 Tokyo 52 543 38 601 217 Dublin 53 542 45 579 193 Sao Paulo 54 541 27 646 210 Santiago 55 540 16 589 173 Prague 56 539 35 629 176 Miami 57 538 25 556 205 Guangzhou 58 537 14 532 217 Philadelphia 59 536 17 640 147 Malta

242、 60 535 36 635 202 Isle of Man 61 534 18 590 189 Jersey 62 533 26 592 163 Astana 63 532 32 544 234 Mauritius 64 531 47 585 249 Sofia 65 530 25 703 137 Warsaw 66 529 25 563 225 Guernsey 67 528 27 531 178 Riga 68 527 31 735 102 Rio de Janeiro 69 526 17 563 200 Mexico City 70 525 22 589 170 Liechtenste

243、in 71 524 19 583 198 Doha 72 523 35 505 211 Bahrain 73 522 24 493 161 Jakarta 74 521 22 508 209 Kigali 75 520 42 557 224 New Delhi 76 519 24 480 219 Johannesburg 77 518 49 487 190 Bangkok 78 517 22 506 213 Bermuda 79 516 26 590 154 Kuala Lumpur 80 515 29 526 206 Cape Town 81 514 43 534 174 Moscow 82

244、 513 32 571 223 Riyadh 83 512 22 495 205 Nairobi 84 511 43 513 200 Istanbul 85 510 33 563 158 Monaco 86 509 16 581 186 Manila 87 508 15 453 216 St Petersburg 88 507 26 691 205 Bahamas 89 506 29 495 205 Cyprus 90 505 32 468 216 Almaty 91 504 14 566 226 Lagos 92 503 32 459 212 Cayman Islands 93 501 37

245、 441 182 British Virgin Islands 94 499 42 456 203 Mumbai 95 497 44 438 185 Global Green Finance Index 15 55 Centre Overall Rank Depth Rating Quality Rating London 1 292 306 Zurich 2 289 308 Singapore 3 289 303 Geneva 4 292 299 Copenhagen 5 290 300 Oslo 6 295 294 Stockholm 7 287 301 Montreal 8 292 29

246、5 Luxembourg 9 287 299 Toronto 10 287 298 Paris 11 285 299 Vancouver 12 289 294 Lugano 13 285 297 Los Angeles 14 290 291 Amsterdam 15 285 295 New York 16 284 295 Brussels 17 289 289 Edinburgh 18 285 292 Washington DC 19 283 293 Madrid 20 281 294 Minneapolis/St Paul 21 282 292 Frankfurt 22 283 290 Sa

247、n Diego 23 283 289 Busan 24 283 288 Munich 25 276 294 Seoul 26 280 289 Hamburg 27 278 290 Calgary 28 280 287 Chicago 29 278 288 Sydney 30 275 290 Shanghai 31 275 289 San Francisco 32 277 286 Shenzhen 33 279 283 Dubai 34 276 285 Melbourne 35 273 287 Qingdao 36 280 279 Atlanta 37 277 281 Vienna 38 268

248、 289 Glasgow 39 269 287 Beijing 40 276 279 Boston 41 272 282 Hong Kong 42 275 278 Tel Aviv 43 270 282 Rome 44 273 278 Kaunas 45 267 283 Lisbon 46 265 284 Osaka 47 266 282 Table 19|Details Of Ratings For The GGFI Dimensions By Centre Centre Overall Rank Depth Rating Quality Rating Abu Dhabi 48 267 28

249、0 Berlin 49 267 279 Casablanca 50 263 282 Milan 51 267 277 Tokyo 52 261 282 Dublin 53 268 274 Sao Paulo 54 267 274 Santiago 55 258 282 Prague 56 262 277 Miami 57 268 270 Guangzhou 58 264 273 Philadelphia 59 256 280 Malta 60 259 276 Isle of Man 61 259 275 Jersey 62 261 272 Astana 63 265 267 Mauritius

250、 64 258 273 Sofia 65 261 269 Warsaw 66 259 270 Guernsey 67 258 270 Riga 68 263 264 Rio de Janeiro 69 252 274 Mexico City 70 257 268 Liechtenstein 71 258 266 Doha 72 254 269 Bahrain 73 258 264 Jakarta 74 263 258 Kigali 75 253 267 New Delhi 76 253 266 Johannesburg 77 257 261 Bangkok 78 243 274 Bermuda

251、 79 250 266 Kuala Lumpur 80 243 272 Cape Town 81 251 263 Moscow 82 250 263 Riyadh 83 251 261 Nairobi 84 249 262 Istanbul 85 246 264 Monaco 86 241 268 Manila 87 244 264 St Petersburg 88 253 254 Bahamas 89 253 253 Cyprus 90 248 257 Almaty 91 249 255 Lagos 92 242 261 Cayman Islands 93 247 254 British V

252、irgin Islands 94 250 249 Mumbai 95 239 258 Global Green Finance Index 15 56 Appendix 2:Interest,Impact,And Drivers Details Table 20|Areas Of Green Finance With The Greatest Impact Table 21|Areas Of Green Finance Of Most Interest To Respondents Area Of Green Finance Number Of Mentions Percentage Of T

253、otal Environment,Social And Governance(ESG)Analytics 220 9.6 Renewable Energy Investment 208 9.1 Sustainable Infrastructure Finance 196 8.6 Energy Efficient Investment 188 8.2 Carbon Markets 184 8.0 Green Insurance 169 7.4 Social and Impact Investment 169 7.4 Green Bonds 161 7.0 Carbon Disclosure 13

254、8 6.0 SRI Investment 124 5.4 Disinvestment From Fossil Fuels 123 5.4 Green Loans 123 5.4 Climate Risk Stress Testing 103 4.5 Natural Capital Valuation 99 4.3 Greentech Venture Capital 83 3.6 Totals 2,288 100.0 Area Of Green Finance Number Of Mentions Percentage Of Total Green Loans 190 8.6 Renewable

255、 Energy Investment 179 8.1 Social And Impact Investment 172 7.8 Disinvestment From Fossil Fuels 171 7.8 Energy Efficient Investment 167 7.6 Green Insurance 155 7.0 Sustainable Infrastructure Finance 155 7.0 Environment,Social And Governance(ESG)Analytics 153 6.9 Green Bonds 147 6.7 Carbon Markets 13

256、8 6.3 Carbon Disclosure 126 5.7 SRI Investment 122 5.5 Natural Capital Valuation 111 5.0 Climate Risk Stress Testing 109 4.9 Greentech Venture Capital 109 4.9 Totals 2,204 100.0 Global Green Finance Index 15 57 Driver Number of Mentions Percentage Of Total Policy and Regulatory Frameworks 172 7.7 Pu

257、blic Awareness 144 6.4 Renewables 141 6.3 Climate Change 133 5.9 Infrastructure Investment 125 5.6 Risk Management Frameworks 121 5.4 Investor Demand 116 5.2 Mandatory Disclosure 108 4.8 International Initiatives 107 4.8 Sustainability Reporting 107 4.8 Technological Change 103 4.6 Tax Incentives 10

258、0 4.5 Academic Research 98 4.4 Energy Efficiency 91 4.1 Finance Centre Activism 89 4.0 Insurance Industry Research 77 3.4 Water Quality 66 3.0 Food Security 56 2.5 Non-financial Reporting 56 2.5 Loss of Biodiversity 54 2.4 Industry Activism 53 2.4 NGO Activism 49 2.2 Voluntary Standards 39 1.7 Air Q

259、uality 31 1.4 Totals 2,236 100.0 Table 22|Drivers Of Green Finance Global Green Finance Index 15 58 Appendix 3:Respondents Details Industry Sector Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents Banking 46 7.9%Debt Capital Market 21 3.6%Equity Capital Markets 21 3.6%Insurance 16 2.7%Investment 60 10

260、.3%Knowledge 69 11.9%Local Green Initiatives 32 5.5%Policy and Public Finance 62 10.7%Professional Services 137 23.5%Trading 25 4.3%Other 93 16.0%Total 582 100.0%Table 23|Respondents By Industry Sector Engagement In Green Finance Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents Working Full-time On G

261、reen Finance 64 11.0%Working Part-time On Green Finance 255 43.8%Interested in Green Finance 228 39.2%Other/not given 35 6.0%Total 582 100.0%Table 24|Respondents By Engagement In Green Finance Region Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents Asia Pacific 239 41.1%Western Europe 140 24.1%Easter

262、n Europe and Central Asia 10 1.7%North America 45 7.7%Middle East and Africa 106 18.2%Latin America and the Caribbean 14 2.4%Multi-Regional 28 4.8%Total 582 100.0%Table 25|Respondents By Region Global Green Finance Index 15 59 Size of Organisation Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents 5000

263、 148 25.4%Other/not given 36 6.2%Total 582 100.0%Gender Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents Female 181 31.1%Male 290 49.8%Other 5 0.9%Prefer not to say/not given 106 18.2%Total 582 100.0%Age Band Number Of Respondents Percentage Of Respondents 18-30 104 17.9%30-45 214 36.8%45-60 116 19.9

264、%60+46 7.9%Other/not given 102 17.5%Total 582 100.0%Table 26|Respondents By Size Of Organisation Table 28|Respondents By Age Table 27|Respondents By Gender Global Green Finance Index 15 60 Appendix 4:Methodology The GGFI provides ratings of the green finance offering of financial centres.The process

265、 involves taking two sets of ratings one from survey respondents and one generated by a statistical model and combining them into a single rating.For the first set of ratings,the financial centre assessments,respondents use an online questionnaire to rate the depth and quality of each financial cent

266、res green finance offering,using a 10 point scale ranging from little depth/very poor to mainstream/excellent.Responses are sought from a range of individuals drawn from the financial services sector,non-governmental organisations,regulators,universities,and trade bodies.For the second set of rating

267、s,we use a database of indicators,or Instrumental Factors,that contain quantitative data about each financial centre.We use a machine learning algorithm to investigate the correlation between the financial centre assessments and these Instrumental Factors,to predict how each respondent would have ra

268、ted the financial centres they do not know.These 124 Instrumental Factors draw on data from a range of different sources covering sustainability,business,human capital,and infrastructure,including telecommunications and public transport.A full list of the Instrumental Factors used in the model is in

269、 Appendix 5.The respondents actual ratings as well as their predicted ratings for the centres they did not rate,are then combined into a single table to produce the ranking.We add the results for depth and quality to produce the GGFI.Factors Affecting The Inclusion Of Centres In The GGFI The questio

270、nnaire lists a total of 128 financial centres which can be rated by respondents.The questionnaire also asks whether there are financial centres that will improve their green finance offering significantly over the next two to three years.Centres which are not currently within the questionnaire and w

271、hich receive a number of mentions in response to this question will be added to the questionnaire for future editions.We give a financial centre a GGFI rating and ranking if it receives a statistically significant minimum number of assessments from individuals based in other geographical locations-a

272、t least 25 in GGFI 15.This means that not all 128 centres in the questionnaire receive a ranking.We will also develop rules as successive indices are published as to when a centre may be removed from the rankings,for example,if over a 24 month period,a centre has not received a minimum number of ass

273、essments.Global Green Finance Index 15 61 Financial Centre Assessments Financial centre assessments are collected via an online questionnaire which runs continuously and which is at link to this questionnaire is emailed to a target list of respondents at regular intervals.Other interested parties ca

274、n complete the questionnaire by following the link given in GGFI publications.In calculating the GGFI:the score given by a respondent to their home centre,and scores from respondents who do not specify a home centre,are excluded from the model this is designed to prevent home bias;financial centre a

275、ssessments are included in the GGFI model for 24 months after they have been received we consider that this is a period during which assessments maintain their validity;and financial centre assessments from the month when the GGFI is created will be given full weighting with earlier responses given

276、a reduced weighting on a logarithmic scale as shown in Chart 45-this recognises that older ratings,while still valid,are less likely to be up-to-date.Chart 45|Reduction In Weighting As Assessments Get Older Global Green Finance Index 15 62 Instrumental Factor Data For the instrumental factors,we hav

277、e the following data requirements:data series should come from a reputable body and be derived by a sound methodology;and data series should be readily available(ideally in the public domain)and be regularly updated.The rules on the use of instrumental factor data in the model are as follows:updates

278、 to the indices are collected and collated every six months;no weightings are applied to indices;indices are entered into the GGFI model as directly as possible,whether this is a rank,a derived score,a value,a distribution around a mean or a distribution around a benchmark;if a factor is at a nation

279、al level,the score will be used for all centres in that country;nation-based factors will be avoided if financial centre(city)-based factors are available;if an index has multiple values for a city or nation,the most relevant value is used;if an index is at a regional level,the most relevant allocat

280、ion of scores to each centre is made(and the method for judging relevance is noted);and if an index does not contain a value for a particular financial centre,a blank is entered against that centre(no average or mean is used).The details of the methodology can be accessed at https:/ process of creat

281、ing the GGFI is outlined in Chart 46.Chart 46|The GGFI Process Global Green Finance Index 15 63 Appendix 5:Instrumental Factors Table 29|Sustainability Instrumental Factor Correlation With GGFI Ratings Instrumental Factors R-squared Urban Mobility Readiness Index 0.694 The Future Growth Report 0.658

282、 IESE Cities In Motion Index 0.613 Quality Of Living City Rankings 0.604 Sustainable Economic Development 0.577 The Green Future Index 0.567 Energy Transition Index 0.538 World Energy Trilemma Index 0.524 Sustainable Cities Index 0.521 The Global Green Economy Index 0.434 Environmental Performance I

283、ndex 0.414 Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 0.403 Proportion Of Population Using Safely-Managed Drinking-Water Services(%)0.265 Global Green Growth Index 0.244 Quality Of Life Index 0.244 Pollution Index 0.238 Share Of Wind And Solar In Electricity Production 0.192 Buildings Energy Efficienc

284、y Policies Database(Y/N)0.151 Share Of Renewables In Electricity Production 0.138 Stock Exchanges With A Green Bond Segment(Y/N)0.087 Sovereign Green Bond(Y/N)0.078 Energy Intensity Of GDP 0.065 City Commitment To Carbon Reduction(Individual Action)0.057 Protected Land Area%Of Land Area 0.056 CO2 Em

285、issions Per Capita 0.031 Forestry Area 0.021 Sustainable Stock Exchanges(Y/N)0.007 City Commitment To Carbon Reduction(Cooperative Action)0.002 Average Precipitation In Depth(mm Per Year)0.000 Global Green Finance Index 15 64 Table 30|All Instrumental Factor Correlation With GGFI Ratings-Highest 30

286、Factors Instrumental Factors R-squared Urban Mobility Readiness Index 0.694 Safe Cities Index 0.682 The Future Growth Report 0.658 Blavatnik Index Of Public Administration 0.638 Legatum Prosperity Index 0.637 IESE Cities In Motion Index 0.613 Global Cities Outlook ranking 0.610 Quality Of Living Cit

287、y Rankings 0.604 Sustainable Economic Development 0.577 International IP Index 0.576 The Green Future Index 0.567 Adjusted Net National Income Per capita 0.567 The Global Financial Centres Index 0.560 Global Innovation Index 0.557 Energy Transition Index 0.538 Logistics Performance Index 0.537 World

288、 Energy Trilemma Index 0.524 Sustainable Cities Index 0.521 World Talent Rankings 0.519 Cost Of Living City Rankings 0.479 Corruption Perception Index 0.473 Smart City Index 0.447 Government Effectiveness 0.445 Travel&Tourism Development Index 0.437 The Global Green Economy Index 0.434 Environmental

289、 Performance Index 0.414 Good Country Index 0.408 Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 0.403 Regulatory Quality 0.403 Open Government 0.394 Global Green Finance Index 15 65 Instrumental Factor Source Website Updated Average Precipitation In Depth(mm Per Year)World Bank http:/databank.worldbank.o

290、rg/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&series=AG.LND.PRCP.MM Y Buildings Energy Efficiency Policies Database(Y/N)IEA https:/www.iea.org/policies N City Commitment To Carbon Reduction(Cooperative Action)UNFCCC https:/climateaction.unfccc.int/Actors N City Commitment To Carbon Reduct

291、ion(Individual Action)UNFCCC https:/climateaction.unfccc.int/Actors N CO2 Emissions Per Capita World Bank https:/databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=EN.ATM.CO2E.PC&country=#N Energy Intensity Of GDP Enerdata Statistical Yearbook https:/ Energy Transition Index World Economic Forum ht

292、tps:/www.weforum.org/reports/1edb4488-deb4-4151-9d4f-ff355eec499a/in-full/rankings Y Environmental Performance Index Yale University https:/epi.yale.edu/N Forestry Area World Bank http:/databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=AG.LND.FRST.ZS&country=Y Global Green Growth Index GGGI h

293、ttps:/ggindex-simtool.gggi.org/N Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index Solability http:/ N IESE Cities In Motion Index IESE http:/citiesinmotion.iese.edu/indicecim/?lang=en N Pollution Index Numbeo https:/ Y Proportion Of Population Using Safely-Managed Drinking-Water Services(%)WHO https:/www.wh

294、o.int/data/gho/publications/world-health-statistics N Protected Land Area%Of Land Area World Bank http:/databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=ER.LND.PTLD.ZS&country=Y Quality of Life Index Numbeo http:/ Y Quality Of Living City Rankings Mercer https:/ Y Share Of Renewables In Elec

295、tricity Production Enerdata Statistical Yearbook https:/ Share Of Wind And Solar In Electricity Production Enerdata Statistical Yearbook https:/ Sovereign Green Bond(Y/N)Climate Bonds https:/ N Stock Exchanges With A Green Bond Segment(Y/N)CBI https:/ Y Sustainable Cities Index Arcadis https:/ Susta

296、inable Economic Development Boston Consulting Group https:/ N Sustainable Stock Exchanges(Y/N)UN Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative https:/sseinitiative.org/exchanges-filter-search/N World Energy Trilemma Index World Energy Council https:/trilemma.worldenergy.org/N Urban Mobility Readiness Index

297、Oliver Wyman https:/ Y The Green Future Index MIT Technology Review https:/ The Global Green Economy Index Dual Citizen https:/ The Future Growth Report WEF https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Growth_Report_2024.pdf New Table 31|Sustainability Factors Global Green Finance Index 15 66 Instrume

298、ntal Factor Source Website Updated Average Wages OECD https:/data.oecd.org/earnwage/average-wages.htm Y Adjusted Net National Income Per Capita World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD Y Corruption Perception Index Transparency International https:/www.transparency.org/en/cpi

299、/2023 N Cost Of Living City Rankings Mercer https:/ N Crime Index Numbeo http:/ Educational Attainment,At Least Bachelors Or Equivalent,Population 25+,Total(%)World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.CUAT.BA.ZS Y Employees Working Very Long Hours OECD https:/stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?Da

300、taSetCode=BLI N English Proficiency Education First https:/ GDP Per Person Employed(Constant 2017 PPP$)World Bank https:/databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&series=SL.GDP.PCAP.EM.KD N Global Cities Index AT Kearney https:/ Global Health Security Index Nuclear Thre

301、at Initiative,Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,and Economist Impact https:/www.ghsindex.org/N Global Innovation Index WIPO http:/www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home Y Global Peace Index Institute for Economics&Peace https:/www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/#/Y Global Skills

302、Index Coursera https:/www.coursera.org/skills-reports/global N Global Terrorism Index Institute for Economics&Peace https:/www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/global-terrorism-index/#/N Good Country Index Good Country Party https:/www.goodcountry.org/index/results Y Government Effectiveness World Bank htt

303、p:/info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Y Gross Tertiary Graduation Ratio The World Bank Gender Data Portal https:/liveprod.worldbank.org/en/indicator/se-ter-cmpl-zs?gender=total N Health Care Index Numbeo http:/ Y Henley Passport Index Henley Partners https:/ Y Homicide Rates UNODC https:/dataunodc.un

304、.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims N Household Net Financial Wealth OECD https:/stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=BLI N Human Development Index UNDP https:/www.undp.org/arab-states/publications/human-N Human Freedom Index Cato Institute https:/www.cato.org/human-freedom-index N Individual Inco

305、me Tax Rates PWC https:/ Innovation Cities Global Index 2ThinkNow Innovation Cities https:/innovation- International IP Index U.S.Chamber of Commerce https:/ Legatum Prosperity Index Legatum Institute http:/ N Life Expectancy At Birth,Total World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.

306、IN Y Number Of High Net Worth Individuals Capgemini https:/ Number Of Meetings ICCA https:/ Oecd Country Risk Classification OECD http:/www.oecd.org/trade/topics/export-credits/documents/N Open Government World Justice Project http:/worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index Y Patent Applications,Res

307、idents World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.PAT.RESD?Y People Near Services ITDP https:/pedestriansfirst.itdp.org/N Personal Tax Rates OECD https:/stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I6 N Political Stability And Absence Of Violence/Terrorism World Bank http:/info.worldbank.org/g

308、overnance/wgi/Y Table 32|Human Capital Factors Global Green Finance Index 15 67 Instrumental Factor Source Website Updated Press Freedom Index Reporters Without Borders(RSF)https:/rsf.org/en/index?year=2024 N Prime International Residential Index Knight Frank https:/ N Proportion Of Seats Held By Wo

309、men In National Parliament World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS N Purchasing Power Index Numbeo https:/ Y Ratio of Female to Male Labor Force Participation Rate World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.ZS N Regulatory Quality World Bank http:/info.worldb

310、ank.org/governance/wgi/Y Tax Revenue As Percentage Of GDP World Bank https:/databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS&country=#Y Travel&Tourism Development Index World Economic Forum https:/www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Travel_Tourism_Development_2021.pdf N World Talent Ranki

311、ngs IMD https:/www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-talent-ranking/Y Table 32|(Continued)Human Capital Factors Instrumental Factor Source Website Updated Broad Stock Index Levels The World Federation of Stock Exchanges https:/focus.world-exchanges.org/issue/december-20

312、24/market-statistics Y Capitalisation Of Stock Exchanges The World Federation of Stock Exchanges https:/focus.world-exchanges.org/issue/december-2024/market-statistics Y Common Law Countries CIA https:/www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/N Corporate Tax Rates PWC https:/ N Country Brand Ranking

313、 Bloom Consulting https:/www.bloom- N Democracy Index The Economist https:/ Domestic Credit To Private Sector(%Of GDP)World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/FS.AST.PRVT.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=false N Economic Freedom The Heritage Foundation https:/www.heritage.org/index/ranking N Exter

314、nal Positions Of Central Banks As A Share Of GDP The Bank for International Settlements https:/data.bis.org/topics/LBS/tables-and-dashboards/BIS,LBS_A2,1.0 Y FATF AML Effectiveness FATF http:/www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/mutualevaluations/documents/assessment-ratings.html N FDI Inward Stock(In Mil

315、lion Dollars)UNCTAD https:/unctad.org/publication/world-investment-report-2024 N Financial Secrecy Index Tax Justice Network http:/ Foreign Direct Investment Inflows UNCTAD https:/unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.FdiFlowsStock Y GINI Index World Bank https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator

316、/SI.POV.GINI N Global Business Complexity Index TMF Group https:/www.tmf- Global Connectedness Index DHL https:/ N Global Services Location AT Kearney https:/ N Government Debt As%Of GDP IMF https:/www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GG_DEBT_GDPGDD/SWE Y Table 33|Business Factors Global Green Finance In

317、dex 15 68 Table 33|(Continued)Business Factors Instrumental Factor Source Website Updated Jurisdictions Participating In The Convention On Mutual Administrative Assistance In Tax Matters OECD https:/www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/Status_of_convention.pdf Y Level Of Internet Freedom Fre

318、edom House https:/freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-net/scores Y Net External Positions Of Banks The Bank for International Settlements https:/data.bis.org/topics/LBS/tables-and-dashboards/BIS,LBS_A3,1.0 Y Number Of Tax Treaties ICTD https:/www.treaties.tax/en/data/N Open Budget Survey Internationa

319、l Budget Partnership http:/survey.internationalbudget.org/#download N Percentage Of Firms Using Banks To Finance Investment World Bank http:/databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&series=IC.FRM.BNKS.ZS N Real Interest Rate World Bank https:/databank.worldbank.or

320、g/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators&series=FR.INR.RINR Y Safe Cities Index The Economist https:/ The Global Financial Centres Index Z/Yen https:/ The Global Fintech Index Findexable https:/ Total Net Assets Of Regulated Open-End Funds Investment Company Institute http:/www.icifactbook

321、.org/N TRACE Bribery Risk Matrix Trace International https:/matrixbrowser.traceinternational.org/Y Value Of Bond Trading The World Federation of Stock Exchanges https:/statistics.world-exchanges.org/ReportGenerator/Generator#Y Value Of Share Trading The World Federation of Stock Exchanges https:/foc

322、us.world-exchanges.org/issue/december-2024/market-statistics Y Volume Of Share Trading The World Federation of Stock Exchanges https:/statistics.world-exchanges.org/ReportGenerator/Generator#Y World Competitiveness Scoreboard IMD https:/www.imd.org/centers/wcc/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/w

323、orld-competitiveness-ranking/rankings/wcr-rankings/#_tab_List N Blavatnik Index Of Public Administration University of Oxford https:/index.bsg.ox.ac.uk/posts/overall_results/New Liner Shipping Connectivity Index World Bank http:/databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=IS.SHP.GCNW.XQ

324、 N Global Cities Outlook ranking Kearney https:/ New Global Green Finance Index 15 69 Table 34|Infrastructure Factors Instrumental Factor Source Website Updated Agility Emerging Markets Logistics Index Agility https:/ INRIX Traffic Scorecard INRIX http:/ International Construction Cost Index Arcadis

325、 https:/ N JLL Real Estate Transparency Index Jones Lang LaSalle https:/www.jll.co.uk/en/trends-and-insights/research/global-real-estate-transparency-index Y Logistics Performance Index World Bank http:/lpi.worldbank.org/international/global N Metro Network Length Metro Bits http:/mic- N Railways Pe

326、r Land Area CIA https:/www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/railways/country-comparison Y Refined Oil Products Production Enerdata Statistical Yearbook https:/ Roadways Per Land Area CIA https:/www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/roadways/country-comparison N Smart City Index IMD https:/www.imd.org

327、/smart-city-observatory/smart-city-index/N Telecommunication Infrastructure Index UN https:/publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center Y TomTom Traffic Index TomTom https:/ Global Green Finance Index 15 70 Vantage Financial Centres is an exclusive network of financial centres around the wo

328、rld looking for a deeper understanding of financial centre competitiveness.Members receive enhanced access to GGFI and GFCI data,marketing opportunities,and training for centres seeking to enhance their profile and reputation.Supported by the industry,the Financial Services Development Council(FSDC)

329、is a high-level,cross-sectoral advisory body to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.FSDC formulates proposals to promote the further development of Hong Kongs financial services industry and to map out the strategic direction for the development.As of March 2020,110 of the 137 pol

330、icy recommendations had been adopted by the Government and relevant regulators since FSDCs inception in 2013.On top of research,FSDC also carries out market promotion and human capital development functions.Among others,FSDC focuses on topics including Mainland and international connectivity,green a

331、nd sustainable finance,FinTech,as well as asset and wealth management.enquiryfsdc.org.hk https:/www.fsdc.org.hk/en Since 2009 Busan Metropolitan City has been developing a financial hub specialising in maritime finance and derivatives.With its strategic location in the center of the southeast econom

332、ic block of Korea and the crossroads of a global logistics route,Busan envisions growing into an international financial city in Northeast Asia.Busan Finance Center(BFC)will continue to develop and implement measures to promote Busan as the financial hub and bolster the local financial industry,whil

333、e working together with various local economic players to pursue sustainable growth of the financial sector including FinTech.These efforts will enable BFC to play a leading role in taking Busan to the next level and become the international financial center and maritime capital of Northeast Asia.BFC offers an attractive incentive package to global financial leaders and cooperation network of Busa