Hehson财经ESG评级中心提供包括资讯、报告、培训、咨询等在内的14项ESG服务，助力上市公司传播ESG理念，提升ESG可持续发展表现。点击查看【ESG评级中心服务手册】

　　文 | Hehson财经 李欣然

　　当前，全球气候行动正从承诺向落地深化，在ESG投资理念逐步普及、各国国家自主贡献（NDCs）目标加速推进的背景下，联合国绿色气候基金（Green Climate Fund, 简称GCF）作为全球重要的多边气候融资机制，正通过资金催化与伙伴协作助力全球低碳转型。但当前气候融资领域仍面临诸多阻碍：ESG被部分地区过度政治化、中小企业减碳融资门槛高、最脆弱群体及社区的气候项目易被忽视，这些问题如何破解？绿色气候基金在撬动私营部门参与、支持发展中国家气候项目上已取得哪些切实成效？针对气候项目中“短期成本压力”与“长期可持续影响”的核心矛盾，绿色气候基金的资助模式又具备哪些创新优势？近日，Hehson财经对话联合国绿色气候基金首席投资官亨利·冈萨雷斯（Henry Gonzalez），共同深入探讨全球气候融资的现实瓶颈与突破路径，以及绿色气候基金如何为各国气候行动提供兼具资金支持与系统性解决方案。

　　以下为对话实录：

　　Q：我们了解到您在可持续发展与影响力投资领域拥有超过25年的专业经验，在ESG及影响力投资领域积累了丰富实践。基于您的经验，将ESG要素纳入投资决策是否能带来更可观的财务回报？

　　A：我们以往评估投资主要依据风险与回报，这是一种非常简单的逻辑，投资者也对此表示认可。但随着时间的推移，投资者的需求不断升级——他们不仅想了解财务层面的风险与回报，还希望知晓自身投资可能对实体经济产生的潜在影响。年轻投资者和女性投资者更多参与市场后，这种转变尤为明显。当前全球正经历一场值得关注的财富转移，即财富正从二战前后出生的一代人转移至下一代。

　　众多大型金融机构的调查显示，投资者对了解投资对实体经济的影响，以及对环境、气候和社会基础设施的影响抱有明确兴趣。从这一角度看，ESG要素的整合已变得至关重要。

　　对于长期投资者而言，我们确实希望保持参与度。这些要素之所以关键，是因为当下气候变化的影响在未来会更加显著。今年夏天，欧洲已遭遇史无前例的火灾和热浪，这充分说明我们必须将这些因素纳入决策过程。

　　反之，如果不纳入这些要素，就可能出现“搁浅资产”——即不再可用的资产，这会带来巨大风险。同时，有限资源也会面临枯竭，进而阻碍创新与增长的可持续性。此外，人口结构变化若未得到重视，也会引发一系列后果，比如人口老龄化、青壮年人口问题，以及部分地区劳动力市场参与率不足等。最后，影响实体经济的因素众多，我们应将其更多地纳入投资决策，从简化的“风险-回报”模型转向“风险-回报-可持续性”模型，并以此作为投资决策的新核心。

　　Q：您提到欧洲出现了更多极端天气事件，比如火灾和热浪。但我们似乎也观察到对气候行动的抵制情绪，例如部分金融机构正退出净零联盟。您认为这一现象的根本原因是什么？他们为何会对气候治理和气候行动产生这种抵制？

　　A：我相信，许多投资者和资产所有者始终对ESG持有严肃态度，并将长期坚守相关承诺。

　　但有一部分投资者受地缘政治形势及美国等一些国家舆论的影响，因避免损害短期利益而被迫选择妥协。遗憾的是，ESG相关讨论已陷入政治化漩涡。但我想明确，ESG本身不涉及政治，它只是一种投资筛选工具。它从未试图强加任何东西，只是为投资者提供一种新的、不同的投资评估方式——投资者可自主选择是否使用，绝非强制要求。但尤其在美国，ESG被赋予了政治属性，陷入过度政治化的境地，这影响了人们对它的认知。

　　但有一点让我感到欣慰：尽管言论纷杂，但显然有部分投资者在长期坚持ESG理念。我最近看到一篇报道，某大型资产所有者从贝莱德（BlackRock）撤资数十亿美元，原因是贝莱德未能兑现其ESG战略承诺。因此，欧洲的资产所有者和投资者群体中，肯定有部分主体仍对此保持长期坚定的投入。

　　亚洲的发展也给我留下了非常积极的印象。亚洲在ESG和可持续发展的诸多方面起步较晚，因为亚洲投资者往往以收益为导向，更青睐高收益资产。但如今，家族办公室和大型主权财富基金（如阿布扎比的主权财富基金等）显然已在向ESG原则靠拢。澳大利亚等市场也出现了类似趋势。因此，我相信那种将ESG与收益对立起来的二元化论调，其实已并非主流。在全球多地，投资者如今更渴望看到投资所产生的积极影响力，要求证明他们的投资确实会对社会产生积极效益。这是好事，体现了问责精神。但我坚信，回避或否认纳入这些要素的必要性，本质上是一种短期思维，与长期投资视角相悖。

　　Q：您刚强调了气候治理的重要性，因为这是一项长期考量。但部分企业（尤其是中小企业）可能会表示，他们需优先关注短期利润和运营，缺乏对长期收益的预判能力。那在您看来，该如何平衡短期与长期目？

　　A：我一直认为，中小企业是经济体的支柱，我们需要与它们合作，找到切合实际需求的ESG工具。不能简单地将适用于《财富》500强企业的ESG框架直接套用于中小企业。在许多方面，各方的看法基本一致。例如，中小企业需遵守劳动法——这在治理层面至关重要；由于供应链规模较小，它们往往能更紧密地管理价值链，从而对原材料采购拥有更强的控制权；此外，多数中小企业为家族企业，往往深度参与社区事务，从创立之初就带有强烈的使命感。

　　我们不能像对待大型企业那样，向中小企业强加一套ESG工具包。我们需要结合中小企业的实际情况，提供更贴合其需求的方案。中小企业通常具有长期导向——它们的经营周期往往长达数十年，要么通过家族传承，要么通过成立控股公司引入其他投资者实现延续。因此，它们本质上倾向于长期发展。

　　当前，我们需要确保的是，在纳入ESG参数时不会因不必要的报告要求而增加其负担，这正是制定标准的重要性所在。我对部分标准遭遇抵制感到非常遗憾，但也有一些机制经受住了考验，例如负责任投资原则（PRI），该原则已存在多年，能够应对并化解各类问题，这点至关重要。

　　另一个要点是，许多中小企业并非上市公司，它们通常寻求私募债和私募股权融资。将ESG和气候标准应用于私募股权与私募债领域，这与在公开市场的应用方式存在差异。在私募领域，投资者往往进入董事会，能提供宝贵见解，也更关注实际执行过程。有一些私募股权投资者专门聚焦可持续发展领域，并与中小企业开展深度合作。因此，这是另一种差异化的实施路径。鉴于并非所有中小企业都上市，我们完全可以量身定制ESG整合方案。

　　Q：您刚才提到不应给中小企业增加过多负担。今年2月，欧盟推出了“综合一揽子方案”（Omnibus Package），旨在简化可持续发展及信息披露相关法规，目标是为企业营造有利的经营环境。有人认为这是好事，因为它简化了披露流程；但也有人担忧这会降低数据的可信度。您如何看待欧盟的这项政策？

　　A：欧盟分类法（EU Taxonomy）可视为一项非常完善的标准，但如你所言，它需要进行一些调整。俗话说得好：“追求完美，反成画蛇添足”（the perfect is the enemy of the good），这一点在新兴经济体应用这些标准时尤为突出，毕竟新兴经济体的实际情况与欧洲经济体存在显著差异。

　　我认为，制定更具灵活性和适用性的标准，未必会导致标准掩盖或缩水，但前提是相关主体需承担责任。它们需要制定清晰（即便简单）的问责标准，且能够提供实证支持。

　　实现这一目标的最佳方式，是采用一套各方普遍理解且包含核查机制的标准。归根结底，任何人都可能试图钻制度的空子，但最终都会被发现。这也可以是一个渐进的过程：起初可制定具有雄心但并非遥不可及的政策，先推动运营模式转型，再随着机构能力的提升逐步提高标准。例如，机构可从初级起步，逐步升级，每一级都需满足更多要求。

　　或许这种渐进式整合的体系才是正确的路径。我认为我们不需要“一刀切”的解决方案，但即便没有统一标准，所有主体在报告中都应做到问责透明，且报告内容最好能接受外部核查。

　　Q：接下来，让我们把焦点转移到您所在的机构。作为《联合国气候变化框架公约》（UNFCCC）资金机制的组成部分，GCF旨在通过资金支持帮助发展中国家开展气候行动。您认为GCF目前面临哪些挑战？

　　A：GCF已运营10年。我们在巴黎气候变化大会（COP 21）召开前批准了首个资助项目，截至目前，已承诺投入193亿美元自有资金；包括该笔资金在内，共撬动了790亿美元资金。我们已在140个国家开展了300多笔交易，其中约36%投向私营部门，其余投向公共部门。具体而言，36%的资源投向非洲，32%投向亚太地区，22%投向拉丁美洲，10%投向中亚。这无疑是一项显著的成就。

　　如你所言，我们是《联合国气候变化框架公约》及《巴黎协定》的资金运营机制。尽管我们的资源有限——在三轮筹款周期中已筹集近300亿美元，且采用四年运营周期——但我们计划在2023至2027年间投入106亿美元。今年，我们有望创下纪录，承诺投入超30亿美元资金。但我们面临的最大挑战，是如何以最具催化效应的方式运用这些资源。

　　我们肩负着一项明确的使命：按赠款当量计算，将一半的资金用于气候减缓项目，另一半用于气候适应项目。必要情况下可以承担更高风险、进行更大规模投资。但我们真正需要明确的是，我们的干预措施是否能帮助各国实现其国家自主贡献（NDCs）和国家适应计划。这意味着要为各国的气候优先事项创造价值。

　　第一个挑战是确保我们的项目支持各国向低碳经济转型；第二个挑战是确保项目产生变革性影响——我们聚焦于测试新技术、新模式或处于创新前沿的项目，核心在于国家主导、目标对齐、成果导向和影响力优先。第三个挑战是调动更多资源（尤其是私营部门资源），我们希望提高私营部门的参与度。另一个重要方向是确保覆盖最脆弱的人群和社区——那些常被忽视的群体，我们希望将他们纳入行动体系。

　　我们是全球最大的多边气候基金，具有独特性，与150多个合作伙伴开展合作，涵盖银行、非政府组织、政府、多边开发银行及发展金融机构等。由于我们通过合作伙伴而非直接开展项目，因此需要确保合作伙伴能进一步选择最优执行方。因此，在气候领域真正发挥催化作用，对我们而言意味着助力各国实现其宏伟的气候减缓与适应目标。

　　Q：您认为未来发展中国家或新兴经济体是否在全球气候行动融资方面所做的贡献更多？

　　A：在最新一轮资金补充或筹款周期中，我们已收到35个不同来源的捐款，其中不乏新兴经济体。事实上，无论是初始资金动员阶段，还是第一期（GCF-1）和当前第二期（GCF-2）筹款中，我们都已看到发展中国家的参与。但正如你所指出的，我们完全可以期待更多国家以及经济体的参与，尤其是那些有能力调动更多资源的大型经济体。这正是我们积极探索的方向。

　　不过，我们也认为，发达国家有责任去支持这一转型，因为它们的历史碳足迹是造成当前诸多问题的重要原因。因此，我认为发展中国家更多的参与并不会免除发达国家的责任；相反，这有望强化整体行动力度，推动所有相关方取得更大进展。

　　Q：您认为中国在未来全球气候治理中将扮演何种角色？您如何评价中国目前在绿色发展领域的进展？您期待中国采取哪些行动以对全球气候治理产生积极影响？

　　A：事实上，我与GCF的中国籍董事会成员以及中国其他合作伙伴保持着密切合作。最近，我们对亚洲基础设施投资银行（简称“亚投行”）的资质给予认可。我们也见证了中国在碳目标、可再生能源、绿色债券及南南合作等领域的发展历程与坚定承诺。在全球其他地区立场出现波动的背景下，中国对自身开启的转型之路目标明确，并决心在2060年实现碳中和。这种承诺绝非空谈，因为中国已拿出了实实在在的成果。

　　在合作层面，我们正与部分中国投资者探讨联合投资的可能性，也在与亚投行沟通，希望将其部分投资锚定在太平洋、中亚等重点国家。同时，我们还将继续与中国籍董事会成员及中国政府沟通，评估中国为GCF议程贡献力量的最佳方式。这是我们每年在执行主任牵头的年度项目规划交流中都会探讨的议题。过去两年，我还牵头了另一项深化合作的工作，我们围绕技术转让、南南合作、联合融资及研发等领域展开了讨论。此外，中国希望在多个领域发挥作用，我们也希望找到更紧密的合作路径。

　　在与亚投行的合作中，我们的业务覆盖整个亚洲大陆，从而能充分利用其专业优势。我们与亚洲开发银行在中国有一个合作项目，同时也与部分中方成员进行了交流。中方成员认为，中国不应仅聚焦于国内项目规划，还可支持GCF开展更广泛的全球项目规划。作为联合投资方，我们有望找到路径，将资金、技术和专业知识引入非洲、太平洋岛国等中国同样关注的重点地区。

　　以下为英文对话实录：

　　Q: We learned that you have over 25 years of professional experience in sustainable and impact investing, and that you have extensive experience with ESG and impact integration strategies across finance. So, based on your experience, do you think incorporating ESG elements into investment decisions leads to more favorable financial returns?

　　A: We used to assess investments mostly based on risk and reward. It was a very simple equation, and investors were happy with that. However, over time, there has been a growing demand from investors to understand not only the financial risks and returns but also the potential impact their investments could have on the real economy. This shift has been particularly noticeable as younger investors and women have become more involved in the market. The world is currently undergoing an interesting wealth transition, as wealth moves from the generation born around World War Two to the next generations.

　　If you look at surveys conducted by many large financial players, there is a clear interest in understanding the impact that investments can have on the real economy, as well as the environmental, climate, and social infrastructure impacts. From this perspective, the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors has become extremely important.

　　If investors are in it for the long term, we really want to stay engaged. These elements are crucial because the impacts of climate change today will be even more palpable in the future. We've already seen an unprecedented number of fires and heat waves in Europe during the summer. It's clear that these factors need to be integrated into our decision-making.

　　Otherwise, if we don't incorporate these elements, there will be stranded assets—assets that are no longer usable, which poses a huge risk. There will also be depletion of finite resources, which would hinder our ability to sustain innovation and growth. Additionally, demographic changes are happening that, if not taken into consideration, will have consequences. We will see these consequences in aging populations, young populations, and in other parts of the world where people are not accessing the labor market. There are many factors impacting the real economy, and we need to incorporate more of these elements into our investment decisions; we need to shift from a simplified risk-reward model to a risk-reward-sustainability model as a new anchor for making investment decisions.

　　Q: So you mention that there are more and more extreme weather events in Europe, such as fires and heat waves. But we also seem to be witnessing a backlash against climate action. For example, some companies and institutions, particularly some banks, are withdrawing from net-zero commitments. What do you think is the fundamental reason for this phenomenon? Why are they having this kind of backlash against climate governance and climate action?

　　A: I believe there are many investors and asset owners who have always been serious about ESG and will remain committed to it for the long term.

　　However, there were others who, given the geopolitical conditions and the discourse in the U.S. and other countries at the time, felt pressured to align a little bit in order not to jeopardize their short-term opportunities. Unfortunately, the ESG debate became politicized. Let me just focus on ESG. ESG is not political. It's simply a screening tool for making investments. It was never about imposing anything; it was about providing investors with a new, different way to assess investments. Investors could choose whether to use it or not. It was never imposed. But in the U.S., in particular, it took on a political angle and became overly politicized, which affected its perception.

　　But one thing that reassures me is that despite the rhetoric, it's clear that certain investors are sticking to ESG for the long term. I actually recently saw an article about a major asset owner pulling billions from BlackRock because BlackRock wasn't delivering on its ESG strategies. So, there are definitely elements of the European asset owner and investor base that remain fully committed to this for the long run.

　　And I'm also very positively impressed by what's happening in Asia. Asia was a bit of a latecomer to many aspects of ESG and sustainability because Asian investors tend to be very yield-driven. They were looking for high-yielding assets. However, it’s clear now that family offices and large sovereign wealth funds, like the one in Abu Dhabi and others, are really aligning with ESG principles. You also see this in Australia and other markets. So I do believe that perhaps this binary discourse, which suggests that ESG and returns are mutually exclusive, is not a widespread view. In many parts of the world, investors are now asking for more evidence of impact, more proof that their investments are actually helping the real economy. And that's good—it's accountability. But I do believe that avoiding or not acknowledging the need to take these elements into account is a short-term bias and not aligned with a long-term horizon.

　　Q: So you emphasized the importance of climate governance because it's a long-term consideration. But some companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), might say that they need to focus on their short-term profits or operations first. They may not have the vision to see the long-term benefits. So, how do you balance the short term and the long term?

　　A: I've always said that SMEs are the backbone of our economies, and we need to work with them to see what ESG tools are fit for purpose. You can't just translate an ESG framework for a Fortune 500 company and apply it to an SME. Estimates are usually pretty aligned on a lot of things. For example, SMEs need to comply with labor laws, which are extremely important on the governance side. They also tend to manage their value chains more closely because their supply chains are smaller, so they can have more control over how they source their materials. And a lot of them, because most SMEs are family businesses, tend to be very active in their communities. They often have a sense of purpose right from the start.

　　What we can't do is impose an ESG toolkit on SMEs in the same way we do for larger companies. We need to adjust to the realities of SMEs and provide something that is more fit for purpose. SMEs usually have a long-term orientation. They often stay in business for many years, either through family transfers or by creating holding companies that bring in other investors. So, they tend to be long-term oriented.

　　Now, what we need to ensure is that when we incorporate ESG parameters, they don't become too burdensome with unnecessary reporting. That's why it's important to have standards. I'm extremely sorry to see that some of these standards have been pushed back. But there have been initiatives like the Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) from the UN, which have existed for many years and have been able to withstand and sustain all these issues. I think this is important.

　　Another important point is that many SMEs are not publicly traded companies. They often seek private debt and private equity. Applying ESG and climate standards to private equity and private debt is different from how you do it in the public markets. Here, investors are often on the boards and provide valuable insights. They are more invested in how these things happen. We have private equity investors who focus solely on sustainability and work closely with SMEs. So, I think this is another different approach. Not all SMEs are listed, and therefore you can tailor how you apply ESG integration.

　　Q: You just mentioned that maybe we shouldn't put too much workload on SMEs. In February this year, the EU introduced an Omnibus Package aimed at simplifying the code related to sustainability and information disclosure. Their goal was to create a favorable business environment for companies. Some people think this is a good thing because it simplifies the disclosure process. However, others worry that it might reduce the credibility of the data. So, what do you think about this policy published by the EU?

　　A: The EU taxonomy is considered a very good standard. But as you said, there needs to be some adjustment. As we say in English, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” This is especially true when applying these standards to emerging economies. In emerging economies, we have different realities compared to European economies.

　　I feel that creating something more flexible and applicable doesn't necessarily translate into greenwashing or falling short of admission, as long as entities are held accountable. They need to have clear, even if simple, accountability standards that they can demonstrate with evidence.

　　The best way to do this is to use a standard that everyone understands and that includes some form of verification. At the end of the day, anyone can try to game the system, but they will get caught. This could also be a gradual journey. One could start with a set of policies that are ambitious, but not to the point where they seem unattainable. It's about making a shift in how things operate and then increasing those standards as the organization progresses. For example, an organization could start at level 1 and move to level 2, complying with more requirements at each level.

　　Maybe a system like this, with gradual integration, is the right approach. I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all solution. But even if we don't have a one-size-fits-all approach, everyone should be accountable and transparent in their reporting and ideally have external verifications of what is reported.

　　Q: Next, let's focus on your organization. As part of the financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the GCF is designed to support climate actions in developing countries through funding. What challenges do you think the GCF is facing?

　　A: The GCF has been in operation for 10 years now. We approved our first funding proposal right before COP 21 in Paris. Fast forward to today, and we have already committed $19.3 billion of our own capital. In total, we have been able to mobilize $79 billion, including that $19 billion from the GCF. We have made investments in 140 countries, with over 300 projects approved—about 36% of which are in the private sector, and the rest in the public sector. Specifically, we have allocated 36% of our resources to Africa, 32% to the Asia-Pacific region, 22% to Latin America, and 10% to Eastern Central Asia. It's been quite an achievement.

　　As you mentioned, we are the financial and operating mechanism of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Although we have finite resources—we've been able to raise nearly $30 billion across three fundraising cycles and operate on a four-year cycle—we aim to deploy $10.6 billion between 2023 and 2027. This year, we hope to break a record by committing over $3 billion in capital. But our biggest challenge is how to use these resources in the most catalytic way possible.

　　We have a strong mandate to allocate 50% of our funds to mitigation and 50% to adaptation in grant equivalency. We can take higher risks and make larger investments if needed. But what we really need to understand is whether our interventions will support countries in meeting their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and national adaptation plans. This means adding value to the country's climate priorities.

　　The first challenge is to ensure that our projects support countries in their transition to low carbon economies. The second challenge is to ensure that the impacts of our projects are transformational. We focus on projects that are testing new technologies or business models, or are at the forefront of innovation. It's about country ownership, alignment, results, and impact. The third challenge is to mobilize as many resources as possible, especially from the private sector. We want to increase private sector participation. Another important element is ensuring that we reach the most vulnerable people and communities—those who are often overlooked. We want to bring them into the fold.

　　We are a unique fund, the largest multilateral climate fund, working with over 150 partners. These partners range from banks and NGOs to governments, multilateral development banks, and development finance institutions. Because we work through partners rather than directly, we need to ensure that they, in turn, choose the best partners to deliver the projects. So, for us, being truly catalytic in the climate space means delivering ambitious mitigation and adaptation goals that countries have set.

　　Q: Do you think that, in the future, developing countries or emerging economies might become more important contributors to financing global climate action?

　　A: For this last cycle of replenishment or fundraising, we have received contributions from 35 different sources. Some of these are emerging economies. So, both in the initial mobilization phase and in GCF-1 and now GCF-2, we have already seen participation from developing countries. But to your point, we could definitely see a bigger engagement, especially from large players who might be able to channel more resources. That is something we are actively exploring.

　　However, we also feel that there is a responsibility on the part of developed countries to support this transition, given that their historical footprint has contributed significantly to many of these issues. So, I think that having more engagement from developing countries does not take away the responsibility of developed countries. In fact, it hopefully enhances the overall effort and leads to greater progress for everyone involved.

　　Q: What do you think China;s role will be in the future in terms of climate governance? What's your view on China's progress in green development so far? And what do you expect China to do to have a positive impact on global climate governance?

　　A: Actually, I've been working closely with our Chinese board members, as well as other partners in China. We recently accredited the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which is based in Beijing. So, we've seen China's journey and commitment regarding its carbon goals, its focus on renewables, green bonds, and South-South cooperation. As the world shifts in other parts, China seems very clear that this is a journey they have started and are determined to achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by 2060. We do see that commitment, and it's genuine because they are able to show actual results.

　　Now, in terms of engagement, we are discussing with some China-based investors about the possibility of co-investing with us. We are also working with the AIIB on the possibility of anchoring some of their investments in priority countries, like the Pacific or Central Asia. But we also want to continue engaging with our board members and the Chinese government to assess how best they can contribute to the GCF agenda. This is something we discuss every year during our annual programming exchange, which our executive director leads. For the past two years, I've been leading another effort to engage further, and we've been talking about technology transfer, South-South cooperation, co-financing, and R&D. There are many areas where China would like to play a role, and we'd like to find better ways to partner closely.

　　With the AIIB, we are working across the entire Asian continent because we want to take advantage of their expertise. We have one project with the Asian Development Bank in China, but we've also discussed with some Chinese members. They feel that instead of focusing only on programming within China, China can support the GCF in programming more globally. As a co-investor, we could hopefully find ways to bring capital, technology, and know-how to other areas that are also priorities for China, such as Africa, the Pacific Islands, or other regions.

　　Hehson财经ESG评级中心简介

　　Hehson财经ESG评级中心是业内首个中文ESG专业资讯和评级聚合平台，致力于宣传和推广可持续发展，责任投资，与ESG（环境、社会和公司治理）价值理念，传播ESG的企业实践行动和榜样力量，推动中国ESG事业的发展，促进中国ESG评估标准的建立和企业评级的提升。

　　依托ESG评级中心，Hehson财经发布多只ESG创新指数，为关注企业ESG表现的投资者提供更多选择。同时，Hehson财经成立中国ESG领导者组织论坛，携手中国ESG领导企业和合作伙伴，通过环境、社会和公司治理理念，推动建立适合中国时代特征的ESG评价标准体系，促进中国资产管理行业ESG投资发展。