Tag: Featured Articles

Investing in Resilience & Access: The Global Microgrid Energy Landscape

By David Breecker, Microgrid Systems Laboratory

PV array located at Northern New Mexico Community College that will be utilized in our Resilient El Rito community microgrid project with Kit Carson Electric Cooperative. (Photo credit: Kit Carson Electric Cooperative) 


David Breecker - Microgrid Systems LaboratoryPrivate investment capital at scale will be necessary to achieve our global energy goals and to avert catastrophic climate change, while also meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and achieving universal access to clean energy. Microgrids (or mini-grids, as they are known in the developing world) are one essential component of this energy transition.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “A microgrid is a network of distributed energy resources and loads that can disconnect and re-connect to the larger utility grid as a single entity, allowing the connected loads to be served during utility outages. Microgrids can also be found in remote locations where they may not be connected to a larger grid.”

These small-scale integrated energy systems are becoming an increasingly common feature of the renewable energy landscape. They offer a high degree of resilience to utility outages caused by extreme weather events, aging assets, or cyber- and physical attacks on grid infrastructure, by disconnecting (or “islanding”) from the bulk grid and operating autonomously; and they present an opportunity to move more aggressively to 100 percent renewable energy right now. They are also considered to represent as much as 40 percent of the solution to energy poverty challenges worldwide, affecting over 2 billion people with inadequate access. 

Other Potential Benefits of Microgrids

Microgrids, when connected to the bulk power grid (“grid-tied”) can also reduce regular utility per-kilowatt hour charges, avoid “peak demand charges,” profit from “energy arbitrage” (i.e., export surplus energy to the grid when prices are high, recharge the microgrid’s energy storage system when prices are low), and offer upstream “grid services” (e.g., frequency regulation, voltage support, capacity reserves, demand flexibility) which can yield revenue under certain regulatory regimes. They can also reduce utility capital expenditures by deferring or avoiding transmission and distribution system upgrades (“non-wires alternatives”) to address capacity constraints; and they are also being used to reduce wildfire risks by allowing utilities to de-energize (or in some cases, completely eliminate) high-voltage lines that can cause a fire. By helping to address the energy access challenge in remote rural areas (primarily in Africa and South Asia), renewable microgrids can replace (or preempt) the use of small petrol generators while enabling improved small business, agriculture, health and education applications.

Types of Microgrids & Use Cases

In the industrialized world, several main categories of microgrids represent distinct technical, performance and financial factors: 

  • Military bases: the U.S. Department of Defense is working to ensure a very high degree of resilience at all installations 
  • Commercial & Industrial: Commercial and university campuses, manufacturing plants, and even retail operations are increasingly deploying microgrids to advance their emissions reductions, achieve operational economies and reduce financial losses due to utility outages 
  • Utility microgrids: Utilities are beginning to enter the business of providing resilient renewable microgrids to meet customer demand; and are also utilizing them to sustain power during “Public Safety Power Shutoffs” used to prevent wildfires and to defer costly infrastructure upgrades 
  • Community resilience: Communities are acting to ensure continuous performance of all critical facilities and services via microgrids, through either utility or third-party microgrid partnerships 
  • Energy Sovereignty: Tribal entities are beginning to deploy microgrids as one important solution to achieving true “energy sovereignty” in their electric service 
  • Remote: Remote microgrids serve extremely rural communities (as well as mining and industrial locations) that have no grid access, most frequently in Africa and Asia, Alaska communities and some in Latin America 
  • Residential: Finally, home solar + storage systems (especially when combined with integrated electric vehicles and chargers) can easily comprise a small-scale resilience microgrid
Microgrid PV Array Electrical Box - Kit Carson Electric CoOp
Microgrid PV Array Electrical Box; photo credit: Kit Carson Electric Cooperative

The U.S. Microgrid Investment Landscape

Third-party microgrid investment opportunities on a project basis are somewhat limited in the industrialized world. Many of the major electrical systems engineering companies offer “microgrid-as-a-service” propositions with no capital expense for the customer, based on a power purchase agreement; these include Schneider Electric, with investment from the Carlisle Group, in AlphaStruxure (for very large projects) and with Huck Capital (mid-size C&I projects); Siemens Industry; and S&C Electric. Another, Enchanted Rock, installs microgrids on retail commercial premises so as to utilize them under blue-sky (i.e., normal operating) conditions to deliver services to the grid. In some cases, utilities have been approved to “rate-base” the cost of a microgrid (i.e., pass the cost through to its entire customer base). Compass Energy Platform works with communities to develop resilience microgrids, leveraging their partnership with InfraRed Capital Partners and other project collaborators.

The investment opportunity is somewhat complicated by the fact that resilience remains the primary motivation for building a microgrid, but apart from commercial operations (which can accurately assess the operational cost of losing power), it is difficult to quantify and monetize the value of resilience as an element of ROI. That said, several credible efforts are underway to establish a uniform basis for calculating the value of resilience, and microgrids of all types are projected to experience significant growth in the near term, especially with extreme weather events and cyber- and physical terrorism threats to the grid and the urgency of decarbonization.

A recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory report cited estimates of the global microgrid market ranging from $23 billion to $39 billion, with double-digit annual growth expected.

There may well be opportunities for specialized third-party funds in this space as microgrids (and their business and finance models) evolve and accelerate. As a point of reference, the American Green Bank Consortium, launched by the Coalition for Green Capital, has reportedly considered microgrids as appropriate investment opportunities within its energy portfolio.

The Investment Landscape in Developing Economies

A strikingly different picture emerges in the developing economies, where energy access, affordability, and reliability are the main challenges and capital is severely constrained. As measured by the World Bank Multi-Tier Framework, approximately 25 percent of the world’s population (over 2 billion people) suffers from some form of energy poverty or lack of access. As one example, in its report “Mini Grids for Half a Billion People” (focused on microgrids for access in Africa), the World Bank estimates that universal access will require more than 217,000 minigrids by 2030, at a cost of $127 billion, providing 430 million people with first-time access ($105 billion) and 60 million people with improved access ($22 billion). India presents comparable challenges, and additional under-served populations exist throughout South Asia, Alaska (where there is no “main grid” and microgrids serve all communities), parts of rural North America including Native American communities, Latin America, and the Caribbean Islands (highly vulnerable to extreme weather). Affordable and reliable access to renewable energy (U.N. Sustainable Development Goal #7) is a prerequisite for economic, agricultural, and commercial development, known as “productive use of energy”; as well as health, education, and community development.

There must be continued innovation in technology, policy, regulations, and other factors in order to meet this need; but several hundred minigrids are already in operation, and a basic model exists. The main obstacle appears to be sufficient risk mitigation so as to enable commercial project-based debt financing to flow at scale, on the order of 10 to 100 times current levels. To date, the primary sources of investment funds have been concessionary (a mix of philanthropic grants, international aid, subsidized loan rates) and some equity capital in mini-grid development companies. The Microgrid Systems Laboratory is exploring the feasibility of a “green bank” focused on energy access in Africa, and welcomes inquiries. 


Article by David Breecker, President, Microgrid Systems Laboratory. The Microgrid Systems Laboratory is a non-profit collaborative innovation lab, working to accelerate the transition to a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable energy system worldwide in the programmatic areas of research, innovation, demonstration, and education. MSL is the winner of the Silver Award in the Smart Grid pillar of the 2022 Energy Smart Communities Initiative Best Practices Awards Program, given by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Sustainable Business

Public Equity Investing in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

By Paul Hilton, Trillium Asset Management

Trillium’s Sustainable Opportunities thematic public equity strategy aims to address global sustainability challenges in three core areas: climate solutions, economic inclusion, and healthy living. While many of Trillium’s equity strategies have exposure to renewable energy, the Sustainable Opportunities strategy has a more specific, thematic focus, and generally a greater level of exposure to companies benefiting from the shift to a more sustainable economy. Within climate solutions, a primary focus is renewable energy and energy conservation, particularly exposure to companies involved in:

• Electrification and Grid Modernization, including storage
• Energy Efficiency
• Geothermal
• Renewable Energy Financing
• Solar Energy
• Wind Energy

In our view, climate change is the top existential issue facing the planet. Long-term impacts from climate change are well documented by the IPCC, and include more extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts, and floods. These impacts will lead to food and water insecurity as well as public health and biodiversity threats. According to the World Health Organization between 2030 and 2050 climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, including from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress.1

But we believe climate change also represents an investment opportunity, given the level of investment required to meet global goals such as the 1.5 degree C global warming target of the Paris Agreement in 2015. For example, the International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that meeting global energy transformation goals will require an additional $47 trillion in cumulative investment from 2023-2050, plus roughly $1 trillion in annual investment in fossil fuel technologies redirected towards energy transition solutions. This would result in annual investments in energy transition technologies more than quadrupling from current levels to meet the 1.5 degree C pathway.2

In addition, we are seeing greater public policy support for energy alternatives, including the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. which will provide $370 billion for climate technologies and clean energy through a mix of tax credits, grants, loans, and rebates. Further support from the U.S. CHIPS Act of 2022 and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 will also provide incentives for the transition, in areas such as EV chips and EV charging infrastructure respectively. Similar policy initiatives in China, the EU, the UK, and Australia, among other parts of the world, are also helping to support the transition to a clean energy future. The response to the Russia invasion of Ukraine, for example, has accelerated the shift to fossil fuel alternatives in Europe through immediate and robust policy efforts.

Despite this investment and policy backdrop, the last two years have been problematic for the performance of many renewable energy stocks. Concerns about rising interest rates globally have put pressure on smaller cap, growth-oriented stocks, particularly those that are pre-profit. Some clean-tech focused companies had a boost in share price with the announcement of the Inflation Reduction Act, but most are significantly lower than just a few years ago. While many of these companies may have strong long-term prospects, there is no doubt that the short-term may be volatile. Our belief is that the recent pull-back is an excellent buying opportunity, and that investors with a longer-term time horizon will be rewarded. That said, we look to identify companies with well-developed business strategies, proven management, strong balance sheets, and enough scale to compete and ultimately take share.

This article does not attempt to touch on the incredible work on climate change in other asset classes beyond public equities. For a helpful discussion of total portfolio activation as it relates to community-oriented climate solutions, see the following paper from Croatan Institute: Climate-Related Investment for Resilient Communities – Croatan Institute


Some public equity strategies will also engage companies through shareholder advocacy to push them on a variety of issues related to climate change and renewable energy. Trillium has long sought to invest in companies proactively addressing climate change, and also to advocate with companies through dialogue and shareholder proposals to encourage them to reduce their climate impact. Mitigating the devastating potential effects of climate change on people and planet depends on companies setting and meeting robust, independently verified, science-aligned greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets – and a crucial component of reduction goals for many companies is the purchase of renewable energy.

Trillium has asked companies to consider purchasing renewable energy since as early as 2003, and since then has secured commitments to set renewable energy goals from companies including Home Depot, Akamai, and 3M, among others. In recent years, we have focused on overall emissions reduction goals that include scope 2 emissions, withdrawing proposals at a variety of companies, including Darling Ingredients and SBA Communications, following their commitments to set targets via the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a non-profit which verifies company goals to ensure alignment with 1.5 C degrees of warming, in-line with our own Net Zero commitment. A proposal asking UPS to do the same received 20.4% of the shareholder vote this year.

Overview of GHG Protocol scopes and emissions across the value chain-EPA
Infographic of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG) scopes and emissions across the value chain – from the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard 

Renewable Energy Company Examples:

(not all companies are held in the Sustainable Opportunities strategy) 

Chargepoint – Founded in 2007, ChargePoint is one of the largest independently owned EV charging networks in the world, serving commercial, residential, and fleet clients. ChargePoint uses an asset light model that allows it to scale quickly through sales to partners, including schools, companies, municipalities, and building owners.  

EDPR – The renewable subsidiary of utility company Energias de Portugal, the company is a global leader in renewable energy development and production, with a portfolio including onshore and offshore wind, solar, energy storage and hydrogen production, operating in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. 

First Solar – First Solar is the leading domestic U.S. solar photovoltaic panel manufacturer. The company’s thin film technology provides cost and thermal benefits to utility-scale solar projects. First Solar is expanding production in the U.S. to take advantage of IRA program tax incentives.

HASI – Formerly known as Hannon Armstrong, renewable energy financing company HASI provides financing to enable projects that deliver positive environmental impacts through providing clean energy, developing sustainable infrastructure, and increasing energy efficiency. 

Ormat – Ormat is a global leader in building and operating large scale geothermal energy plants, with proprietary binary technology that is more efficient and sustainable, reinjecting 100% of the geothermal fluid.

Ultimately, many companies providing the solutions to the climate crises will be beneficiaries of the shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, electrification, and efficiency focused technologies 


Article by Paul Hilton, CFA, Portfolio Manager and Research Analyst at Trillium Asset Management, covering the Consumer Discretionary sector and is the lead Manager for the Sustainable Opportunities strategy. He is also a member of the portfolio management team for the Green Century Balanced Fund, for which Trillium serves as a sub-advisor. Prior to joining Trillium in 2011, he was Vice President of Sustainable Investment Business Strategy at Calvert Investments and also previously held senior positions within Calvert’s Equities and Marketing Departments.

Paul also served as Portfolio Manager for Socially Responsible Investing at The Dreyfus Corporation, then a division of Mellon Bank, and as a Research Analyst in the Social Awareness Investment (SAI) program at Smith Barney Asset Management, then a division of Citigroup. Paul started his career as an Analyst with the Council on Economic Priorities, a non-profit known for an influential consumer guidebook called “Shopping for a Better World.” 

Paul is former Board Chair of US SIF, former Treasurer of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI), and founder of the Social Investment Research Analysts Network (SIRAN), the first U.S. network of sustainability analysts. He is a member of CFA Society Boston and a Chartered Financial Analyst, and holds Master’s degrees in Anthropology from New York University and Education from Roberts Wesleyan College. Paul is a frequent speaker on topics related to approaches to SRI/ESG investing and the growing market for products in this space.

Important Disclosure Information

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any of the securities mentioned. It should not be assumed that investments in such securities have been or will be profitable. The specific securities were selected on an objective basis and do not represent all the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. Information and opinions expressed are those of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other investment teams within Trillium Asset Management. Information is current as of the date appearing in this material only and subject to change without notice. This material may include estimates, outlooks, projections, and other forward-looking statements. There is no assurance that impact or investment objectives will be achieved. Due to a variety of factors, actual events may differ significantly from those presented.


  1. IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
  2. World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023: 1.5°C Pathway; Preview (azureedge.net)

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Navigating the Investment Impact from the EPA’s Evolving Carbon Rules

By Dr. Pooja Khosla and Thomas H. Stoner Jr., Entelligent

Hamburg, Germany photo by Kevin Kandlbinder, Unsplash

Unraveling the implications for energy assets in shaping investment portfolios is vital.

vFor investors concerned about climate change risk, the issue of which stocks to buy, hold and sell can be quite complicated. The power sector representing the largest consumer of carbon fuels is highly regulated. When plants are decommissioned, rates are typically raised to cover the cost of investment in replacement plants and equipment. Investors must understand the risks to a company that might end up with a stranded asset. When there is adequate cost recovery, it represents a cost to users, but it’s often a benefit to shareholders. The tension for regulators is striking the right balance.

More deeply, data that measures climate risk – and penetrates sector-level analysis to security-level analysis – can be vital for investors who want exposure to the power sector while minimizing transition risk to a lower-carbon future.

Before we review what this data reveals about sectors and stocks, consider the consequences of regulation. Regulation, after all, is crucial for addressing climate change. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules can accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources and encourage the adoption of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make net zero goals real.

On the other hand, there’s concern that excessive regulation creates an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, diverting resources from innovation, infrastructure development and energy security. That last factor is the most important for a nation’s economic stability, as well as its defense, geopolitical influence, environmental sustainability and resilience.

It is also argued that stringent EPA regulations can impose excessive financial burdens on power plants, leading to higher costs for electricity generation. This may impact the affordability of energy and harm certain sectors of the economy. In addition are the concerns that strict regulations place U.S. companies at a disadvantage.

Companies will need to reevaluate their priorities to align with proposed government standards. They may need to emphasize investments in control technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, or low-GHG hydrogen co-firing, to meet emissions reduction requirements. This could result in a shift away from fossil-fuel-based infrastructure toward more sustainable technologies.

Compliance would require companies to make investments in retrofitting power plants or constructing facilities with the necessary control technologies, or ones that provide a variable power source, which could cause financial strain. The proposed standards introduce regulatory and policy risks and may accelerate the renewable transition. Regulations may promote and even incentivize companies in certain regions to invest in renewable projects, energy storage and low-carbon technologies. Such regulations can dramatically alter the power sector’s business model, exposing it to new risks.

These scenarios suggest asset managers should consider several factors when building portfolios. The bar of caution is high and the need for adequate actionable data to validate investment decisions is greater than ever. Monitoring technology adoption and innovation, staying current on the regulatory landscape and assessing companies’ renewable energy transitions are essential. By considering these factors, investors can best navigate the impact of proposed EPA standards and make informed choices.

EPA regulations and company-level case studies. The regulations aim to reduce emissions, meaning companies operating in the power generation and fossil-fuel sectors face greater scrutiny and potential challenges in meeting standards. According to forward-looking Entelligent E-Scores, including T-Risk, that consider such policy responses, we find energy companies such as EQT Corp. more pressured by regulation relative to APA Corp. and Phillips 66, per Q2 ’23 estimates. (EQT is focused on natural gas production, APA on energy infrastructure and Phillips on refining and marketing.)

APA and Phillips are more diversified compared to EQT, which could provide a cushion. Consider the relative riskiness: Natural gas companies may be riskier than oil companies in the transition to a fossil-fuel-free energy mix. The shift toward renewables and decarbonization are expected to decrease the demand for natural gas, a fossil fuel. On the other hand, oil companies are facing similar challenges, but the extensive demand due to market pressures will likely decline more gradually. This means the short-term risk for natural gas companies may be higher, but both types of companies will likely face long-term challenges as the world moves toward a more sustainable energy mix.

The Entelligent E-Score model uses security price return forecasts and information coefficient from correlations with energy sources including coal, oil, gas, renewables, etc. The investment return forecasts for multiple scenarios are updated quarterly for three scenarios: Minimum, Maximum and Business as Usual. The updates account for 10 socioeconomic conditions. With situations such as the war in Ukraine, the model captures upward (favorable) energy profitability (return) shocks and estimates the future forecast by evaluating how a carbon tax or subsidies for renewables could impact the profitability or returns of companies up to two years out. In situations like these due to market conditions, diversification and relatively less short-term risk, it is very possible that E-Score rankings are favorable for the energy sector, particularly energy companies like APA and Phillips.

Entelligent’s T-Risk scores, integrating scenario analysis and carbon adjustment, helps to identify risks and opportunities in companies most ready for diversifying energy sources.

Consider these findings:

PG&E Corp. (Screened In): Considered more carbon intensive due to its historical reliance on natural gas and coal. However, PG&E has been actively incorporating renewable energy and reducing emissions to meet the tight regulatory environment in California. According to T-Risk, this company is relatively better prepared.

Atmos Energy Corp. (Screened In): Natural gas companies like Atmos are cleaner than coal and oil, but still reliant on fossil fuels. They have advantages in climate transitions, such as being a “bridge fuel” firm and by investing in carbon capture.

APA Corp. (Screened Out): As an oil-and-gas exploration-and-production company, APA faces significant transition risk. Its reliance on fossil-fuel reserves makes it vulnerable to potential asset devaluation in a carbon-constrained future. Carbon-intensive operations expose it to regulatory and market risks. Due to nonbinding regulations and high fossil-fuel dependency, APA is screened out from the portfolio for the current quarter.

Phillips 66 (Screened Out): Engaged in refining, marketing and distribution, with significant operations in Texas, California and Oklahoma. Texas and Oklahoma are far behind in formalizing climate-related regulatory frameworks. This company is also screened out of the portfolio to hedge climate transition risk.

Thus far in 2023, coal and oil prices have tumbled. T-Risk carbon-adjusted screening helps to hedge against energy demand and price disruptions. It is likely that the companies less exposed to these two fossil fuels – due to the nature of their business (Atmos) or regulations and green incentives from states (PG&E) – are outperforming, as shown in the graphic below.

2023 1st Half Returns - PG&E - APA - Phillips 66 - Atmos Energy - Google Finance

Consider T-Risk screening of prominent energy companies Baker Hughes Co. (screened in), TotalEnergies SE (screened out) and Equinor ASA (screened out). Baker Hughes is regarded as potentially less risky than TotalEnergies and Equinor in terms of energy transition and security issues in global markets, including the EU, amid several factors.

Baker Hughes is less risky due to diversification, reduced fossil-fuel exposure and adaptability to renewable energy. It can serve both traditional and renewable sectors, reducing reliance on declining fossil fuels. By not being as involved in oil-and-gas exploration and production compared to TotalEnergies and Equinor, Baker Hughes is less exposed to energy-related geopolitical disruptions and energy security issues.

While TotalEnergies and Equinor are actively diversifying into renewables, which could position them favorably in the EU’s transition to a low-carbon economy, in the T-Risk two-year forecast Baker Hughes’ focus on oilfield services may provide a degree of insulation from energy security and transition issues. Six-month return projections show the T-Risk Carbon Adjusted metric benefited with hedging by screening in Baker Hughes to the benchmark portfolio and screening out riskier companies such as TotalEnergies and Equinor.

2023 1st Half Returns - Baker Hughes - TotalEnergies SE - Equinor ASA - Google Finance

In conclusion, when new emission reporting standards were introduced, it created expectations that reporting would greatly improve, leading to the creation of more comparable and measurable information for the markets. If you are a believer in efficient market hypothesis, as we are, then when investment information gets better, decisions on building portfolios get better. In this case, that likely means better performance for two vital metrics: sustainability and investment returns.


Article by Dr. Pooja Khosla, CIO and Thomas H. Stoner Jr., CEO, Entelligent 

Pooja Khosla, Ph.D., is Chief Innovation Officer at Entelligent. She is an economist, econometrician, mathematician, and thought leader in the sustainability and climate finance space and has deep knowledge of building sustainable investing solutions. Dr. Khosla earned a Ph.D. in economics and has master’s degrees in four disciplines. 

Thomas H. Stoner Jr. is CEO of Entelligent and one of the company’s co-founders. Mr. Stoner has co-founded three cleantech and renewable energy companies and served as CEO of two publicly traded companies. He received a master’s degree in finance and accounting from the London School of Economics.

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Clean Energy Investment and Innovation Trends: Navigating the Road Ahead

By Ron Pernick, Clean Edge, Inc

(See more information about the above 10-year performance chart below)


Ron Pernick of Clean Edge IncAs someone who has been researching clean-tech sectors for more than two decades and conducting stock index research since 2006, I find it exciting to be tracking the mass adoption and scale-up progress of a range of clean technologies, from solar power and energy storage to electric vehicles and transmission infrastructure.

Numerous factors are driving the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy, but two stand out: low-cost renewables (utility-scale solar and onshore wind are now the most price-competitive forms of new electricity capacity additions in most regions) and supportive energy and climate policies (with China’s Five-Year Plans, the U.S.’s Inflation Reduction Act, and Europe’s REPowerEU initiative leading the way). Clean energy has been scaling significantly for the past decade, but recent developments are driving a new wave of investments and deployment.

Some Key Facts and Figures:

  • Energy transition investments globally hit $1.1 trillion in 2022, breaking the $1 trillion mark for the first time, according to BloombergNEF. And a projected $1.7 trillion will be investing globally in clean energy in 2023, significantly more than the approximately $1 trillion expected to flow into fossil fuels, according to International Energy Agency.
  • Onshore wind and solar are not only the cheapest forms of new power capacity additions globally, but the fastest to deploy. New nuclear, on the other hand, is currently both the most expensive and slowest to deploy.
  • Power markets are reaching a tipping point, with most new additions globally coming from solar and wind. A record 83 percent of all new electricity capacity additions came from renewables last year, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
  • All these new installations are having a significant impact. By 2025, more than a third of all global electricity production will come from renewables, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), surpassing all generation from coal. Globally, solar and wind already outpace generation from nuclear power.
  • Eleven states now garner at least 30 percent of their in-state generation from solar and wind. Iowa and South Dakota, the two leaders, generated more than half their electricity from renewables, mainly wind power, in 2022. Iowa surpassed 60 percent for the first time, a new record in the U.S. In California, solar (utility-scale and distributed) contributed 27.3 percent of the state’s total in-state generation; solar now competes with wind as a major generation source in an increasing number of regions.
  • As governments and consumers look to wean themselves off Russian natural gas in the wake of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, sales of heat pumps have skyrocketed in Europe, with nearly 3 million units sold in 2022, up around 40 percent from sales in 2021.
  • Electric vehicle sales worldwide are projected to increase 35 percent this year, up from approximately 10 million sold in 2022 to 14 million in 2023, according to the IEA. If these projections hold, EV sales will equal approximately 18 percent of total car sales this year, up from just 4 percent three years ago.

There are many other examples of the shift to clean tech – all shining a light on the massive transition that is underway.

7-Point Energy Transition Action Plan

We estimate that the world is approximately halfway through the modern energy transition (2000—2050). Targeted technology, policy, and capital innovations must be deployed at scale and overcome a host of challenges to meet this monumental shift. Indeed, the transition will be bumpy and face several not-so-insignificant headwinds. These include inflationary pressures, material supply constraints and shortages, and incumbent industry misinformation campaigns and pushback. The following, is Clean Edge’s 7-Point Energy Transition Action Plan, which highlights some of the key steps and actions we believe are needed to ensure orderly and sustained progress: 

1) Focus on Efficiency – Pursue energy efficiency’s low-hanging fruit for the most bang-for-your-buck, including LEDs, insulation materials, building controls, and energy management systems. 

2) Scale Up Wind & Solar Massively – Support aggressive global deployment of solar and wind power, utility-scale and distributed, to reach 100 percent zero-carbon emission electric grids. 

3) Pair Renewables with Storage at Scale – Deploy storage at scale to enable 100 percent, 24/7 renewable power. Focus on both utility-scale and distributed storage, using electrochemical batteries (lithium-ion, solid-state, flow, etc.) and mechanical energy storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, etc.). 

4) Electrify Heating & Vehicles ASAP – Although we often hear the demand to “electrify everything,” we recommend focusing on two high-impact areas: passenger vehicles (two-, three-, and four-wheelers) and heating and cooling systems for homes and buildings (via adoption of electric heat pumps.) 

5) Modernize Transmission & Distribution Grids – Build out a range of electricity grid modernization efforts including digitization, smart meters and devices, bi-directional meters and charging, smart substations, and high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines. A modern 21st century grid is critical to enable the clean-energy transition. 

6) Develop Green Hydrogen, Ammonia, and Fuels for Agriculture, Heavy Industry, and Long-Haul Transport – Decarbonizing heavy industry will not be easy and will require green fuels above and beyond electrification. We recommend the adoption of green hydrogen and fuels to support the production of steel, fertilizer, and other energy-intensive industries, as well as for long-haul transport such as trucking, marine shipping, and air travel. 

7) Secure Sustainably Mined and Recycled Materials – Ensure the availability of mined and recycled materials for EV, solar, wind, and other clean-energy technology production. The future of energy depends on secure and reliable supplies of sustainably mined or recycled materials (lithium, cobalt, rare earths, silicon, nickel, etc.) rather than the extraction of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas).

For renewable energy analysts and market participants, the promise of technology-driven renewable energy sources over fossil fuels has become increasingly clear. Extractive energy sources, by their very nature as commodities, exhibit price volatility when pitted against maturing tech-centric clean energy sectors – with their inherent cost-reducing learning curves. But while solar and wind are now among the most cost-effective sources of new electricity capacity additions, we’ll need to see similar cost reductions for EVs, energy storage, alternative conductive materials, electrolyzers, and other electrification technologies over the coming decade. We’ll also need to see cost declines for the grid integration of these technologies (connecting an offshore wind farm to the grid, for example, and getting the electricity to nearby and/or distant customers) – and for deployment obstacles to be removed or streamlined. Achieving the energy transition won’t be easy, but over time it promises lower costs, limited or zero emissions, and if done right, greatly diminished geopolitical volatility.  

Clean Energy VS Traditional Energy 10-year Performance from CleanEdge

Article by Ron Pernick, cofounder and managing director of Clean Edge, Inc., where he oversees the development and production of the firm’s thematic research tracking clean energy, transportation, water, and the grid. The company is a joint developer of and contributor to the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy™ Index (CELS™), launched in partnership with Nasdaq in 2006. Other indexes include the Nasdaq OMX Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure™ Index (QGRD™), ISE Clean Edge Water™ Index (HHO™), and the ISE Clean Edge Global Wind Energy™ Index (GWE™). All tracking financial products of Nasdaq Clean Edge indexes exceeded $4 billion in assets under management as of June 23, 2023. 

Under his leadership, Clean Edge has been at the forefront of researching technology, capital, and policy innovations driving the energy transition and sustainable infrastructure markets for more than two decades. He is the co-author of two books on clean-tech business and innovation, Clean Tech Nation (HarperCollins, 2012) and The Clean Tech Revolution (HarperCollins, 2007), which was translated into six languages and sold more than 30,000 copies worldwide. He has taught MBA-level courses at Portland State University and New College and is a regular speaker at industry events.

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

The Untapped Climate Opportunity in Alternative Proteins

By Sagar Tandon, Beyond Animal

Sagar Tandon Beyond AnimalClimate change is one of the biggest threats facing our planet today. With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, it is imperative that we find innovative solutions to reduce emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. One promising solution is the development of alternative proteins, which could offer a significant and untapped opportunity for climate financing.

Alternative proteins, which include plant-based proteins, cultured meat, and fermentation-based have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture drastically. Animal agriculture is responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions, with estimates ranging from 14.5% to 51% of all emissions. By developing alternative proteins, we could significantly reduce these emissions and help to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to a report from RethinkX [1], a think tank focused on technology-driven disruption, alternative proteins could capture up to 10% of the global meat market by 2035. This shift would result in a reduction of up to 2.4 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, equivalent to taking 527 million cars off the road. Furthermore, the report suggests that this shift could save up to $1.4 trillion in environmental costs by 2050.

Biodiversity and Animal Agriculture

The animal agriculture industry significantly impacts biodiversity, which refers to the variety of living organisms and ecosystems on Earth. A recent paper published in Nature[2] mentions if we continue the same level of meat production and consumption, then 17,000 species are under threat of extinction.

Here are some key ways animal agriculture affects biodiversity:

1) Habitat loss and fragmentation: The expansion of animal agriculture often leads to converting natural ecosystems, such as forests and grasslands, into agricultural land. This results in the destruction of habitats for many plant and animal species, which can lead to their decline or extinction. Fragmentation of habitats can also occur when natural ecosystems are broken into smaller patches, reducing genetic diversity and increasing vulnerability to environmental stressors.

2) Soil degradation: Animal agriculture significantly contributes to soil degradation, negatively impacting plant and animal species that depend on healthy soils for survival. Soil degradation can lead to reduced soil fertility, erosion, and desertification, which can result in the loss of habitat for many species.

3) Water pollution: Animal agriculture is a significant source of water pollution, mainly through the runoff of excess nutrients and antibiotics from animal waste. This can lead to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems and the loss of aquatic species.

4) Introduction of invasive species: The transportation of livestock and their feed across borders can lead to the introduction of invasive species that can compete with native species for resources and disrupt ecosystems.

5) Climate change: Animal agriculture significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Climate change can significantly impact biodiversity, including changes in temperature and precipitation patterns that can negatively impact the survival of many species.

Cattle ranching is the most significant cause of deforestation in the Amazon, accounting for around 80% of the destruction.[3] This activity is primarily driven by the global demand for meat, leading to the clearing of vast areas of land to make space for cattle ranching. In Brazil, cattle ranching has been the leading cause of deforestation since at least the 1970s, with government figures attributing 38% of deforestation from 1966-1975 to large-scale cattle ranching. Today, the figure is closer to 70%.[4] 

Alternative Proteins as a Climate Financing Opportunity

These numbers highlight the significant potential of alternative proteins as a climate financing opportunity. By investing in developing and scaling alternative proteins, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create economic opportunities, and contribute to sustainable development.

In addition to the environmental benefits, alternative proteins offer other potential advantages. Plant-based proteins, for example, can be produced with significantly less land, water, and other resources than traditional animal agriculture. This can help to reduce pressure on natural resources and promote more sustainable food production. Cultured meat, meanwhile, could offer a more humane and sustainable alternative to traditional meat production, potentially reducing animal suffering and improving animal welfare.

Additionally, over 60% of all emerging infectious diseases worldwide have zoonotic origin.[5] Livestock production is one of the most significant contributors to the spread of zoonotic diseases.

In the BCG report, Food for Thought: The Protein Transformation,[6] the environmental impact of alternative meat and dairy is compared with animal-derived meat.

Investment in plant-basded meat delivers biggest emissions cuts -- Guardian

  • The shift to alternative beef, pork, chicken, and egg alternatives will save more than 1 gigaton (Gt) of CO2e by 2035—or about 0.85 Gt CO2e in 2030. This is equal to decarbonizing most aviation or shipping industries, or about 22% of the building industry. The following graph clearly shows how much investment in plant-based meat reduces emissions compared to other sectors.[7]
  • Producing animal alternatives emits 30% to 90% fewer GHGs than conventional meat, fish, dairy, and egg production. 
  • Cultured meat requires up to 78% less water than beef, and plant-based meat requires 99 percent less water than conventional meat.

We need to shift the narrative around food and sustainability. This means emphasizing the positive benefits of alternative proteins, including their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce/eliminate animal suffering, while also acknowledging the challenges and limitations of these technologies.

Investment Gap

According to the BCG report, Food for Thought: The Protein Transformation:

  • Almost 30 million tons of bioreactor capacity for microorganisms and animal cells will also be needed in the base case, requiring up to $30 billion in investment capital.
  • The extrusion capacity needed for plant-based proteins will require up to $28 billion in investment.

Just alone in APAC (Asia-Pacific), according to a report published by the PwC, Rabobank, and Temasek[8] – $750 billion in additional funding is needed by 2030 to meet the rising protein demands.

In conclusion, alternative proteins offer a significant and untapped climate financing opportunity. By investing in developing and scaling these technologies, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change but also create economic opportunities and contribute to sustainable development. To fully realize the potential of alternative proteins, we need to address the challenges and limitations of these technologies and shift the narrative around food and sustainability toward a more positive and inclusive vision of the future.


Important reference links:

Dawn of the Climavores

Food systems account for more than one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions

Climate-friendly foods: are alternative proteins the way forward?

Food system impacts on biodiversity loss

The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050

Factory farms are an ideal breeding ground for the next pandemic

Article by Sagar Tandon, Partner at Beyond Impact.

Sagar was involved in setting up 2 funds – Gray Matters Capital, edLABS & Australian Govt. DFAT backed impact fund. Led investments in 18 early-stage ventures. Mentor at Good Food Institute India & APAC, Founders Institute Food APAC and Fashion for Good, Netherlands.


[3] Amazon Deforestation: Why Is the Rainforest Being Destroyed?, by Rachel Graham

Additional Articles, Featured Articles, Food & Farming, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Climate Risks Threaten Investor Appetite for Intensive Livestock Production

By Sofía De La Parra, FAIRR Initiative

Sophia De La Parra - FAIRR InitiativeAt first glance, investment in the meat and dairy industry looks attractive. Global meat consumption is expected to grow over the next decade to a projected increase of 14% by 2030, according to the FAO. The changing global climate, however, poses significant risks and opportunities not just to this growth trajectory, but to the fundamentals of the industry.

From the rising price of feed to desertification of grazing lands and increasing regulation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock production, climate-related risks require an extra layer of analysis for asset allocation in the sector and present opportunities for transformative change in the decades ahead.

The Paradox of the Animal Protein Sector: Both a driver of climate change, and at risk from it

Readers of GreenMoney Journal are probably well-aware of the climate and environmental impacts of the animal agriculture sector. For instance, it releases more GHG emissions than every car on the planet combined, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that 14.5% of all global anthropogenic GHG emissions come from livestock production. The animal agriculture sector uses 30% of the planet’s freshwater resources and continues to be the largest driver of deforestation. It also has a large part to play in the ‘silent pandemic’ of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).

What is less well reported however, and of increasing concern to financial institutions, is that the meat and dairy industry not just contributes to climate change, but is uniquely vulnerable to its effects.

A warming world, for example, means increasing heat stress on cattle. Animals that experience heat stress may have lower productivity given reduced fertility, liveweight gain and milk yield as well as immune system problems that make them more susceptible to certain diseases. Climate change increases the probability of extremes, and these fat tails have real world impacts, as we witnessed last summer when the death of thousands of cows was reported after a weekend with extreme climate conditions.

FAIRR research on material climate-related costs shows potential increases between 4-35% by 2030 and 3-53% by 2050, relative to 2020, for livestock companies based in North America, with the largest cost driver being higher animal feed prices. Thus, damaging the profitability of many meat and dairy companies, as well as those suppliers and clients that rely on them if costs are passed on.

With many of its assets operating in already water stressed areas, the livestock industry is vulnerable to decreasing freshwater quality. The sector must manage this risk alongside those it faces from increasing AMR, carbon prices and action to reduce global methane emissions.

Investors are increasingly aware of, and acting on, these risks. It is why the FAIRR Initiative, which is focused on helping investors understand risks and opportunities related to intensive livestock production, has become one of the world’s fastest growing investor networks with supporters managing over $70 trillion of assets under management (AUM) joining the network since 2016.

Pricing in Climate Risk

Data and research conducted by FAIRR supports investors in assessing systemic risks that might negatively affect the returns of their portfolios in the long run. According to FAIRR’s Climate Risk Tool, a group of 40 of the largest livestock producers face an estimated $23.7bn total decrease in earnings in 2030 compared to 2020 due to climate factors in a ‘business as usual’ scenario – based on assumptions including that the world is on track to reach 2C of warming by 2100, and that consumption of meat and dairy continues in line with current trends as the population grows to 9.2 billion in 2050. Potential hits to profits are driven largely by an increase in climate-related costs that include higher feed prices and more expected carbon taxes on emissions from livestock production.

Regulatory Risk

One of the biggest concerns for investors is that far too few meat and dairy companies are monitoring and reporting on these risks adequately. For example, by aligning the reporting to the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework which is now mandatory in locations such as the UK and New Zealand.

FAIRR’s research of 60 of the largest meat, fish and dairy firms shows 70% of the world’s largest meat, fish and dairy companies assessed since 2019 still do not disclose any animal-farming or feed-farming GHG emissions. This lack of carbon footprint disclosure can significantly impact the financial performance of companies given upcoming climate regulation by exposing them to litigation and reputational risk, as well as the prospect of increased carbon taxes. For example, by 2025 New Zealand plans to introduce an agricultural emissions pricing mechanism, which as FAIRR’s research found can impact the country’s livestock farmers through cost increases, higher debt, and potential curbs on production.

Preserving Long-term Value

Climate risk is becoming an increasingly material issue and it is crucial that investors and companies act now or risk losing out in the future. Livestock companies are both exposed to climate risk and are exacerbating climate challenges, impacting investors’ returns. However, only six out of 40 of the largest meat and dairy companies assessed have conducted climate risk scenario analysis. A relevant exercise that the TCFD recommends is to develop strategic corporate plans that are more flexible or robust to a range of plausible future states and help them take advantage of the opportunities and adequately manage risks.

Investors expect returns to reflect the risk held. This means companies that fail to manage risks or miss opportunities related to climate change will likely have financial impacts, such as an increased cost of capital.

What are Investors Doing About it? 

These figures highlight the urgent need for meat and dairy companies and their investors to mitigate the clear risk to the bottom line. This includes exploring decarbonization strategies, such as diversifying sources of proteins towards those that have lower environmental impacts and reducing the carbon footprint of livestock. Investors are also asking companies to share their action plans around the implementation of clean food technologies, improved farming practices and adoption of innovative solutions.

For example, a group of investors has engaged with 23 leading food manufacturers and retailers, including firms like Walmart, Conagra and Kroger, to encourage them to reduce their reliance on animal-derived products and increase exposure to more sustainable proteins (e.g., plant-based proteins). Companies are still navigating the challenges of reaching scale and reducing costs, yet alternative proteins have a key role to play, especially in the mid and long term, as the alternative protein market is forecast to grow 13%-35% by 2030 and 9%-14% by 2050 in relation to its size in 2020 in developed countries.

As a result of our engagement, eight out of 23 global food companies now have targets to increase the volume and sales of meat and dairy alternatives and/or reduce brand-level emissions. 100% of the companies in the engagement are now investing in the development of plant-based products.

Investors are also engaging to reduce the industry’s emissions. FAIRR’s Global Investor Engagement on Meat Sourcing is supported by an $11 trillion investor coalition and focused on six leading fast-food companies with a combined cap of more than $281 billion, including the likes of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Domino’s Pizza and McDonalds. The investors urged companies to de-risk their meat and dairy supply chains by setting ambitious targets to reduce GHG emissions as well as reduce water consumption.

As of June last year, all six of the fast-food companies have now publicly set, or have committed to set, science-based targets approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Chipotle has gone one step further by committing to reducing Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 50% by 2030.

Sectorial scenario analysis and company-specific data is essential for investors to make more informed investment decisions. Such data allows deeper conversations between investors and companies which can use that dialogue to develop more sustainable practices that not only mitigate climate risks, but also enhance long-term profitability and create value for all stakeholders involved.

Ultimately, collaborative engagements, supported by data, provide a powerful platform for investors to achieve their goals. And, despite the complexities of the challenge, a well-managed transition within intensive livestock production is necessary to address climate risks that are already impacting the bottom line.


Article by Sofía De La Parra, Investor Outreach Manager at the FAIRR Initiative. She is responsible for strengthening and expanding FAIRR’s investor network. Sofía leads FAIRR’s outreach work in the United States and collaborates on outreach in other global markets. She works closely with investor members to integrate material ESG issues and develop sustainable food systems as a key priority. 

Prior to this, Sofia led the Sustainable Proteins collaborative engagement, which targeted 23 food companies and had 84 investor signatories with $23bn AUM. Before joining FAIRR in March 2021, she led the project finance venture at Naked Energy Ltd, a clean-tech start-up. Sofía also worked as a Rating Analyst at S&P Global, following Latin American companies across different industries, including retail, consumer products and building materials. 

Sofía holds an MSc (Distinction) in Climate Change, Management and Finance from Imperial College London and a first-class BA in International Business Management from Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de Mexico. She also holds a CFA certificate in ESG Investing.

Additional Articles, Featured Articles, Food & Farming, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Three Trends Driving the Growth of Organic Agriculture

By Craig Wichner, Farmland LP

Craig Wichner of Farmland LP-2023Blueberries at Burns Farms, Planting Phase 2

It was a breakout year for organic agriculture in 2022. Consumer demand for organic food continued its steady rise, with strong prices for producers, rising land values and excellent returns for investors.

Beyond these results, three significant trends were sharply apparent last year that will continue to affect not only organic farming but the entire agriculture sector – rising consumer demand for healthy food, the fragility of the conventional farming system and investor interest in sustainable farmland practices.

Organic’s Strong Market Fundamentals

The organic market is enjoying strong momentum. Demand is growing because consumers increasingly recognize the benefits of pesticide-free healthy organic food. They also see that conventional chemical-based farming and food production are increasingly industrialized and commoditized, harming the environment and producing unhealthy, pesticide-laden food.

Today, organic food is a $56 billion market and represents 6% of all U.S. food sales. Demand is growing at 13% annually and is constrained by a lack of supply, since organic cropland is only 1.2% of all farmable acreage in the U.S. and is growing by just 7% yearly. The result is a 50-200 percent price premium for organic produce.

Those strong fundamentals were reflected in our business, too. Farmland LP marked its 14th year in operation in 2022, and we have demonstrated over that time that organic farming is profitable at scale. Today, we manage more than 16,000 acres, valued at $250 million, and 40 crops are grown on our farms. By converting conventional farmland to organic, we have increased rents from $300/acre to $750/acre. We have also increased revenue per-acre up to ten times by converting from commodity crops to higher value and permanent crops.

Conventional Farming is Vulnerable

Last year, the organic sector was able to avoid many of the pitfalls that disrupted traditional agriculture. The war in Ukraine was a colossal blow to conventional chemical-based farming because it sparked a price jump in natural gas, a key input for the fertilizer on which it depends. Fertilizer costs for conventional farmers reached record levels in 2022 and accounted for 36 percent of a farmer’s operating costs for corn and 35 percent for wheat, according to the USDA[1].

Meanwhile, the cost for compost, the main fertilizer for organic acreage, was up only marginally.

It’s not just the impact of the Ukraine war that showed how fragile conventional farming is today. Climate change is also affecting costs and output. Climate change is expected to produce rainstorms of higher frequency and severity, with potentially devastating effects on farming. Heavy rains late in the growing season in the Midwest impact the drying period needed for corn production and are a stark illustration of these risks.

Very few farms – and certainly almost no industrial-scale producers – are adapting their management methods to the realities of climate change.

By contrast, we invest with climate change in mind. We use computer modeling and satellite mapping to identify farms that are well placed to withstand climate shocks. Once we add them to our portfolio, we convert the acres from environmentally damaging, chemical-dependent commodity crops to an organic and regenerative system that can be productive, profitable and resilient as climate change advances.

Overcoming the Barriers to Organic Production

There are significant barriers to converting farmland to organic. It starts with the way farmland is owned. Approximately 40% of US cropland is owned by absentee landlords. Many received it generations ago during the Homestead Acts, but now their descendants live in cities and no longer farm directly. Most of this land is farmed by tenant commodity farmers who farm one or two crops, usually corn and soybeans. Expertise is another barrier, as owners and tenants often lack the knowledge on how to transition to and farm organic crops.

But perhaps the most significant barrier is economic. It takes three years to convert land to Certified Organic and at least five years for value-added permanent crops to reach full production. Absentee owners would have lower rental income during this transition period, as would tenant farmers. And the tenant farmers also would not benefit from the increase in land values once the organic conversion is completed.

(There are also deeply entrenched federal policies that subsidize industrial farming and impede the growth of organic, but that is topic for another time.)

We have overcome these barriers through our operating expertise, market knowledge and, most importantly, our capital structure, which enables us to make the multi-year investment in organic conversion.

Let’s look at an example. We acquired Burns Farm, a 4,000-acre farm in northern California, in 2013. It had been farming the same three crops for 50 years, rotating them about every five years. It had no organic acres or permanent crops.

Today, after completing the conversion process, 80% of the farmable acreage is Certified Organic and grows a dozen permanent and row crops, from organic blueberries, green beans and squash to olives and almonds. Revenue per organic acre is up more than 2x to $800/acre today, and the appraised value of the farm has increased 3.0X since we acquired it.

Investors Want Sustainable Farmland Investments

Finally, the past year has seen a dramatic rise among investors for sustainable farming opportunities as they seek to align their capital allocation with their values.

Sustainability is at the heart of our strategy, and we do not compromise on returns. Indeed, many of our 1,000+ investors participate in our funds because of our sustainable farming practices and favorable financial performance. They understand that best-in-class soil health and farmland management practices drive both financial returns and ESG benefits.

And, unlike most other farmland managers, we can document our environmental improvements. In a USDA study[2], our first farmland investment fund demonstrated $21.4 million in net ecosystem benefits using regenerative farm management practices at scale. There is economic value in clean water, diverse pollinator habitats and healthy soils.

We advise investors – both individuals and institutions – to watch for managers that make marketing claims about sustainability. Empty rhetoric and greenwashing have spread into farmland investing like an outbreak of ragweed. Any farming standard that supports chemical-based monocropping cannot be considered “sustainable,” no matter how appealing its branding might be.

Our practices have made Farmland LP the highest-rated company globally for corporate sustainability, according to HIP Investor, a leading independent sustainability ratings service. Our 82.0 rating (of a possible 100) places Farmland LP as #1 in HIP Investor’s worldwide corporate universe of 10,000 corporations, as well as at the top of the agricultural real estate investment trust (REIT) category, the closest comparable peer group.

In the year ahead, we expect capital to continue to flow into the sector as more investors recognize the benefits of farmland investing. Managers that can demonstrate their positive impact on the environment and a track record of favorable returns will be best positioned to attract investor capital – and help drive the growth of a more sustainable food system.


Article by Craig Wichner is CEO of Farmland LP, the largest manager focused on organic and regenerative farmland in the US, with 16,000 acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California valued at $250 million.

Additional Articles, Featured Articles, Food & Farming, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Public Equity Investing in Sustainable Food and Agriculture

By Paul Hilton, Trillium Asset Management

Trillium’s Sustainable Opportunities thematic suite of public equity strategies aims to address global sustainability challenges in three core areas:  climate solutions, economic inclusion, and healthy living. Since 2008, Sustainable Opportunities has looked to identify companies benefiting from the shift to a more sustainable economy. As an intersecting theme, sustainable food and agriculture cuts across these issues, and yet it is a difficult theme to play in public equities.

The three general categories of sustainable food and agriculture investments in public markets include:

•  Agricultural and irrigation equipment

•  Food production and distribution

•  Food retailers, food service, and restaurants

The planet needs more food, and more equitable food distribution, to meet the needs of a growing global population. According to the World Health Organization, roughly 45% of deaths among children under 5 years of age are linked to undernutrition. A 2021 FAO study found that 690 million people globally are hungry, 8.9% of the world population. And yet we are faced with a scarcity of resources made more insecure based on the growing threats related to climate change, including extreme weather events, invasive pest spread, and plant migration. Agriculture and food production are a big part of the climate change problem, representing 19-29% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, many large companies focused on agriculture in the public markets have been involved in factory farming, deforestation, prevalent use of pesticides, and excessive water consumption. Some have also been implicated in land grabs that have helped to push smaller farmers out of business. On the other hand, smaller, new-to-market companies have their own issues. Many are in an earlier phase of their business cycle and are often unprofitable, some have small market caps and are more volatile, and many have a very short financial history. In the post-covid period, some new entrants have seen their shares decimated as growth expectations came down in a rising interest rate environment. We’ve seen stocks like Beyond Meat fall to just a fraction of the IPO value as competition grew and the projected sales curve never materialized. As we look to identify solutions-focused companies, there must be a high bar to determine companies that are not just “green-washing” as well as identifying companies with well-developed business strategies, proven management, strong balance sheets, and enough scale to compete.

This article does not attempt to touch on the work on sustainable farming in other asset classes beyond public equities, such as that being done by smaller, private companies, through green bonds, CDFI loan funds, or farmland REITS.  For more information about these investments, see this paper from Croatan Institute.

Some public equity strategies will also engage companies through shareholder advocacy to push them on a variety of issues related to sustainable food. Trillium began engaging companies on food more than 20 years ago, when it became the first investment firm to file a shareholder proposal on the issue of animal welfare. In 2002, Trillium also became the first sustainable investment firm to file a shareholder proposal on the issue of GMO labeling at Whole Foods Markets. More recently, we have engaged on issues including food waste, packaging, and climate targets. 

Advocacy in Action – WhiteWave Foods: Palm Oil Impacts (2016)

Palm oil is a commodity that has attracted high profile scrutiny for its role in deforestation and human rights abuses. Given consumer and regulatory demand, many companies have committed to tracking and reducing pesticide use, leaving laggards at a competitive disadvantage.

WhiteWave Foods [acquired by Danone in 2017] sourced 100% of its palm oil through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) mass balance certification system. WWAV also specifies in its Supplier Code of Conduct that its suppliers must protect areas of High Conservation Value (HCV). However, due to shortcomings in the RSPO Principles and Criteria, these actions alone do not ensure that the palm oil in WWAV products has not contributed to deforestation or human rights abuses. For example, the RSPO does not mandate protection of High Carbon Stock (HCS) forests or peatlands, two carbon-rich forest ecosystems that are commonly cleared for palm oil cultivation.

In 2016, several high-profile food manufacturing companies committed to specific protections for all forest types, including HCS forests and peatlands, in addition to stronger human rights protections. Through a shareholder proposal, Trillium sought a similar specific commitments from WhiteWave to demonstrate their stated intention to “affect positive change by expecting ourselves and our suppliers to constantly seek – and create – opportunities to source more responsibly.”

Trillium was pleased to withdraw the shareholder proposal after management agreed to disclose at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, that demonstrates how WWAV works to curtail the company’s actual impact on deforestation and human rights violations, beyond simply purchasing RSPO mass balanced palm oil. For more information: Trillium’s WhiteWave Foods Engagement

Trillium Sustainable Food & Agriculture Holdings*

Trillium’s Sustainable Opportunities strategy holds companies that we believe are strategic ESG leaders with above-average operating fundamentals and growth opportunities over the long-term in three core areas: climate solutions, economic inclusion, and healthy living — including sustainable food and agriculture solutions leaders.

Below are a few companies held within our portfolio with business models clearly exposed to sustainable food and agriculture, and that highlight our exposure across the sustainable food and agriculture solutions supply chain.

Kerry Group – With origins as a small dairy company in Ireland, Kerry Group is now a large global multinational food ingredients and flavorings business. The company has a goal to reach over two billion people with sustainable nutrition solutions by 2030 with programs including partnering to help indigenous farmers in Madagascar produce sustainable 100% certified organic vanilla, improving farm productivity in Kenya, and working to fight malnutrition in Niger. Kerry’s taste and texture solutions also help food companies produce meat alternatives that taste better and have improved nutritional profiles as well as smaller environmental footprints. 

McCormick – As a producer of spices and flavorings, McCormick has increased its focus on healthy product development and transparent labeling, with a growing mix of products using designations such as organic, non-GMO, and BPA-free. Through its Sustainable Sourcing Framework, McCormick seeks to source all herbs and spices sustainably, with standards for farmer resilience, women’s empowerment, and ethical behavior. The company seeks to improve and measure smallholder farmer skill/capacity, income, access to financial services, education, and nutrition/health.

Xylem – A leading global water company, Xylem produces a number of products for the agricultural market, including pumps, mixers, and water handling systems, as well as products to treat and analyze wastewater. Per the company, the agriculture industry is responsible for 70% of the world’s water use. Xylem’s energy efficient products help small farmers reduce energy consumption for irrigation, which is a major cost of business.

* This list is not inclusive of all Trillium Sustainable Opportunities portfolio holdings or all sustainable food and agriculture holdings. These companies were selected based on breadth of business models in the sustainable food and agriculture arena.


Article by Paul Hilton, CFA, Portfolio Manager and Research Analyst at Trillium Asset Management, covering the Consumer Discretionary sector and is the lead Manager for the Sustainable Opportunities strategy. He is also a member of the portfolio management team for the Green Century Balanced Fund, for which Trillium serves as a sub-advisor. Prior to joining Trillium in 2011, he was Vice President of Sustainable Investment Business Strategy at Calvert Investments and also previously held senior positions within Calvert’s Equities and Marketing Departments.

Paul also served as Portfolio Manager for Socially Responsible Investing at The Dreyfus Corporation, then a division of Mellon Bank, and as a Research Analyst in the Social Awareness Investment (SAI) program at Smith Barney Asset Management, then a division of Citigroup. Paul started his career as an Analyst with the Council on Economic Priorities, a non-profit known for an influential consumer guidebook called “Shopping for a Better World.” 

Paul is former Board Chair of US SIF, former Treasurer of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI), and founder of the Social Investment Research Analysts Network (SIRAN), the first U.S. network of sustainability analysts. He is a member of CFA Society Boston and a Chartered Financial Analyst, and holds Master’s degrees in Anthropology from New York University and Education from Roberts Wesleyan College. Paul is a frequent speaker on topics related to approaches to SRI/ESG investing and the growing market for products in this space.

Important Disclosure Information.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any of the securities mentioned. It should not be assumed that investments in such securities have been or will be profitable. The specific securities were selected on an objective basis and do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold or recommended for advisory clients. Information and opinions expressed are those of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other investment teams within Trillium Asset Management. Information is current as of the date appearing in this material only and subject to change without notice.

Additional Articles, Featured Articles, Food & Farming, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Sustainable Land Trust Management

By John S. Adams, CFP®, CIMA® and Jack O’Connor, CFP®, CIMA®, The Arbor Group, UBS

Jack O'Connor and John S.Adams UBS Financial ServicesLand Trust Funding – Sustainable Investment Management for Parks and Protected Areas

Do you Love Your Local Land Trust?

If the answer is “Yes, I go hiking on the local trails,” you are not alone. There are currently more than 1,700 Land Trusts including 467 accredited Land Trusts1 in the United States. Chances are good that right now, thousands of nature lovers are out enjoying land trust trails. But have you ever wondered how they are financed? When you are called on to make a donation to support your land trust, or to join the staff or Board, this will help give you some insight into the current and rapidly changing landscape of finance for community protected areas. 

In a prior GreenMoney article2, we described how national parks and protected areas in remote parts of the world have attracted permanent financing using endowments. This helps provide income – and sustainable conservation financing for national parks in areas that do not have adequate financial resources. Major donors including governments and conservation organizations have collaborated to fund the “crown jewels of nature”, which helps make sure we can still have jaguars in the forests of Suriname, dolphins in the Caribbean, red pandas in Bhutan and mountain gorillas in the Virunga mountains of Uganda. 

In the United States, the Land Trust movement has grown organically. It sprang from the passion and commitment of individuals and communities who decided that some fields and forests, lakes and streams are too precious to risk development. Through a combination of land donation and acquisition, Land Trusts have been used to set aside land for the public and for nature, forever. There are now over 61 million acres under conservation, more land conserved than in all the national parks of the United States combined.3

The most common financial needs for land trusts are generally in three categories:

  1. Cash flows are needed every year to maintain properties held in trust
  2. The land trust organization operating costs, including outreach, staffing and facilities
  3. Acquisition of new properties

Sustainable Land Trusts-4

The normal fundraising activities of most Land Trusts have historically placed a major focus on the second and third needs. Annual member dues and an annual fund drive often finance the organization’s outreach and staff. Capital campaigns are the big fundraisers we see intermittently when a property becomes available. The Land Trust and its donors scramble to pay the purchase price for a property. Often these are time-limited opportunities, as a high-value property may be available for purchase before development occurs.

To meet these needs, operating cash flows are normally raised and placed in highly liquid checking and short-term bond accounts. For land acquisition, any investments held until purchase are usually invested in safe bonds and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) timed to mature just before money is needed to close the transaction.

In recent years a large new financial need has emerged for Land Trusts. It is a problem borne out of the success of these organizations – how to assure that cash flows are available every year to maintain properties held in trust.

Many Land Trusts began by negotiating with local families and companies for land that was often donated with specific requirements, sold at a below-market price, or purchased as a result of a community fundraiser. Often without resources, start-up Land Trusts turned to their city or county government or the community parks district to take over management on a permanent basis. This allowed many Land Trusts to be highly transactional – and light on cost and administration.

Now there are many situations where that no longer works, and Land Trusts find that they are responsible for the long-term care and maintenance of valuable properties. Many small governments, including, towns, cities, counties, and parks districts are just making ends meet and cannot afford to take on the expense of managing more properties – no matter how good they are for the community.  

There are also some types of properties that “just don’t fit the plan.” For instance, a Land Trust might obtain a conservation easement on 2,000 feet of salmon stream running through 5,000 acres of a dairy farm. What is a Park District going to do with that? The answer is usually that the landowner or the Land Trust owns the responsibility, and cost, for maintaining that stream in pristine condition. 

It is not unusual for a mature Land Trust to have a combination of properties they have provided for local parks as well as many properties and conservation easements they have put on their own books for permanent stewardship. But that creates a challenge – there is usually not enough money for that land stewardship while continuing outreach and growth and paying for the Land Trust’s staff and facilities. For that reason, at a certain point most Land Trusts want to create a method for reliable permanent financing. This is usually done through rents and by creating endowments that provide income.

Sustainable Land Trusts-1

According to Cullen Brady, Director of the Bainbridge Island Land Trust in Washington State, when a property owner offers a new property for donation, they usually have a person who is motivated to keep a beautiful piece of land the way it is for many generations. Cullen and his team ask the donor for an accompanying donation of funds that can endow and create a stream of income for the property. That allows money for maintaining trails, cleaning up trash, monitoring watersheds and other environmental systems, and removal of invasive species.

However, in situations where the land is being acquired at or below market, the purchase by the Land Trust rarely involves accepting a generous endowment from the seller. In a rare case, there is rental income that can help support the property, but usually it takes another significant cash raise to create endowment funding. While this is often a challenge, the long-term benefits of having endowed funding are well worth the work.

Sustainable Income and Sustainable Investing 

Each Conservation Trust’s Board sets its own goals, but it is common to see a Spending Policy Rate of 4.00% (e.g., 4.00% for annual distribution). That means that if a property requires $4,000 per year for maintenance, it requires $100,000 earning interest to provide that income. Most organizations set an Investment Policy goal for a total return of 6.50% in order to use the 4.00% income and have the ability to offset inflation (e.g., 2.50% reinvestment so income slowly grows over time as the endowment grows by 2.50% yearly). 

In addition, because long-term endowment investments are typically balanced portfolios of stocks and bonds, an “average balance method” is usually used during volatile periods when balances fluctuate. This is simpler than it sounds, and just involves using the average of the last 3-, 4- or 5-years’ fiscal year-end balance, then multiplying that number by the “Spending Policy Rate” (e.g., 4.00%). This has the remarkable effect of smoothing returns and creating enhanced predictability for that needed stream of revenue.

Sustainable investment requirements are also set by the Board and spelled out in the Investment Policy Statement. There may be environmental, social and governance (ESG) exclusions, such as to avoid companies involved in damaging environmental processes like timber, mining, or fossil fuel extraction. Preferences may be articulated for investing in companies with superior environmental management and leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). These have become common requirements for endowments of environmental non-profits. 

Reporting and Monitoring

Land Trusts not only want good returns for the budget cycle, but also proficient and competent documentation of the investment process; they know that a large donor considering contributing to the endowment will demand such documentation, as well as evidence of adherence to sustainability standards.

Sustainable Land Trusts-2

In it For the Long Run

Land Trust endowments need reliable income and enough portfolio growth to keep pace with inflation. To achieve that, overall asset allocation is the most important driver of performance. Keeping fees low, using a blend of passive and active investments and using sustainable investment criteria can all contribute to return. 

Land Trusts are finding that, like their cousins, Conservation Trust Funds for national parks, having an endowment can make all the difference in achieving sustainable, long-term funding for land management. 


Article by Jack O’Connor and John S. Adams, who are both members of The Arbor Group at UBS Financial Services Inc at 925 4th Avenue, Suite 3100, Seattle, WA, Member FINRA/SIPC. They are part of a team of investment professionals that provide investment services for non-profit endowments, families, and charitable trusts. 


The information contained in this article is not a solicitation to purchase or sell investments. Any information presented is general in nature and not intended to provide individually tailored investment advice. The strategies and/or investments referenced may not be suitable for all investors as the appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.  Investing involves risks and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest. The views expressed herein are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views of UBS Financial Services Inc.

As a firm providing wealth management services to clients, UBS Financial Services Inc. offers investment advisory services in its capacity as an SEC-registered investment adviser and brokerage services in its capacity as an SEC-registered broker-dealer. Investment advisory services and brokerage services are separate and distinct, differ in material ways and are governed by different laws and separate arrangements. It is important that you understand the ways in which we conduct business, and that you carefully read the agreements and disclosures that we provide to you about the products or services we offer. For more information, please review client relationship summary provided at https://ubs.com/relationshipsummary or ask your UBS Financial Advisor for a copy.

Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. owns the certification marks CFP® and CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ in the U.S. CIMA® is a registered certification mark of the Investment Management Consultants Association, Inc. in the United States of America and worldwide. For designation disclosures visit- https://www.ubs.com/us/en/designation-disclosures.html

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Impact Investing, Sustainable Business

Tourism Destinations Begin Transition to a Green Economy

By Megan Epler Wood, STAMP at Cornell University

Megan Epler Wood - Stamp at CornellAbove: Mombo Wilderness Safari© camp, Botswana

Travel in the 21st century is managed on a vast scale by a range of interlocking industry sectors with a value in the trillions of dollars. The total travel and tourism industry employs 100s of millions of people and represents over 10% of the global economy. The sectors’ overall business model depends on steady growth, with cruise lines, hotels, and on-line booking engines playing an ever more dominant role in marketing the tourism economy.1 While industry builds demand and manages their customers, the entire supply chain of tourism is dependent on the place of visit, the destination and its environmental and socio-cultural assets. Such assets define the difference between a get-away and a travel experience which becomes a reflection of travelers’ personal values, an area of the travel economy which is in increasing demand.2

Scholars have linked the value of destinations to the level of cultural, environmental and historic preservation that has been achieved. This leads to many good questions about how the travel and tourism economy can finance the protection of well-managed destinations worldwide. Without action, tourism destinations do lose value per tourist as documented in our publication, Destinations at Risk, The Invisible Burden of Tourism. 

Global Efforts to Manage Tourism with Lower Impacts

Travel and tourism was extremely hard hit by the global downturn caused by COVID 19, which erased years of historic growth and raised questions about how to navigate choppy waters ahead, which are coming, due to geopolitical strains between nations, climate threats, and the invisible burden of tourism, which leaves destinations frequently in debt.3 In 2021, the global travel and tourism international market was down nearly 70%, making many painful situations for local people, employers, and small businesses.4 Some countries, such as Belize and Barbados saw double digit declines in their incoming foreign exchange and now seek to rebuild and expand their markets to respond to local employment needs. Both have transacted “debt-for nature” swaps with the Nature Conservancy to lower the cost of their debt and secure their marine environments.5 6 This allows them to refinance some of their most onerous debt, preserve natural capital and build climate resilience. 

Bali dancer
Bali dancer

The hotel industry has set out ambitious goals to lower industry related impacts via the Sustainable Hospitality Alliance which produced a Net Positive Hospitality pathway document this year, which stresses “taking a holistic approach” which can reduce costs and enhance value for companies, destinations, and customers. The goals in the report for hotels are to measure and manage the impacts of tourism uses of water, waste, production of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and impacts on biodiversity; while delivering protection of human rights, fair labor practices, diversity and inclusion, and employee engagement.7

If any industry has a reason to invest in both protecting the planet and lowering impacts, it would be the travel industry as it benefits directly from the preservation of destinations, which are central to their business. But investment in sustainability of tourism has historically always been low and the financing of sustainable destinations remains a rare pursuit. 

Investment Concepts for Sustainable Tourism

Eddie Lubbers, CEO of the Travel Impact Lab in the Netherlands, researched general venture capital investments in tourism as part of his new role in launching a rebirth of the Travel Impact Lab post-COVID 19. Based on a 2022 report from Skift Research, he found about $6 billion USD going to the travel economy with 1% targeted at sustainability.8 The Lab seeks to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impacts with a financial return, helping to accelerate the ability of enterprises to measure, manage and achieve business impact. Lubbers believes the global target should be to reach $600 million USD in total investments in sustainable tourism or 10% of total travel investment by 2030. Travel Impact is launching this May with their first round at 100K USD for up to 10 startup companies specializing in making a social or environmental impact.9

Vumbura Wild Safaris
Vumbura Wilderness Safari© camp, Botswana

Wilderness Safaris, a luxury ecotourism company in Africa with safari operations in eight countries, took a $60 million USD impact investment in 2018 from the Rise Fund to buy out two large private investors. Rise is the largest private impact fund in the world, with more than $14 billion USD under management in 2023.10 Keith Vincent, CEO of Wilderness Safaris viewed the investment as vital to meet their conservation goals, while at the same time helping to secure profitable growth. His thinking was that his company needed to secure critical ecosystems in Africa, such as the Okavango Delta in Botswana, to allow the company to operate into the future without growing risks.11  

Ulrich John, investment banker and developer reviewing and integrating the hospitality market in the field of consciousness and sustainability, is an innovative thinker from Sweden. He believes the idea of developing conscious luxury havens will attract purpose driven visitors to take extended stays in areas of high quality natural and social value, to be part of a greater “social development exchange.” He has been working during the pandemic with the Nobel Sustainability Trust, founded in 2011, a family endeavor by the descendants of Alfred Nobel, who seek to promote sustainable economic growth which preserves and enhances living systems to accelerate the transition to sustainable societies.12 Ulrich sees that a collaboration with the Nobel Sustainability Trust can offer options for investors to develop a new Impact Fund which could secure high value ecotourism destinations, related natural areas and rich agricultural zones. 

Rice Field Bali
Rice Field in Bali

Destination Investment of the Future

Pioneers in sustainable tourism investment like Ulrich John, Wilderness Safaris and the Travel Impact Lab know that the management of vital natural and social assets at the destination level will be invaluable for the future of local residents and their visitors. And they are well aware that the careful management of core destination assets will pay off for the country involved. 

It is true however that the private sector and consumers can only achieve so much, even with the most enlightened thinking. In my work at Harvard and Cornell Universities, we have found that trained destination management units can play a pivotal role in gathering information already available at the destination level to report regularly to local decision makers on essential socio-cultural, climate and environmental systems linked to future economic well-being. 

Investors may well need these reports in the not-too-distant future. The on-line course, Sustainable Tourism Destination Management by the Sustainable Tourism Asset Management Program (STAMP) of the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at the SC Johnson College of Business, offers essential tools to destination managers to protect the long-term value of vital assets, while preventing degradation and improving climate resilience. Local people will need to secure their equity in future havens they have protected for generations. This can best be achieved with destination monitoring systems which encourage travelers and visitors to work together, monitor social and environmental tipping points, honor the land rights of local people, and ensure there are inclusive management and monitoring systems to protect people and the invaluable land and biodiversity found in such havens for the long-term. 


Article by Megan Epler Wood, a conservationist, ecotourism pioneer, research leader and consultant on questions of managing sustainable and ecotourism for destinations, business, and civil society. Since the 1990s, she has spent her career working with local people to achieve net positive results for the environment and local well-being. Her work is dedicated to designing and implementing a wide range of inclusive sustainable development solutions with local counterparts. She is the Managing Director of the Sustainable Tourism Asset Management Program (STAMP) at Cornell University in the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at the SC Johnson College of Business where she is the lead lecturer for a comprehensive 40-hour, self-paced course Sustainable Tourism Destination Management. This dynamic and fully digital course, released in December 2022, is designed to change the paradigm for the management of tourism destinations worldwide. She led the research and writing for the ground-breaking 2019 report Destinations at Risk; The Invisible Burden of Tourism which helped redefine how the tourism economy can better meet sustainability requirements on a regional level while covering local costs. Her 2017 book, Sustainable Tourism on a Finite Planet is used as a text worldwide and reviews the sustainability strategies for each sector of the tourism industry. She was with Harvard University from 2010-2021 leading courses and research and has led the international consulting firm EplerWood International (EWI) since 2003 to design sustainable, regional tourism development projects working in 40 countries with support from the World Bank, IFC, IDB, GIZ and USAID.

Energy & Climate, Featured Articles, Food & Farming, Sustainable Business

Signup to receive GreenMoney's monthly eJournal

Privacy Policy
Copyright © GreenMoney Journal 2023

Website design & development by BrandNature

Global Events Calendar

View All Events


26sepAll Day27The ESG Forum 2023 - virtual

26sepAll Day29Greenbuild International Conference and Expo – DC

27sepAll DayESG in Fixed Income Global Series 2023 - NYC