Top ESG News This Week: Green Fees Narrowly Beat Fossil

Week of November 2 to 7, 2026

Banks earned more from green debt than from fossil fuels for a fifth straight year, by about 100 million dollars on a 6 billion dollar pool, which is a margin thin enough to be noise. Underneath it, BloombergNEF's financing ratio sits at 0.97 dollars of low-carbon energy financing for every fossil dollar, against the 4-to-1 it says the decade requires. The regulatory picture is no longer pointing one way either. Thailand made ISSB reporting mandatory on a five-year phase-in, while Brazil, having removed its own mandate this year, opened a consultation on whether to bring it back. The UK brought ESG ratings providers under authorization from 2028, a year behind ESMA, and the EBA recommended stripping two taxonomy KPIs out of bank disclosure while keeping the one that moves on its own denominator.

Here are the ten ESG stories that mattered most.

 

1. Green Debt Fees Beat Fossil Fuels for a Fifth Year, Just

 

Banks earned about 3 billion dollars in fees from climate-related bond and loan deals so far in 2026, against 2.9 billion from oil, gas and coal financing, the fifth consecutive year green fees have come out ahead, though the gap has narrowed sharply from 2020 when fossil fuel work paid almost twice as much. BloombergNEF's Energy Supply Banking Ratios data shows banks arranged about 1.15 trillion dollars of low-carbon energy financing in 2025 against 1.19 trillion for fossil fuels, a ratio of 0.97 to 1, up from 0.95 the year before and well below the roughly 4-to-1 BNEF says is needed this decade. Regional ratios diverge sharply: Europe at 2.5 to 1 on offshore wind, China at 1.6 to 1 on grid financing, and North America down to 0.5 to 1. Bank of China, BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank led green underwriting fees, Mitsubishi UFJ, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale led green loan arrangement revenue, and Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup dominated fossil fuel bond and loan financing.

Why it matters: The fee headline and the financing reality point in different directions, and the article is right to flag it. A roughly $ 100 million margin on a $ 6 billion pool is noise, and fee income measures deal activity rather than capital deployed. The story is the 0.97-to-1 financing ratio moving two hundredths in a year against a 4-to-1 requirement. The regional split explains why it is stuck. North American fossil fuel financing rose 92 billion dollars in 2025 against an 8 billion dollar rise in low-carbon, roughly eleven additional fossil dollars for every additional clean one in a single region. That division is ours rather than the source's, but it shows one market canceling out Europe's 2.5 to 1 and China's 1.6 to 1.

Read the full story: Global Banks Earn Nearly $3 Billion in Green Debt Fees, Outpacing Fossil Fuels for Fifth Year

 

2. Thailand Makes ISSB Reporting Mandatory on a Five-Year Phase-In

 

Thailand's Securities and Exchange Commission has set out a mandatory sustainability reporting framework aligned with IFRS S1 and S2, announced on October 28 with nine regulatory notifications taking effect on October 26. SET50 constituents, identified at the December 2026 index review, will report 2027 information in 2028. SET100 constituents identified in December 2027 report 2028 data in 2029; all SET-listed companies  including new listings, report 2029 data in 2030; and mai-listed companies, REITs, infrastructure funds and trusts, and property funds begin with 2030 data published in 2031. The SEC has attached transition reliefs, including exemption from comparative climate information in the first reporting year, flexibility on deadlines, permission to use equivalent greenhouse gas calculation standards, and temporary relief from Scope 3 disclosure. Assurance providers must verify greenhouse gas data using internationally accepted standards, and a new Form 56-1 One Report-S has been introduced, alongside guidance and capacity-building work with domestic and international partners.

Why it matters: Thailand has done what most jurisdictions are still consulting on, and sequenced it the right way round. Requiring assurance on greenhouse gas data from the first reporting year, while phasing the obligation across five years from the largest 50 companies down to funds and small-cap listings, builds verification capacity alongside the disclosure duty rather than after it. Two gaps are worth noting. The announcement does not state how many companies are affected or what the penalties for non-compliance are. And while the framework is described as carrying five transition reliefs, only four are specified, so eligibility conditions are not yet checkable. Read it against item 7, where Brazil is moving in the opposite direction with the same standards.

Read the full story: Thailand SEC Introduces Mandatory ISSB Sustainability Reporting Rules Starting 2027

 

3. JPMorgan Targets Europe's 1.2 Trillion Euro Grid Investment Gap

 

JPMorgan is positioning around European electricity network investment that the European Commission estimates at 1.2 trillion euros by 2040, of which roughly 730 billion is needed for distribution infrastructure rather than transmission. The bank has 500 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in connection queues across Europe. It has made a grant of undisclosed size to the Green Finance Institute, which leads an independent program developing and testing financing structures for smaller distribution operators, new grid technologies, and cross-border transmission, with improved project bankability. The work ties into the EU's European Grids Package and aligns with JPMorgan's broader 1.5 trillion dollar security and resiliency initiative. Daniel Rudnicki Schlumberger, who heads that initiative in EMEA, called grid modernization "one of the biggest financing opportunities" in European infrastructure and stressed the need for predictable revenue frameworks to attract institutional capital. Green Finance Institute Chief Executive Rhian-Mari Thomas called grid modernization "one of the most important infrastructure challenges of the energy transition."

Why it matters: Strip the headline figure, and what was announced is an undisclosed grant to a non-profit to design financing structures, with no transactions and no JPMorgan commitment attached. The diagnosis underneath is sound,d though, and it matches what the Electrification Competitiveness Index found last week about connection queues in the US and Germany. The detail that deserves more attention is where the money is needed: 730 billion of the 1.2 trillion sits in distribution, which is owned by hundreds of smaller operators with weaker balance sheets and no route to institutional markets. Transmission has sovereign-adjacent credit and attracts capital already. Distribution does not, which is why the program's focus on smaller operators matters more than the aggregate number. The test is whether a structure emerges that a mid-sized distribution network operator can actually use.

Read the full story: JPMorgan Eyes EU's Eur 1.2 Trillion Electricity Grid Investment Opportunity

 

4. COP30 Presidency Launches Voluntary Fossil Fuel and Forest Roadmaps

 

The COP30 Presidency presented two voluntary international roadmaps in Brasilia on November 3, one on transitioning away from fossil fuels and one on halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030, launched by President Andre Correa do Lago and Chief Executive Ana Toni. The Presidency attributes about 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions to energy systems and 11 percent to forest loss. The energy roadmap introduces a Belem Readiness Approach that assesses energy demand, supply, and economic conditions; drew 267 consultation submissions, including 21 from countries or country groups representing 115 Parties; and proposes a collective initiative called the TAFF Mutirao to coordinate transition efforts through 2033. The forest roadmap covers tropical to boreal forests plus peatlands and mangroves, and cites UN FAO data showing annual global deforestation falling from 17.6 million hectares in 1990 to 2000 to 10.9 million in 2015 to 2025, with tropical forests accounting for about 45 percent of global forest area but 88 percent of deforestation since 1990. UNEP estimates annual forest finance must rise from $ 84.5 billion in 2023 to more than $ 300 billion by 2030. Neither roadmap is a negotiated agreement or a binding commitment.

Why it matters: The most revealing number is 88.3 percent, the share of recorded forest finance in 2023 that came from domestic public budgets, against 3.4 percent from international public sources. The countries holding the forests are already paying for almost all of their protection. Any plan to increase annual forest finance from 84.5 billion dollars to 300 billion by 2030 must change that split, not just the total, and examining 30 international financing mechanisms is not the same as selecting one. Both roadmaps are explicitly voluntary, and neither is negotiated, which makes them an agenda for COP31 in Antalya rather than an outcome of COP30. The consultation base is a fair measure of their standing: 267 submissions, 21 from countries or country groups representing 115 Parties. The Presidency does not say how the Belem Readiness Approach would be scored or how the 2030 milestones would be measured, and that is the distance between a roadmap and a plan.

Read the full story: COP30 Presidency Launches Fossil Fuel and Deforestation Roadmaps

 

5. UK Plans Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence and Forced Labor Import Bans

 

The UK government plans to require mandatory human rights due diligence from companies with global turnover above 350 million pounds, and from overseas businesses with more than 350 million pounds of UK revenue, following the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds set out the approach in a written parliamentary statement on November 4, saying "the British public rightly expects that products sold in the United Kingdom are not tainted by forced labor" and that "responsible businesses should not be undercut by those that turn a blind eye to exploitation." Qualifying firms would identify, assess and address human rights and labor exploitation risks across operations and supply chains using a risk-based approach. A regulator would gain powers to investigate and to order goods withdrawn from the Great Britain market where forced labor was found, and due diligence obligations were not met. Services obligations would apply UK-wide, while goods rules would apply in Great Britain, with Northern Ireland following the EU Forced Labor Regulation under the Windsor Framework. A government review found the current approach fragmented and overly reliant on voluntary corporate reporting under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Legislation would follow "when parliamentary time allows."

Why it matters: The enforcement power is the substantive change, not the due diligence duty. A regulator that can pull goods from the Great Britain market is a market-access penalty, a different order of consequence from a reporting requirement the government's own review judged fragmented. Read the condition carefully, though: withdrawal appears to require both a forced-labor finding and a due diligence failure, which means documentation quality becomes a defense. A company with thorough paperwork and a problem in tier three may be better protected than a company with cleaner supply chains and weaker records. The Northern Ireland split is the other thing to track, since following the EU Forced Labor Regulation there would create two regimes inside the UK with different triggers. And none of it exists yet. There is no bill, no timetable, no finalized enforcement arrangement, and no stated method for calculating the 350 million pound thresholds.

Read the full story: UK Plans Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence for Large Businesses

 

6. EBA Recommends Cutting Two Taxonomy KPIs but Keeping the Green Asset Ratio

 

The European Banking Authority has given the European Commission technical advice on simplifying taxonomy disclosures for banks and investment firms under Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation, responding to a request made in March. It recommends removing the Fees and Commissions KPI and the Trading Book KPI entirely, and simplifying the "other services" KPI for investment firms, including capital markets services. On the Green Asset Ratio, the EBA advises simplifying and clarifying the disclosure templates rather than removing the metric, and improving consistency across templates covering banks' asset management activities, asset managers and investment firms. It also recommends that consolidated group reporting rely mainly on the parent undertaking's KPIs, with optional supplementary KPIs for material secondary activities, and that certain grandfathering provisions be aligned with the EU Green Bond Regulation for bonds issued under that framework. The EBA advises against adding non-financial companies' operating expenditure KPI into financial institutions' taxonomy calculations. The advice forms part of its "Simplifying to strengthen" initiative and now sits with the Commission.

Why it matters: Keeping the Green Asset Ratio is the decision that matters here. Two weeks ago the Commission's own taxonomy data showed the average bank GAR nearly doubling from 2.8 to 5.68 percent, with most of the increase attributable to calculation changes on a smaller covered asset base after simplification rather than to more green lending—the easy response to a metric that moves because its denominator changes is to drop it. The EBA instead recommends fixing the templates and forcing consistency across firm types, which is harder and more useful. Removing the Fees and Commissions and Trading Book KPIs is a sensible trade, since neither says much about whether a bank finances aligned activity. The quiet recommendation to watch is the one against importing the non-financial operating expenditure KPI, which keeps bank taxonomy reporting anchored to capital rather than running costs. All of it is advice, and the Commission decides.

Read the full story: EBA Proposes Simplified EU Taxonomy Disclosures for Banks and Investment Firms

 

7. Brazil's CVM Consults on Whether to Restore Mandatory ISSB Reporting

 

Brazil's securities regulator has opened Public Consultation Notice ASA/CVM 02/2026, announced on October 29, seeking evidence on the effectiveness, costs and benefits of ISSB-aligned sustainability reporting after Resolution 244 removed the general mandatory requirement this year, leaving voluntary adoption subject to reasonable assurance, a minimum three-year reporting commitment and a declaration of full compliance with applicable standards. The CVM is examining whether voluntary disclosures give investors sufficient material information; whether mandatory reporting would improve comparability and credibility and lower companies' cost of capital; what compliance costs fall on smaller companies; whether the voluntary conditions themselves discourage participation; and whether successive regulatory changes created unrecoverable costs or reduced predictability. The CVM lists five options for evaluation: maintain the voluntary framework, modify participation requirements, introduce phased or differentiated mandatory reporting, fold sustainability disclosures into existing corporate reporting documents, or adopt self-regulatory solutions. The CVM describes these as "options for evaluation rather than proposed regulatory changes." Submissions close on February 28, 2027, with any formal Regulatory Impact Analysis to be considered in the 2027 Regulatory Agenda.

Why it matters: This is the counter-example to item 2, and the sharpest thing in the notice is a question the CVM asks about itself: whether successive regulatory changes created unrecoverable costs or reduced predictability. Resolution 193 has now been amended three times, and a regulator publicly asking whether its own churn cost companies money for nothing is unusually candid. The conditions on voluntary adoption are the probable answer to the participation question, since reasonable assurance plus a three-year lock-in plus a full compliance declaration is a steep price for an optional regime, and few firms will pay it to be early. So Thailand is phasing in a mandate over five years, while Brazil consults on restoring one it removed, both working from the same ISSB standards. The divergence is about sequencing and cost, not about the standards themselves.

Read the full story: Brazil's CVM Opens Consultation on ISSB Sustainability Reporting Rules

 

8. BII Commits 2.25 Billion Pounds to Africa's Frontier Markets

 

British International Investment plans to deploy or mobilize 2.25 billion pounds, about 3 billion dollars, in Africa's frontier markets and least-developed countries over five years, representing 25 percent of a 9 billion pound Africa program under its 2026 to 2031 strategy. The program is split into 5 billion pounds of BII's own capital and 4 billion mobilized from investment partners, within a wider group target of around 15 billion pounds across all its markets. At least 40 percent of new investments are targeted for climate finance and 30 percent of new core investments for gender finance. Priority sectors include electricity, ports, railways, telecommunications towers and data centers, alongside financial inclusion, SMEs, agriculture, women-owned businesses and sustainable manufacturing with a focus on electric mobility, working through local financial institutions to strengthen domestic capital markets. Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo are named as priority countries. Chief Executive Leslie Maasdorp said BII would prioritize higher-risk economies with weak sovereign credit ratings and limited investor appetite. At the same time, East Africa Regional Director Seema Dhanani said that working through local banks means "banks give us scale, and they also give us reach."

Why it matters: The mobilization ratio shows how BII reads the risk, and it is worth comparing with its own recent commitment. Three weeks ago in South-East Asia, the institution set out about 800 million dollars of its own capital against 800 million mobilized, a one-to-one split. The Africaprograme is 5 billion pounds of its own against 4 billion mobilized, a lower ratio, and the frontier carve-out explicitly targets economies with weak sovereign ratings and limited investor appetite. Expecting to crowd in less private capital per pound in the hardest markets is the honest position, and naming Burundi and the DRC is a more meaningful signal of intent than the headline figure. Note the qualifications: the 2.25 billion is a planned allocation rather than committed capital, the relationship between the 9 billion pound Africa program and the 15 billion pound group target is not explained, and the climate and gender percentages apply to new investments generally rather than to this allocation.

Read the full story: BII Targets GBP 2.25 Billion for Infrastructure and Investment in Africa's Frontier Markets

 

9. FCA Brings ESG Ratings Providers Under Authorization From 2028

 

The Financial Conduct Authority has published Policy Statement PS26/22, its final rules bringing ESG ratings providers under regulatory supervision for the first time, following legislation introduced in October 2025 and consultation between December 2025 and March 2026. Authorization applications open on June 24, 2027, with a window to July 29 for firms expecting 500,000 pounds or more in annual ESG ratings revenue and from July 30 to August 31 for smaller providers, and the requirements take effect on June 29, 2028. Guidance, webinars, and a Pre-Application Support Service will be available from February 2027. The rules, informed by IOSCO recommendations, cover disclosure transparency, corporate governance, operational systems and controls, conflicts of interest, and engagement with both ratings users and rated entities, applied proportionately to provider size and activities. They deliberately do not prescribe an assessment methodology. Laura Dawes, the FCA's Director of Authorizations and Sustainable Finance, said, "trusted information is essential for well-functioning markets."

Why it matters: Two supervisors are converging on the same industry a year apart. ESMA said in late September it would begin processing ESG rating provider authorizations in 2027, and the FCA's requirements bite on June 29, 2028, with applications opening a year before that. Providers selling into both markets now face two authorization processes against one methodology, which is the practical planning consequence. The deliberate omission is the significant design choice. The FCA regulates governance, conflicts, systems, and disclosure, but does not prescribe methodology or say how it will judge whether one is sound. That is defensible, because a regulator setting ESG methodology would be setting ESG policy. It does mean authorization certifies process rather than output: a rating can be fully compliant and still be wrong, and nothing here changes that.

Read the full story: UK FCA Introduces First ESG Ratings Regulations, with Mandatory Authorisation from 2028

 

10. Deloitte Finds 81 Percent of Swiss Executives Report Better Sustainability Returns

 

Deloitte's C-suite Sustainability Report 2026 finds 81 percent of Swiss executives reporting higher returns from sustainability initiatives than from other business investments, with 31 percent describing those returns as significantly higher. The share increasing sustainability spending by at least 20 percent rose to 28 percent from 8 percent in the previous year's survey. In comparison, 82 percent saw competitive advantage, 78 percent identified improved risk management and resilience, and 77 percent reported brand reputation benefits. Unclear or changing sustainability requirements were named a top-two implementation challenge by 26 percent, up from 12 percent. On physical risk over three to five years, 24 percent of Swiss respondents named damage to facilities and infrastructure from extreme weather as their greatest exposure, compared with 16 percent globally; 18 percent cited power outages and limited energy availability, and 15 percent cited supply chain disruption. The survey covered 2,156 executives across 29 countries, including 74 from Swiss companies with annual revenues of at least $ 500 million. Deloitte Switzerland's Chief Sustainability Officer Liza Engel said: "companies cannot wait for full regulatory clarity."

Why it matters: Treat the 81 percent carefully. These are executives grading their own investment decisions rather than measured financial performance, and the Swiss figures rest on 74 respondents, a base small enough that a handful of different answers moves any percentage several points. The more useful finding is the contradiction inside the same research. Regulatory uncertainty as a top-two challenge more than doubled from 12 to 26 percent, and Deloitte's separate CFO work found sustainability, environmental and packaging regulation the heaviest compliance burden, ahead of tariffs, sanctions and taxes. The same population reporting superior returns also cites the rules as its highest cost, meaning firms are investing despite regulatory churn rather than because of clarity. Engel's line about not waiting for clarity concedes exactly that. The figure with the most information is the physical risk answer: 24 percent of Swiss executives name extreme weather damage to facilities as their top exposure, up from 16 percent globally, in a country whose infrastructure sits in the Alps.

Read the full story: Deloitte: 81% of Swiss Executives Report Higher Sustainability Investment Returns

 

What to Watch Next Week

 

Brazil's consultation closes on February 28, 2027, and the decision on a formal Regulatory Impact Analysis follows in the 2027 Regulatory Agenda. The question to track is not whether the mandate returns but whether the CVM drops the voluntary conditions, because reasonable assurance plus a three-year lock-in is the most plausible explanation for low take-up and the cheapest thing to change.

COP31 in Antalya is where both COP30 roadmaps either enter negotiated text or do not. For the forest roadmap, progress is measured not by the headline finance target but by the 88.3 percent of forest finance currently coming from domestic public budgets. Any shift in that split would be the first evidence the mechanism review led somewhere.

On grids, watch for a named financing structure rather than another estimate of the gap. The Green Finance Institute program targets smaller distribution operators, which is the right focus, and the first transaction that lets a mid-sized network operator raise institutional capital against a predictable revenue framework would matter more than the 1.2 trillion euro figure.

Stay informed with the latest developments on OneStop ESG News, and explore verified solution providers on the OneStop ESG Marketplace.