An ESG communications strategy is a plan for telling the people who matter to your organisation, in a consistent and verifiable way, what you are doing on environmental, social and governance issues, how you are performing and what you intend to do next. It starts with stakeholders and evidence, not with slogans. The channels, tone and calendar come last. This guide walks through how to build one, from mapping audiences to avoiding greenwashing and measuring results. Key takeaways ESG communication is a strategic process of conveying initiatives, goals and performance to stakeholders, and its purpose is trust, not publicity. Start with stakeholder mapping, including internal teams, before you write a single message. Silos between legal, sustainability and communications are a common failure point. Every claim needs evidence you can show: recognised standards, transparent data and, where appropriate, external assurance. Consistency across reports, website, social media and direct engagement matters more than any single campaign. Treat measurement as two-way: listen to stakeholders and adjust, rather than only broadcasting. What an ESG communications strategy is, and what it is not ESG stands for environmental, social and governance criteria, the lenses used to judge a company’s sustainability and ethical responsibility. ESG communication is the strategic process by which an organisation transparently conveys its initiatives, activities, goals and performance to stakeholders through a range of channels, according to a 2025 study from the University of Zurich’s financial communication research centre. That definition rules out two common habits. The first is treating ESG as a branding exercise, where a campaign runs ahead of the underlying work. The second is treating it as a once-a-year report, where numbers are published and then nobody speaks about them until the next cycle. It also helps to separate ESG communication from wider sustainability communication. The Sustainability Management Wiki describes corporate sustainability communication as bringing environmental, social and economic topics into corporate communication to inform, motivate and align stakeholders, using channels that include intranets and briefings. In practice, ESG messaging tends to be more data-led and investor-facing, while sustainability communication often has a broader, more motivational remit. A good strategy covers both, and knows which audience needs which. If you are still defining the underlying ESG approach, our guide to understanding ESG and ESG strategy development is the place to begin. Communication can only be as strong as the strategy it describes. Why the purpose is trust The Zurich study frames the purpose of ESG communication as building trust, showing genuine commitment to sustainability values and supporting long-term resilience by aligning business practice with what stakeholders expect. That framing is useful because it gives you a test for every message: does this help someone trust us more, on the basis of something they can check? A few practical consequences follow. Silence is not neutral. Stakeholders who cannot find your ESG information will draw their own conclusions. Overstatement is costly. A claim that cannot be backed up damages credibility far beyond the claim itself. Tone follows evidence. When the data is modest, say so plainly and show the direction of travel. Step 1: Map your stakeholders, inside and out The same study asked organisations which stakeholders they address most in ESG communication. The answers were employees (77.27%), regulators and supervisors (75.47%), the board of directors (73.64%) and customers (72.48%), as the CRIFC research reports. Investors, suppliers, NGOs and the media follow. The sample comes from Germany and Switzerland, so treat the percentages as an indication of priorities rather than a universal benchmark. The ordering is still instructive: employees come first, which many communications plans overlook. Start inside the organisation The C2ES strategic communications playbook describes stakeholder mapping as a foundational step and recommends identifying internal stakeholders such as sustainability, legal and communications teams before approaching investors, customers and regulators. It also notes that internal silos are a major barrier, because legal and sustainability teams often speak different languages. In practice, this means a short working group before any drafting begins: Sustainability or ESG lead, who owns the data. Legal or compliance, who tests every claim. Communications or marketing, who shapes the narrative. Finance, where ESG metrics link to financial reporting. HR, because employees are both an audience and your most credible voice. Then map the outside audiences For each external group, write down three things: what they need to know, what decisions they make with it, and how they prefer to receive it. A simple grid does the job. Audience What they usually need Typical format Investors and lenders Decision-useful, comparable metrics, climate risk, governance Annual report, sustainability report, investor briefings Regulators Compliance with disclosure rules, traceable data Statutory filings, formal disclosures Customers Credible product and service claims, plain language Website, product information, packaging Employees Purpose, progress, how they can contribute Intranet, briefings, team meetings Suppliers Expectations, data requests, support Direct engagement, supplier portals Communities, NGOs and media Local impact, honesty about problems Events, press, open dialogue Government and regulatory audiences differ by country. In Nigeria, for example, the Financial Reporting Council’s adoption roadmap for IFRS sustainability disclosure standards names professional bodies, regulators, policymakers, academia and the media as critical stakeholders for adopting sustainability reporting standards. If you operate across Europe and Africa, build a separate stakeholder list for each market rather than copying one map across. Our article on stakeholders and business sustainability goes deeper on identifying and prioritising these groups, and the key audiences of an ESG report shows how their needs differ. Step 2: Set goals and an integrated narrative Research published in 2025 in the journal Communication Research and Practice-adjacent literature on ESG as strategic public communication recommends aligning sustainability and marketing teams so the narrative is consistent and integrated, matching business priorities with stakeholder expectations, then setting clear communication goals and choosing channels that allow both dissemination and dialogue. The same research finds that institutions vary in how prepared they are, which supports the case for organisation-wide ESG strategies rather than isolated campaigns. Turn that into goals you can actually manage. Good ones are specific to an audience and an outcome: Employees can describe our three ESG priorities and one thing their team does about them. Our largest customers can find product-level sustainability information without contacting us. Lenders and investors receive the same figures in our report, our website and our briefings. Every public environmental claim has a named owner and an evidence file. Weak goals, by contrast, sound like “raise awareness” or “improve our ESG image”. They give you nothing to measure and invite exaggeration. Choose three or four material themes You cannot talk credibly about everything. Pick the themes where your impacts are largest and where stakeholders are asking questions: emissions and energy, supply chain labour standards, diversity and pay, board oversight, or waste and resource use. Then give each theme a baseline, a target and a status. If you have not done a materiality assessment, do that first, because it is the evidence that tells you what to say. Step 3: Decide what to say, and prove it What goes into your messages depends on who is reading, but the substance should come from recognised frameworks rather than invented metrics. The ISSB’s IFRS S1 and S2 standards, released in 2023, are structured around the four pillars of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets, and they focus on information relevant to investors, according to Kirkland & Ellis. Those four pillars make a sensible skeleton for investor-facing content even where the standards are not mandatory for you. Local rules vary. Qatar’s Financial Markets Authority, for instance, says Main Market companies should apply IFRS S1 and S2 as a reporting baseline, and that sustainability reporting requires external assurance by the auditor under international standards, specifically citing ISSA 5000. That is one jurisdiction’s rule, not a global one. Check what your own regulator and stock exchange require, and let your communications reflect it. For wider reporting, the GRI and SASB joint practical guide shows how the two frameworks can be used together to serve both impact-focused and investor-focused readers. If you report against GRI, our GRI Reporting course covers the mechanics, and the ESG Disclosure course helps teams understand what to publish and why. A simple evidence rule Before a number or claim leaves the building, check it against four questions: What is the source and who owns the data? What period and boundary does it cover (whole group, one site, one product)? Which standard or method was used to calculate it? Has anyone independent reviewed it? If you cannot answer all four, soften the claim or hold it back. Step 4: Pick channels and keep the message consistent The GRI and SASB guide lists the usual channels: corporate websites, sustainability reports, integrated reports, financial reports and social media, plus direct engagement such as workshops and conferences. The academic literature adds a point that matters more than the list. Excellent ESG communication, as the strategic public communication study puts it, requires consistency across every channel, backed by transparent data and sources to limit greenwashing risk. A workable channel plan assigns each audience a primary and a secondary channel: Annual or sustainability report: the full, assured record. Everything else points back to it. Website ESG hub: current data, policies, targets and downloadable datasets, updated on a set schedule. Investor and lender briefings: the same numbers, framed around risk and strategy. Internal channels: intranet, team briefings and manager toolkits so staff hear it from you first. Social media: short, specific updates that link to evidence, not slogans. Direct dialogue: supplier workshops, community meetings, roundtables. Social media deserves a note. A 2025 case study of an Italian environmental agency, published by Sant’Anna School researchers, found stakeholders expect clarity and accountability, and want social media used to improve awareness and satisfaction rather than only for announcements. That points to replying, explaining and answering questions, not posting and moving on. Watch your vocabulary The C2ES playbook argues that a strong strategy rests on credibility, authenticity and preparedness, and that the term ESG has become politicised in some contexts, so it suggests avoiding it. Whether that applies to you depends on your market and audience. In many European and African reporting contexts, ESG remains the language of regulators, lenders and auditors. A practical middle path: use ESG where your reader expects it (reports, investor material) and plain descriptions elsewhere (“how we cut energy use”, “how we treat suppliers”). Step 5: Avoid greenwashing The Zurich study lists the strategies practitioners use to avoid greenwashing: internal training, stakeholder dialogue, ESG benchmarking, transparent communication and external audits. It also names greenhushing, the practice of saying less about ESG to avoid scrutiny. Greenhushing is understandable, but it leaves a vacuum. The better answer is to say what you can prove and be open about what is unfinished. On environmental claims, two documents give clear principles. The International Chamber of Commerce’s 2025 Environmental Framework says environmental claims must be consistent with applicable law in the relevant region and supported by appropriate substantiating data, including reliable scientific evidence. It also says its general ethical-advertising principles apply to environmental and sustainability claims even where specific terms are not mentioned. The Global Guidance on Environmental Claims sets out six principles for non-misleading claims, including that marketers hold robust evidence for all objective claims capable of substantiation. If you operate in the UK, your claims are also subject to consumer protection law and advertising rules, so have the Competition and Markets Authority’s green claims guidance and the Advertising Standards Authority’s rules open when your legal team reviews copy. Rules differ across the EU member states and African markets, which is another reason to give legal a seat in the working group from the start. A pre-publication checklist Is the claim specific (what, how much, compared with what)? Does it cover the whole product or business, or only part, and does the wording say which? Is the evidence on file and recent? Would a sceptical journalist read it the way we intend? Do our targets have dates, baselines and interim milestones? Have we mentioned the difficult numbers as well as the good ones? Step 6: Measure and improve Measurement is the weakest part of most ESG communication plans. Reach and impressions are easy to count, but they say little about trust. Better indicators include: Stakeholder feedback: survey scores or interview findings from employees, customers and suppliers on whether they find your ESG information clear and credible. Quality of enquiries: investor and lender questions that become more specific, or fewer repeat questions. Internal alignment: the share of managers who can explain your ESG priorities. Consistency audits: periodic checks that figures match across the report, website and presentations. Ratings and assurance outcomes: changes in feedback from raters or assurance providers. The research supports a two-way approach. A 2025 study in Sustainability found minimal correlation between the sentiment of corporate videos and audience perception on YouTube, which suggests organisations need proactive, two-way engagement to address scepticism, not merely broadcast. Another 2025 paper from Vietnam, in Sustainability as well, found that digital marketing activity improved stakeholder engagement, which in turn drove adoption of environmental management accounting and better environmental performance among listed businesses. Its authors argue digital marketing should be seen as a strategic driver of sustainability performance when it enables two-way engagement, not just promotion. These are single studies from particular contexts, so use them as prompts for your own testing, not guarantees. Review the plan at least twice a year: once after your main report is published, and once midway through the cycle to adjust. A 90-day starting plan If you are beginning from scratch, this sequence is realistic for a mid-sized organisation. Period Focus Output Days 1 to 30 Working group, stakeholder map, audit of existing claims Stakeholder grid, claims register, list of gaps Days 31 to 60 Material themes, goals, evidence rules, narrative One-page narrative, approved metrics, review process Days 61 to 90 Channel plan, internal briefings, first updates, feedback loop ESG web page, manager toolkit, feedback survey The claims register in the first month is the most valuable single document. List every sustainability statement your organisation has made publicly, check the evidence behind each, and correct or withdraw what does not hold. It is uncomfortable, and it is the fastest way to reduce risk. How Exereco can help Strategy is easier when your team shares a common understanding of ESG. Our Introduction to ESG and ESG Principles courses give communications, legal and sustainability colleagues the same foundations, while ESG Disclosure focuses on what to report. For the wider picture, read about an integrated ESG strategy. To see everything we offer for organisations in Europe and Africa, from news and analysis to advisory, software and events, visit Exereco. FAQ What are the main steps of an ESG communications strategy? Map your internal and external stakeholders, set specific communication goals, choose material themes, gather evidence for each claim, select channels that allow dialogue, and review results regularly. The order matters: evidence and audiences come before messages and channels. Who should own ESG communications? No single department should. Sustainability owns the data, legal tests the claims and communications shapes the story, with finance and HR involved. Research on institutional preparedness points to the need for organisation-wide strategies, so name one accountable lead and a cross-functional group. How do you stop ESG communications becoming greenwashing? Substantiate every objective claim with robust evidence, benchmark against recognised standards, be transparent about gaps, train staff and consider external audit or assurance. The ICC framework and the Global Guidance on Environmental Claims both expect reliable evidence behind environmental claims. What is the difference between ESG communication and sustainability communication? ESG communication usually centres on measurable environmental, social and governance performance for investors, lenders and regulators. Sustainability communication is broader, aiming to inform and motivate a wider set of stakeholders, including employees and communities. Most organisations need both, built on the same facts. Do small businesses need an ESG communications strategy? Smaller organisations rarely need a large programme, but they do need a clear, honest account of what they do, because customers, lenders and larger buyers increasingly ask. A short stakeholder map, three or four themes and a claims register is a sensible proportionate start. Recommended Understanding ESG and ESG Strategy Development ESG Principles ESG Integration ESG Disclosure

Sunday lunch is the beating heart of many Maltese homes: the tray of ross il-forn, the crusty loaf, the pot that always seems to be bigger than the table needs. By Monday the fridge holds the echoes. The good news is that Maltese cooking was built on using everything, so this week's Positive Vibes Sunday is a celebration of leftover love. The nudge is a real one. According to Friends of the Earth Malta, citing Eurostat, Malta generates around 162 kg of food waste per person a year, roughly 30 kg above the EU average of 132 kg. Across the EU, households account for 54 percent of that waste, which means the kitchen is exactly where small habits make the biggest difference. Start with a use-it-up week Look before you shop: check the fridge, freezer and cupboard, then write down what needs eating first. Make an "eat me first" shelf at eye level, and put anything close to its date there. Freeze what you will not get to: bread, ripe tomatoes, cooked portions, even vegetable peelings for stock. Cook once, eat twice: tomorrow's dinner is often hiding inside today's pot. 1. Second-day ross il-forn Baked rice is a family favourite, and it happily welcomes leftovers. Use about three cups of cooked rice and any leftover ragù or tomato sauce, with a handful of peas if you have them. Mix the rice and sauce, then fold in two eggs beaten with a splash of milk. Press into a greased dish and top with grated cheese such as parmesan or kefalotiri. Bake at 180°C for about 30 minutes, until golden and set. Rest for ten minutes before slicing. A safety note: cool leftover rice quickly, keep it in the fridge, use it within a day, and make sure it is piping hot all the way through. 2. Ħobż biż-żejt for stale bread Maltese bread is best on the day, but day-old bread is a gift for this classic. Slice it, rub the cut side with a ripe tomato, drizzle generously with olive oil, then add tuna, capers, olives or a spoon of tomato paste. It is lunch in five minutes and not a crumb is wasted. Bread too hard to eat? Whizz it into breadcrumbs and freeze them. If you have a whole loaf going spare, pudina tal-ħobż is the sweet answer: stale bread soaked and squeezed, then blended with eggs, sugar, cocoa, dried fruit and a touch of aniseed, and baked in a tray until firm. 3. Soppa tal-armla for tired vegetables Widow's soup is a traditional meat-free Maltese dish made from whatever vegetables the house has, and it is perfect for the limp carrot and the half cauliflower. Soften a chopped onion in olive oil, then add a spoon of tomato paste. Add roughly chopped vegetables such as cauliflower, carrots, potatoes and peas, and cover with water. Simmer until everything is tender, then season well. Drop in spoonfuls of ricotta or fresh ġbejniet, cover, and let them warm through for five minutes. For cafés and small businesses The same thinking works behind a counter. A "yesterday's bread" special, a soup of the day built from trimmings, or a fixed price for end-of-day portions can turn waste into regulars, and it saves money too. This week's challenge Pick one meal from the list, cook it from what is already in the house, and tell a neighbour how it went. Waste less, taste more, and share the leftover love.

EU Taxonomy reporting means disclosing what share of your turnover, capital expenditure (CapEx) and operating expenditure (OpEx) comes from activities the EU classes as environmentally sustainable. You first identify which of your activities the Taxonomy covers (eligibility), then test whether they meet its criteria (alignment), then report three percentages in a prescribed template. For the 2025 financial year, reported in 2026, you can choose between the older rules and the simplified ones introduced by the 2025 Omnibus delegated act. This guide explains both, step by step. Key takeaways Eligibility means an activity is described in the Taxonomy. Alignment means it also passes the technical screening criteria, the “do no significant harm” tests and minimum social safeguards. You report three KPIs: turnover, CapEx and OpEx, each split into eligible and aligned shares. Under the simplified rules, activities making up less than 10% of a KPI can be treated as non-material, assessed separately for each KPI. For the 2025 financial year you may use either the simplified rules or the previous ones, but you must say which, and apply your choice in full. Who must report is tied to the CSRD, and its scope is still moving, so check your status before building a process. What the Taxonomy is, and what it is not The EU Taxonomy is a classification system. According to the European Commission, it is a market transparency tool that helps direct investment towards activities needed for the transition. It does not forbid any investment, and it does not label a company as good or bad. Its job is to give investors, lenders and customers one shared definition of “environmentally sustainable”, which makes greenwashing harder. The obligation to publish Taxonomy information comes from Article 8 of the Taxonomy Regulation. The Commission’s FAQ on the Taxonomy describes Article 8 as the provision that increases market transparency by requiring companies to give investors information on their activities. In practice, you meet it by including a Taxonomy section in your sustainability statement, which is part of your management report. The Taxonomy covers six environmental objectives: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, water and marine resources, the circular economy, pollution prevention and biodiversity. Each has its own list of activities and criteria, which the Commission sets through delegated acts. Eligibility vs alignment: the distinction that drives everything Most confusion in Taxonomy reporting comes from mixing up these two terms. Eligible: the activity appears in the Taxonomy’s lists. Being eligible says only that the framework can describe what you do. Aligned: the eligible activity meets every requirement, so it can be counted as environmentally sustainable. As Datia’s explainer puts it, eligibility signifies scope, while alignment confirms that the environmental and social criteria are met. Companies must disclose the share of revenue, CapEx and OpEx that is eligible and the share that is aligned. A simple example: a manufacturer of heat pumps has eligible turnover from selling them. Whether that turnover is aligned depends on whether the products meet the technical thresholds, whether production does no significant harm to the other five objectives, and whether the company respects minimum safeguards on human rights, anti-corruption, taxation and fair competition. Expect your aligned figure to be lower than your eligible figure, often markedly. That gap is normal and is not in itself a sign of poor performance. It is, however, the number analysts will look at. The five steps of a Taxonomy assessment The assessment follows a fixed sequence, set out in the Datia guide: Identify eligible activities. Map your business lines, products and projects to the activity descriptions in the Taxonomy. Test substantial contribution. For each eligible activity, check it against the technical screening criteria for the objective it contributes to. Apply “do no significant harm” (DNSH). Show that the activity does not undermine the other environmental objectives. This is usually the most evidence-hungry step, because it draws on site-level data about water, waste, emissions and chemicals. Check minimum social safeguards. This is tested at company level, not activity level. Calculate and report the KPIs in the prescribed templates. Two practical points. First, an activity can only be aligned if it passes steps 2 to 4 together. Second, keep an audit trail for each pass or fail, because your auditor or assurance provider will ask how you reached it. The three KPIs Non-financial companies report three ratios, each with eligible and aligned shares: KPI What it measures Typical data source Turnover Share of net revenue from eligible or aligned activities Revenue ledger by product or service CapEx Share of capital spending linked to eligible or aligned activities or to a plan to make them so Fixed asset register, project approvals OpEx Share of specific operating costs (such as maintenance, repair and short-term leases) linked to eligible or aligned activities Cost centres, maintenance records The main trap is double counting. Each euro of turnover, CapEx or OpEx must be assigned to one activity only. The simplest control is to build the three KPIs from the same activity map, so a project cannot appear in two places. Financial institutions use different KPIs, such as the green asset ratio for banks, and different templates. If you are a bank, insurer or asset manager, the logic is the same, but the data comes from your counterparties and investees. What changed with the 2025 Omnibus simplification The Commission’s Omnibus package, announced in February 2025, led to a delegated act that simplifies Taxonomy disclosures. It was adopted on 4 July 2025, published in the Official Journal on 8 January 2026 and entered into force on 28 January 2026. Its main features, according to the Commission’s questions and answers: A 10% materiality threshold. Activities that together generate less than 10% of total turnover, CapEx or OpEx can be treated as non-material and left out of the eligibility and alignment assessment. Assessment per KPI. Materiality is judged separately for each KPI. An activity can be non-material for turnover but material for CapEx, in which case it is excluded from one and included in the other. Disclosure of what you excluded. You still report the proportion of non-material activities in the templates, and explain in your sustainability report why you consider them non-material. Lighter templates. The Commission’s questions and answers describe the changes as a cut in red tape. One industry guide estimates the reduction in data points for non-financial companies at about 64%, though the exact figure depends on how you count. For financial institutions, the same document notes a temporary opt-out until 31 December 2027. A bank can stop reporting detailed Taxonomy KPIs if it states in its management report that it does not claim its activities are associated with environmentally sustainable activities under the Regulation. The Trading Book KPI for banks is also postponed until 2028. For a view of how supervisors are treating bank disclosures, see our report on how the EBA cut the ESG reporting burden for large banks. Old rules or new rules for the 2025 financial year? Because the act applies from 1 January 2026, reports for the 2025 financial year, published in 2026, fall under a transitional provision. Per the Commission notice in the Official Journal, you may choose either the simplified rules or the pre-existing requirements. If you choose the old rules, you must apply them in full, including the more detailed templates and the original KPI methodology. Your disclosures must state which version you used, so the report stays auditable. How do you choose? Three questions help: Do you have prior-year data on the old templates? If so, staying on them gives clean year-on-year comparison. Is more than 10% of any KPI spread across small activities? If the threshold would exclude very little, the simplified rules save less effort. Are your lenders or investors asking for the detailed breakdown? Some will want it regardless of what the law now requires. From financial year 2026, the simplified rules apply. Who has to report Taxonomy reporting sits on top of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): companies that must publish a sustainability statement must include the Taxonomy information. Scope has been shifting. In May 2025, the Commission proposed a “stop the clock” measure postponing reporting for certain companies by two years, and a content proposal to exempt companies with annual turnover below EUR 450 million from mandatory Taxonomy reporting. Always check the current legislative position for your entity before committing budget, as scope and timetable have changed several times. Two more points for readers in the UK and elsewhere outside the EU: UK companies are not subject to the EU Taxonomy as such, but a UK group with significant EU activity, or an EU subsidiary within the CSRD’s scope, may be pulled in. Check the entity-level rules, not just the group’s home country. Even outside scope, customers, banks and investors in Europe may ask for Taxonomy-style data. Voluntary reporting is a legitimate choice, as long as you label it clearly as such. For the wider picture, read our guide to CSRD reporting: who must report, what to include and how to start, and our analysis of the Omnibus proposal and whether it is simplification or deregulation. How Taxonomy reporting connects to CSRD and ESRS The Taxonomy tells you what counts as sustainable. The ESRS tell you how to report your sustainability performance. The two need to line up in your report: your climate transition plan, your capital allocation and your Taxonomy CapEx plan should tell one consistent story. Double materiality, the CSRD’s test for which topics to report, is a separate exercise from the Taxonomy’s 10% threshold. Do not reuse one for the other. A topic can be material in your ESRS assessment while an activity is non-material for Taxonomy purposes, and the reverse. Our explainer on double materiality in corporate sustainability reporting covers the CSRD side, and the history of the standards is in the path towards ESRS adoption. A practical starting plan If you are reporting for the first time, or rebuilding a process that was too manual, work in this order. 1. Decide your scope and version Confirm whether you are in scope, which financial year you are reporting, and, for 2025, whether you use the old or simplified rules. Write the decision down. 2. Build the activity map List every business line, product and major project, with its revenue, CapEx and OpEx. Match each to Taxonomy activity descriptions. The Commission’s EU Taxonomy Navigator includes a Taxonomy Calculator, an interactive educational tool for understanding the reporting obligations, and it is a good place to check an activity description. 3. Apply the 10% test, if you use the simplified rules Run it per KPI. Record the excluded activities and the reason, since you must explain them in the report. 4. Collect evidence for alignment For each remaining eligible activity, collect the data needed for the technical screening criteria and DNSH tests. Assign owners in operations, finance and procurement. Engineering, HR and legal teams usually hold the evidence, not the sustainability team. 5. Calculate, review and document Compute the three KPIs, reconcile them with the financial statements, and keep a file showing every judgement. Plan for limited assurance, because the sustainability statement is assured. 6. Build in flexibility The screening criteria are under revision, with a delegated act expected in 2026 according to the Commission’s sustainable finance news. Store your activity map and evidence in a structured way so thresholds can change without a rebuild. Common mistakes Treating eligibility as a result. A high eligible share says little. Analysts read the aligned share. Mismatched denominators. Turnover, CapEx and OpEx must be reconciled with the audited financial statements. Weak DNSH evidence. Assertions without site-level data will not survive assurance. Ignoring minimum safeguards. This is a company-level test, and it needs your human rights and compliance policies to be documented. Working in spreadsheets with no version control. With several sites and a yearly cycle, versions diverge fast. A small first-time reporter has the same obligations as a large one. The 3-step guide from NorDESG notes that Taxonomy reporting can be complex and cumbersome for first-time reporters, especially smaller firms with limited resources, which is a reason to start early and keep the scope of your first pass tight. Choosing tools for Taxonomy reporting You can report from spreadsheets, and some companies with few activities do. Once you have several sites, many product lines or a need for audit trails, dedicated software starts to pay for itself. When comparing options, look for: activity mapping against the current Taxonomy lists, with updates when the criteria change; KPI calculation with a clear link to your general ledger or ERP; evidence storage for DNSH and safeguards, with named owners and approval history; exports in the official templates for both the old and simplified rules; links to your ESRS data, so one dataset feeds both disclosures. Large technology vendors are also adding reporting features to their cloud platforms. Our news piece on Microsoft’s expanded Sustainability Cloud shows where the market is heading. Where Exereco can help Exereco brings together sustainability news, ESG advisory, training, reporting software and networking for organisations working across Europe and Africa. If your team is deciding on scope, building an activity map or choosing a reporting approach, you can see what we offer at Exereco and talk to us about advisory support, software or training for your reporting team. We also track every Taxonomy and CSRD change in our news coverage, so you can see updates as they land. FAQ What is the difference between Taxonomy eligibility and alignment? Eligibility means an activity is described in the Taxonomy, so it is within the framework’s scope. Alignment means it also meets the technical screening criteria, does no significant harm to the other objectives and complies with minimum social safeguards. You report both shares. Which KPIs do non-financial companies report? They report turnover, CapEx and OpEx, each split into eligible and aligned shares. Under the simplified rules, activities making up less than 10% of a KPI may be treated as non-material, and that is assessed separately for each KPI. The excluded proportion must still be shown in the templates. Is Taxonomy reporting mandatory? It is mandatory for companies within the CSRD’s scope, as part of their sustainability statement. Scope has been under revision since the 2025 Omnibus proposals, including a proposal to exempt companies under EUR 450 million in turnover, so check the current position for your entity. Companies outside scope may report voluntarily. Can I use the old rules for the 2025 financial year? Yes. For reports on the 2025 financial year published in 2026, you can choose the simplified rules or the previous requirements. If you choose the previous ones, you must apply them in full, and your report must state which version you used. Do UK companies have to report under the EU Taxonomy? Not as UK companies alone. The obligation arises through the CSRD, so it applies where an EU entity or a qualifying non-EU group falls within scope. Take advice on your group structure before assuming you are in or out. Recommended CSRD Reporting: Who Must Report, What to Include and How to Start ESG Disclosure Streamlining Corporate Sustainability Reporting: EU’s New FAQs to Simplify Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) Compliance The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) - The Path Towards Adoption

Ghana's government has set out three safeguards to protect workers as mining companies move from owner mining to contract mining. The measures were announced in a statement from the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, signed by its Director of Communications, Zambaga Rufai Saminu, and reported by MyJoyOnline on 21 October 2026. The shift raises an obvious worry for the people on site: that moving from a mine's own payroll to a contractor's could mean lower pay, fewer benefits or weaker conditions. The ministry acknowledged those concerns and said workers must not be disadvantaged by the directive's implementation. The first safeguard protects wages and benefits. The Minerals Commission must ensure that contract workers do not lose pay, entitlements, benefits or conditions because of the transition. Contract workers should receive pay and benefits comparable to those of owner-mining workers doing similar jobs. The second is harmonisation. The Commission is to work towards aligning salaries, wages and conditions across the mining value chain. The ministry says this responds to concerns raised by the Ghana Mineworkers Union, human resources experts and other stakeholders. The third is contractor categorisation. Eligible contractors will be ranked according to their capacity to provide mining services, which is meant to bring order to who is allowed to do what. There is a deadline attached. The Minerals Commission must complete the implementation steps and submit documents for approval by 30 November 2026. The statement also confirms that local content rules are unchanged. Indigenous Ghanaian companies must undertake contract mining for surface operations. Underground contract mining must go through a partnership in which a Ghanaian-owned company holds at least 50%. These rules were included in the sixth edition of the Local Procurement List, effective 1 January 2025, under LI 2431. The ministry added that most multinational miners in Ghana had already made the transition in order to comply. On enforcement, the ministry said it would maintain zero tolerance for unfair labour practices, cartelisation, bid rigging and fronting, the practice of putting a local name on an arrangement controlled by others. It tied these commitments to President John Dramani Mahama's Reset Agenda. For workers, the test will be whether the wage and benefit comparability promise is applied consistently and monitored once contracts are signed. For contractors, categorisation and the local content thresholds set the terms for winning work. For investors and mine owners, the 30 November deadline gives a date by which the framework should be clearer. The announcement fits a wider pattern in which African governments try to keep more of the value and more of the decent jobs from mining at home. Whether Ghana's safeguards deliver will depend on how the Minerals Commission turns three principles into rules that can be checked, and whether it meets its deadline. Why it matters Contract mining can quietly move risk from mine owners to workers through lower pay and thinner benefits. Ghana's rule that contract workers should receive comparable pay and conditions treats that risk as a policy issue. For Exereco readers, it shows how the social side of ESG is decided in the details of employment arrangements.

Amsterdam is exploring a ban on single-use packaging, including coffee cups, fast-food containers and other single-use plastics. The city has commissioned a study into what it can legally do, according to a report published by DutchNews.nl on 23 October 2026. The reasoning starts with litter. According to the city, single-use plastics make up 30% of the rubbish found on its streets. They are typically used for about seven minutes and then take hundreds of years to decompose. The city describes single-use packaging as a major problem. Lian Heinhuis, the Amsterdam executive responsible for waste and sanitation, framed litter as a symptom of what she called a throwaway society, one that costs the city millions every year. She added that the solution is within reach, and that it lies in putting an end to the throwaway culture. The study is not a ban yet. Amsterdam will look at what it is legally allowed to do, work with business owners and residents, and examine how other cities handle the problem. That consultation step matters, because a ban on everyday items such as takeaway cups lands directly on cafes, restaurants and their customers. The legal route is a real constraint. CircuLaw, a legal information provider on circular transitions, notes that a ban could be introduced only after less restrictive measures have proven ineffective. In practice this means a city has to show that softer tools, such as encouraging reuse or voluntary schemes, have not delivered before it can move to a prohibition. The coverage points to two cities as points of comparison. Lisbon has already implemented a single-use packaging ban, which gives Amsterdam a working example to study. Copenhagen is cited as another city whose approach is relevant. The report also sets out what a ban needs in order to work. It is more likely to succeed where there is a reliable supply of reusable packaging and a well-established return system. Without those two pieces, businesses and consumers would have no practical alternative to the disposable item, and a prohibition could simply shift the problem rather than solve it. For businesses, the message is to watch the study closely. Any eventual rule would probably depend on reusable options being easy to obtain and easy to return, which favours operators and suppliers that are already investing in deposit or return systems. For residents, the immediate effect is an invitation to take part in the discussion rather than a change at the counter. For a capital city that markets itself on its canals and public spaces, the cost of litter is both financial and visual. Amsterdam's study will show whether a ban is legally and practically workable, and how quickly. The city has not announced a timetable in the coverage reviewed, so the next milestone to watch is the outcome of the legal study and the conversations with businesses and residents. Why it matters Disposable packaging is designed to be used for minutes and to last for centuries, and Amsterdam's study treats that mismatch as a design problem for the whole city. A ban only works when reusable alternatives and return systems exist, which is why this story is as much about infrastructure as about prohibition. For Exereco readers, it is a clear example of how cities can move from clean-up to prevention.

A good waste management strategy is a written plan that tells you what waste you produce, where it comes from, how you will prevent it first, and how you will handle, track and report what is left. It starts at the top of the waste hierarchy (prevention), not at the bin. It names an owner and sets measurable targets. It is reviewed against the rules that apply to you. This guide shows how to build one, in the order we would do it, with the evidence behind each step. Key takeaways Build the strategy around the five-step waste hierarchy: prevention first, then preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery, and disposal last. Measure before you plan. You cannot set targets, cut costs or report credibly without data on waste streams, volumes and destinations. Treat waste as a design and procurement issue, not only an operations task. Producer responsibility rules make end-of-life costs a product decision. Waste is also a public health matter. Open burning and poor containment cause harm that technical metrics alone miss. Review the plan every year, because targets, bans and reporting expectations keep moving. Why a waste strategy is now a business issue The scale of the problem explains why regulators and investors pay attention. The UN Environment Programme’s Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 projects that municipal solid waste will grow from 2.1 billion tonnes in 2023 to 3.8 billion tonnes a year by 2050 if current trends continue. The same report puts the direct cost of waste management at $252 billion in 2020. Once hidden costs such as pollution, health and climate impacts are counted, the figure rises to $361 billion, and under business as usual it nearly doubles to $640.3 billion by 2050. A circular model, by contrast, could deliver a net annual gain of $108.5 billion by 2050. Those are global numbers, but the logic holds for a single organisation. Waste you create is material you paid for, handled at a cost, and increasingly held accountable for. The strategy is how you turn that from a surprise into a plan. In Europe the direction is clear. The EU Waste Framework Directive notes that the EU generates around 2.5 billion tonnes of waste a year, roughly 5 tonnes per person, and sets recycling targets for municipal and packaging waste alongside a binding target to send no more than 10% of municipal waste to landfill by 2035. If you operate in the UK, your legal duties come from UK law rather than EU law, so check the current requirements with the Environment Agency or your devolved regulator. If you sell into EU markets, the EU rules apply to you as well. Start with the waste hierarchy Every credible strategy rests on the same ladder. The European Commission describes a five-step hierarchy, from most to least preferred: Prevention: not creating the waste at all. Preparing for reuse: checking, cleaning or repairing items so they can be used again. Recycling: turning waste back into materials. Other recovery: for example, energy recovery. Disposal: landfill and incineration without recovery. The common mistake is to start at step three. Recycling and energy recovery feel simple: you buy bins, sign a contract, and report a rate. But a recycling rate says nothing about how much material you consumed in the first place. A strategy that only improves the bottom of the ladder manages the symptom. The biggest and cheapest savings sit at the top, in what you buy, how you design and how you pack. What prevention looks like in practice Prevention is less abstract than it sounds. It usually comes down to a short list of decisions: Specification. Buying fewer, lighter or more durable items, and removing packaging that does no job. Product design. Designing for repair, disassembly and longevity so products do not become waste early. Business model. Moving from selling units to offering repair, refill, rental or take-back. Stock control. Ordering and producing to demand, so surplus never becomes waste. The last point now has legal weight in the EU. Under the ban on destroying unsold clothes and shoes, which entered into application in 2026, businesses must prioritise keeping products in use by selling them, donating them to charities or social enterprises, or preparing them for reuse. Companies without reverse logistics or donation partnerships for surplus stock are the ones now exposed. If you want to go deeper on design-led prevention, our course Designing Out Waste: The challenges to full circularity covers where full circularity gets hard and how teams work around it. A step-by-step process to build your strategy Step 1: Get a baseline Begin with a waste audit. Record, for each site and each stream, what the material is, how much there is, who collects it, where it goes and what it costs. Include hazardous and regulated streams separately. Use invoices, weighbridge tickets and transfer paperwork rather than estimates wherever you can. Where you cannot, note the assumption, so you can improve it next year. The baseline should also capture the upstream picture: which purchases generate the most waste, which products come back as returns, and where surplus builds up. This is where prevention opportunities hide. Step 2: Map the rules that apply to you List the laws, permits and customer requirements for each stream and each country you operate in. Typical categories include general duties of care for waste, hazardous waste rules, packaging obligations, electrical and battery rules, and textile requirements. Because these differ by country, assign someone to confirm the current position with the relevant regulator rather than relying on a generic checklist. For producers and importers in Europe, this mapping increasingly includes extended producer responsibility. Our guide to EPR in Europe: packaging, textile and WEEE compliance explains how those schemes work across categories. Step 3: Set priorities and targets Rank streams by volume, cost, risk and reduction potential. Then set targets that follow the hierarchy. Examples of well-formed targets: Cut packaging weight per unit shipped by a stated percentage by a stated date. Divert a named stream from disposal to reuse or recycling. Eliminate destruction of saleable surplus stock. Reduce the cost of waste handling per unit of output. Avoid a single headline target such as “zero waste to landfill”. It can be met by shifting waste to incineration while total waste rises. Pair it with a prevention measure, such as tonnes generated per unit of output. Step 4: Assign ownership and budget A strategy without an owner becomes a document. Name one accountable lead, give procurement, operations, product and finance a defined role, and set aside budget for the changes that save money later, such as better segregation, equipment, supplier changes or staff training. Step 5: Choose treatment routes and partners Only now decide who collects and processes what is left. Ask each contractor where your material actually ends up, how they document it, and whether they can provide data in a format you can report from. Keep copies of the paperwork that proves your waste was handled lawfully. Step 6: Track, report and review Decide on a small set of indicators: total waste generated, share by hierarchy step, cost, and incidents or non-compliances. Review them quarterly with the owner and annually with senior management. Feed them into your sustainability reporting so that the numbers you publish match the numbers you manage. Comparing strategy options by cost and impact There is no single best strategy, but the options differ in what they cost and what they protect you from. Approach Typical upfront effort Main benefit Main weakness Prevention and redesign High (design, procurement, supplier change) Lowest long-run cost, lowest regulatory exposure Takes time and cross-team agreement Reuse, repair, take-back Medium (logistics, partnerships) Keeps value in products, helps meet surplus rules Needs reliable reverse logistics Improved recycling and segregation Low to medium (bins, training, contracts) Quick, visible results Does not reduce what you buy; quality depends on sorting Energy recovery Low Reduces landfill Lower in the hierarchy; does not retain material value Disposal only Lowest Simple Highest exposure to cost and rule changes In most organisations the right answer is a blend, weighted towards the top rows over time. Packaging is often the quickest win Packaging is the stream most organisations can change fastest, because it is a purchasing decision. Stretch film is a good example: it is used in volume for pallet wrapping, and thickness, pre-stretch and material choice change both cost and waste. If you want to compare the environmental and economic trade-offs, this overview of sustainable stretch film options (in German) sets out how film choice affects both. Whatever you buy, ask suppliers for documentation that supports your packaging compliance files. Design and procurement decide your end-of-life costs UNEP’s outlook argues that the most effective approach is a full life cycle approach, including extended producer responsibility, which moves the financial and operational burden of end-of-life management from municipalities to producers. Over 60 countries have implemented some form of EPR, and the next stage is harmonising standards to limit plastic leakage and cost across supply chains. For your strategy, the point is practical. If fees and obligations are tied to what you place on the market, then design and procurement choices become waste decisions. A product that is easier to repair, a pack with fewer materials, or a supplier who takes back used items all lower future exposure. Treating waste as an end-of-year line item misses this. Two of our courses address the commercial side of this: Circular Business Models: Doing more, with less, for longer looks at how to earn from keeping products and materials in use. Circular Supply Chains: Leveraging the power of strategic procurement shows how buying decisions can design waste out before it starts. Battery-heavy sectors face their own version of this challenge. See how the industry is initiating the circular battery economy. For corporate examples of circular targets, you can read how Mercedes-Benz aims to drive circularity and how Greif reported on innovation and circularity. Do not overlook health and community impact Waste strategies are often drawn up as engineering and cost exercises. The World Health Organization treats them as public health policy. Its report on assessing the health impacts of waste management in the circular economy recommends health impact assessments (HIAs) as a tool for evaluating waste projects, so that a move to circular models reduces health risks rather than relocating them. This matters most where waste is poorly contained. Open burning is a clear case: one 2016 study estimated that about 270,000 deaths a year are attributable to fine particulate matter from open waste burning, with a 95% confidence interval of 213,000 to 328,000. The WHO’s priority actions for tackling it include applying reduce, reuse and recycle principles and encouraging household separation and recovery of separated materials. For an organisation, the lesson is about social licence. Plans for new facilities, depots or changes in treatment route attract opposition when nearby residents feel the burdens have been ignored. A short assessment of who is affected, and how, strengthens both the plan and the conversation with the community and regulator. This is especially relevant for local authorities and for businesses operating in parts of Africa and elsewhere where informal disposal is common. If you work at national or municipal level, UNEP’s guidelines for national waste management strategies set out a process and the questions to ask when developing an integrated strategy. Connect waste to your ESG reporting Regulators and ESG frameworks look at what you prevent, not only what you recycle. That means your waste data needs to be reliable enough to publish. Practical habits help: Keep one source of truth for tonnes by stream, site and destination. Record the hierarchy step for each tonne, so you can show movement towards prevention and reuse. Link waste data to supplier and product data, so you can explain changes in volume. Keep evidence: contracts, transfer notes and certificates that back up the figures. Waste also connects directly to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, and to how you engage the people your operations affect. Our article on stakeholders and business sustainability shows how to bring those groups into the picture. Where Exereco can help We combine sustainability news and analysis for Europe and Africa with training, advisory support and ESG reporting software, so the pieces of a waste strategy can sit in one place. If your team needs to build skills in circular design, procurement or business models, start with our circular business models course, or see the full range of courses. For advisory, reporting software or events, you can reach us through Exereco. Common mistakes to avoid Starting with the bin. Changing collections before reviewing purchasing leaves the biggest savings untouched. Chasing one metric. A recycling rate alone can rise while total waste grows. Ignoring surplus stock. Unsold goods are waste in waiting, and in the EU the rules on destroying some of them have tightened. Leaving it to one department. Waste is created in design, buying and sales as much as in operations. Writing it once. Rules, targets and supplier markets change, so a plan from three years ago is likely out of date. FAQ What are the main elements of a waste management strategy? A baseline of what you produce, a map of the rules that apply, targets ordered by the waste hierarchy, a named owner with a budget, vetted treatment partners, and a routine for tracking and review. The hierarchy is the backbone: prevention first, disposal last. What are the 5 ways to reduce waste? The five hierarchy steps give a simple answer: prevent waste, prepare items for reuse, recycle, recover energy from what cannot be recycled, and dispose of only what remains. In practice, most of the gain comes from the first two, which are about buying, design and stock decisions. How often should we review our waste strategy? Track your indicators quarterly and review the whole plan at least once a year. Review sooner when you enter a new market, launch a product, change suppliers or when a rule affecting your sector changes, such as a new producer responsibility scheme or surplus-goods restriction. Do we need a waste management plan if we are a small business? The legal duties that apply to you depend on your country, sector and the waste you produce, so confirm them with your environmental regulator. Even where no formal plan is required, a simple one-page version covering streams, contractors, paperwork and a prevention target usually pays for itself in lower costs and fewer compliance surprises. Recommended Designing Out Waste: The Challenges to Full Circularity Circular Water Management: A Framework for the Transition ISO 14001 Implementation: 3 Shifts Toward Results and Accountability

New York City has passed a ban on horse-drawn carriages, bringing an end to one of Central Park's best-known tourist traditions, The New York Times reported on 22 October. The ban is due to take effect in 2028 and is expected to face a challenge in the courts. The measure, known as Romanch's Law, is named after Romanch Mahajan, an 18-year-old tourist from India who died in June after a carriage horse got out of control in the park while he was riding with his family. Investigators said the carriage clipped the wheel of another carriage and overturned. Council Speaker Julie Menin said the tradition had become a growing public safety liability, and the Central Park Conservancy, which manages the park, backed the move. The Conservancy had counted eight other carriage incidents over 13 months. The bill, agreed earlier this month between the Council and Mayor Zohran Mamdani, would phase out the industry by June 2028 and stop new licences being issued. It bars the sale of the horses to slaughterhouses and sets up a transition programme for workers, including job placement, training, counselling and compensation. The Transport Workers Union, which represents about 200 owners, drivers and stable hands, says the bill offers no meaningful economic relief and has said it will go to court. New York is following a path several European cities have already taken. Prague banned carriages from Old Town Square and Stromovka park from January 2023, citing traffic noise, exhaust fumes and extreme summer and winter temperatures. Brussels went further, ending horse-drawn tourist rides from January 2024 and offering electric carriages in their place. Other cities have chosen to regulate rather than ban. In December 2020, Rome moved its traditional botticelle off city streets and into public parks and historic villas, with set routes, regular rest stops, a seven-hour working limit and no rides from midday to 5.30pm in July and August. Vienna allows its Fiaker to work until the air temperature reaches 35°C. Animal welfare campaigners there, whose petition has gathered about 65,000 signatures, want the limit cut to 30°C, which they say already applies in Berlin and Bruges. Malta has followed the regulation route too. Since 2019, karozzini horses have been barred from working on the roads between 1pm and 4pm in July and August, and must be parked in the shade during that time. In August this year, the government went further: under new guidelines published in the Government Gazette, no karozzin may operate while the Met Office has an official red alert for extreme heat in force. Animal Liberation Malta has called for a gradual switch to electric karozzini, a freeze on new licences and a grant scheme to help drivers make the change. The debate is similar wherever it takes place. Supporters of bans point to horses working in heavy traffic, on hard road surfaces and in rising summer temperatures, and to the risk to passengers and pedestrians when a frightened animal bolts. Drivers and owners point to family businesses that go back generations, to veterinary checks and welfare rules already in place, and to a cultural heritage that many visitors come to see. As summers grow hotter, heat has become the main focus of carriage rules in southern Europe. Whether cities choose to ban carriages outright, limit where and when they run, or replace them with electric versions, the choices show how tourism, animal welfare, public safety and local jobs have to be weighed against each other in the same decision. Why it matters Tourism is being asked to live up to the values visitors increasingly hold. Horse-drawn rides are a small part of the sector, but they are highly visible, and the way a city handles them signals how seriously it takes animal welfare, public safety and the experience it offers to residents as well as tourists.

Prince William's Earthshot Prize will stage a Children's Earthshot in Mumbai next month, giving schoolchildren from across India a platform alongside the environmental innovators competing for the main awards. Fifteen teams of young people aged nine to 17 have been selected for two days of presentations and workshops in the city, PA reported on 22 October, and the winning entries will each receive US$2,000 to develop and put their ideas into practice. The teams emerged from the I CAN Earthshot Challenge, which the Earthshot Prize launched in June with the Brazilian children's rights foundation Alana and the education movement Design for Change. The challenge was opened to students through more than 15,000 schools in 24 Indian states, with organisers aiming to reach close to one million children, which the Earthshot Prize describes as the largest youth outreach in its history. Children could also enter online from anywhere in the country. Rather than writing essays, students worked in teams to find a real environmental problem in their own community and tackle it. Each project had to link to one of the prize's five Earthshots: protecting and restoring nature, cleaning the air, reviving the oceans, building a waste-free world and fixing the climate. Teams followed Design for Change's Feel, Imagine, Do and Share approach, and teachers in participating schools were supported along the way. According to PA, entries ranged from fixing a waterlogged school playground to tackling oil and solid-waste pollution in the Godavari River. Five winners, one for each Earthshot, will receive the grants. The young finalists will join the wider Earthshot Prize Summit and Awards Night on 16 and 17 November, the first time the awards have been held in India. The ceremony will hand out £5 million in total, with £1 million going to each of five winners, and will be streamed on Prime Video. This year's finalists include the Danish offshore wind developer Orsted, Mahindra Last Mile Mobility, which makes electric three-wheelers in India, and Yellowstone to Yukon, which works to reconnect wildlife habitat across Canada and the United States. Earthshot chief executive Jason Knauf said the next generation "is not waiting for the future to act". Kiran Bir Sethi, founder of Design for Change, said children have an incredible capacity to create change when given the opportunity to act. The choice of India is significant for the prize. The country has produced more Earthshot winners and finalists than any other, with seven finalists to date, four of them winners. It also faces some of the sharpest environmental pressures in the world, from air pollution in its large cities to water stress and extreme heat, which gives local, practical projects a direct relevance to daily life. The Children's Earthshot builds on a pilot run in Brazil in 2025, when young people took part in a youth simulation of UN climate negotiations ahead of the prize's Rio de Janeiro edition. Moving from simulated negotiations to hands-on projects in schools marks a shift towards learning by doing, with children testing ideas in their own streets, rivers and classrooms rather than only discussing them. Why it matters Young people will live longest with the consequences of today's climate decisions, yet they rarely get a seat at the table. Putting schoolchildren on the same stage as global innovators and investors, even briefly, signals that their ideas count and builds the next generation of environmental leaders.

A green bond framework is the document an issuer publishes before selling a green bond. It sets out which projects the money will fund, how those projects are chosen, how the proceeds are tracked and what the issuer will report afterwards. It is voluntary, but in practice investors expect one. This guide explains what goes into it, how the EU Green Bond Standard sits alongside it, and what the work involves once the bond is sold. Key takeaways A green bond framework is a voluntary process document. It should cover the four ICMA Green Bond Principles components: use of proceeds, project evaluation and selection, management of proceeds, and reporting. The European Green Bond Standard is a separate, stricter, optional label. It requires 85% of proceeds to go to EU Taxonomy-aligned activities and external review approved under EU rules. Reporting does not end at issuance. The IMF describes a transparency burden that lasts until the bond matures, so build the data process before you build the document. Vague use of proceeds is the quickest way to lose investor confidence. Name projects or portfolios, estimate impact, and be open about refinancing. What a green bond framework is, and what it is not The framework is a process document. It is not the bond prospectus, and it is not a certification. It describes how an issuer commits to managing proceeds for environmentally sound projects. According to ICMA, the Green Bond Principles are voluntary process guidelines, updated in June 2025, that recommend transparency and disclosure. The IMF’s guidance note for sovereign debt managers says that publishing a framework showing how a planned issuance follows the ICMA Principles has become standard practice. A single framework usually covers a type of bond and can be reused for several issuances. That is why you see the same document structure from a bank, a utility, a packaging manufacturer and a national treasury. Two points are often misunderstood: A framework is not an assurance. It states intentions. Independent review and your own reporting show whether you kept to them. A framework is not the EU label. You can issue a bond aligned with the ICMA Principles without ever using the European Green Bond designation. For wider context on how green bonds relate to other labelled debt, see our mini overview of sustainability bonds. The four core components Every credible framework follows the structure of the Green Bond Principles. Here is what each part needs to say, and where issuers tend to be too vague. 1. Use of proceeds This section lists the eligible green categories, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport, sustainable water management or green buildings. For each category, set out the eligibility criteria, the environmental objective and, ideally, the indicators you will use to measure benefit. The research we reviewed is blunt about one point: “general corporate purposes” as a use of proceeds is a red flag for investors. A credible framework maps proceeds to specific projects or portfolios and estimates impact, for example in tonnes of CO2 equivalent avoided. Also state the split between financing new projects and refinancing existing assets. The same source notes that investors look closely at this share, and that very high refinancing ratios, above 80% in its example, can signal less added environmental benefit. You do not have to avoid refinancing. You do have to disclose it, and say what look-back period applies. 2. Process for project evaluation and selection Here you explain who decides which projects qualify and how. Describe the environmental objectives, the criteria applied, and any exclusions. Name the internal body responsible, whether that is a green bond committee, a treasury and sustainability working group or an inter-ministerial group for sovereigns. The KfW framework, for instance, is explicit that this is an operational matter. Issuers often need a dedicated team or working group to run project selection and annual reporting. If the committee has no named members or no meeting rhythm, readers will notice. This is also the place to describe how you manage environmental and social risks linked to the projects, and which standards or taxonomies you refer to, such as the EU Taxonomy. 3. Management of proceeds This section answers a simple question: where does the money sit until it is spent? Most issuers credit proceeds to a sub-account or track them within a portfolio, and describe how unallocated balances are held. State the tracking method, who verifies it, and how often balances are reviewed. Match maturities carefully. The KfW document points out that the volume-weighted average maturity of green bonds should line up with the average duration of the underlying commitments, to avoid a mismatch. A ten-year bond financing assets that will be repaid in three years creates a gap you will need to explain. 4. Reporting Commit to an allocation report (how much went where) and an impact report (what it achieved), and say when and where you will publish them. Typical commitments are annual updates until full allocation, then updates in the event of material changes. The Climate Bonds Initiative has noted that the market still lacks a common reporting platform and that harmonising and centralising disclosure is the next step in its evolution. Until then, the quality of your own report is what sets you apart. We come back to this below. The EU Green Bond Standard and your framework Many searches on this topic are really about the EU label. The European Green Bond Standard is set out in Regulation (EU) 2023/2631. It has applied since 21 December 2024, and it is optional. Issuers who want to use the designation “European Green Bond” or “EuGB” must meet its requirements. The regulation covers financial and non-financial companies and sovereigns. The main requirements are: Taxonomy alignment. At least 85% of proceeds must be allocated to activities aligned with the EU Taxonomy. A flexibility pocket of 15% remains for other activities. A factsheet before issuance. The issuer publishes a European Green Bond factsheet, reviewed by an external reviewer. Reports after issuance. Allocation reports and an impact report follow, and the external reviewer checks them. Registered reviewers. External reviewers must be registered with and supervised by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The EUR-Lex summary of the regulation gives a shorter plain-language reading of the same rules. It is worth reading before deciding whether the label suits you. Framework or EuGB: which do you need? They are not alternatives in the strict sense. A framework is how you describe and govern your approach. The EuGB is a regulated label with fixed rules. Some issuers will use a framework aligned with the ICMA Principles and issue without the EU label. Others will write a framework that explains how a bond meets the EuGB rules, or that accommodates both types of issuance. Question ICMA-aligned framework European Green Bond (EuGB) Legal basis Voluntary market guidelines EU Regulation 2023/2631 Eligible projects Issuer-defined green categories Mainly EU Taxonomy-aligned activities (85% minimum) External review Market practice, usually a second-party opinion Required, by an ESMA-registered reviewer Disclosure templates Issuer’s own format Prescribed factsheet and reports Best suited to Flexibility, activities outside the Taxonomy Issuers with Taxonomy-aligned assets who want the EU designation If you issue in the UK and sell only to UK investors, the EU label is not a legal requirement. It can still matter if you plan to market to EU investors or want the strictest benchmark. Check with your legal counsel and lead manager which regime applies to your offering. What good looks like: sovereign and corporate examples Reading real frameworks is the fastest way to learn the format. Three are worth your time. The UK Government. The Treasury’s Green Financing Programme raises money through green gilts, issued via the Debt Management Office, and retail Green Savings Bonds from NS&I. GOV.UK says more than £51 billion has been raised since September 2021. The framework was updated in November 2025, and the Treasury reports regularly on allocation and impact. It is a useful example of two instruments governed by one framework. Germany. The Federal Republic’s second framework version, dated 15 January 2026, shows how a sovereign structures its introduction, issuances and updates. Notice how it separates the update process from the core criteria. A development bank. KfW’s framework shows the operational side. It describes governance, the link between bond volumes and underlying loans, and annual reporting. It is a good template for any issuer that funds a portfolio of loans rather than a handful of assets. Our own coverage of individual deals shows how frameworks play out in practice. See our analysis of Neste’s €700 million green bond and of Quanta’s $10 billion green bond initiative. Step by step: building the framework The ICMA pre-issuance checklist guides issuers through establishing a framework. The sequence below follows the same logic, adapted for a practical project plan. Decide the objective. Are you financing new capital expenditure, refinancing, or both? Who are the target investors? This determines how strict your criteria need to be. Inventory the eligible assets. List candidate projects and check them against your proposed categories. If the pipeline is thin, the framework will promise more than you can deliver. Choose your reference standards. The ICMA Principles are the usual baseline. Decide whether you will also map to the EU Taxonomy or aim for the EuGB. Set up governance. Name the committee, its members, its decision rules and its meeting schedule. Write down who signs off allocation. Design tracking and reporting. Decide which systems hold project data, who owns each indicator, and how you will estimate impact. Do this before you draft the document. Draft the framework. Write it around the four components, using specific criteria rather than aspirations. Obtain external review. Most issuers seek a second-party opinion on the framework before issuing. Publish and issue. Put the framework and the review on your investor relations page, and refer to both in the bond documentation. Report and update. Publish allocation and impact reports on schedule, and revise the framework when your categories, standards or regulation change. Second-party opinions: cost, timing and limits The external review is the most visible direct cost. The IMF paper behind our research puts second-party opinion fees at around $30,000 for a standard green bond and $35,000 for a sustainability-linked bond. Fees depend on negotiation and on how complex the issuer is. They are often fixed, so they matter less as the bond gets larger. Timing varies more than most people expect. The same paper reports one provider’s median of about two weeks, while sovereign issuers can face eight to twelve weeks because of government complexity and coordination between agencies. It also notes that engagement with providers often runs through the lead manager. That can speed things up, but it can lead to similar-looking frameworks across issuers. An opinion has limits. Commentators describe it as a point-in-time assessment. Investors tend to treat a positive one as a condition for further analysis, not as a guarantee of environmental success or a substitute for their own due diligence. Do not present it as proof of impact. Reporting after issuance This is where most of the long-term effort sits. The IMF notes that green bonds carry a transparency burden greater than conventional bonds. Tracking of proceeds and environmental impact continues until maturity, so you need lasting data management and coordination between treasury, sustainability, finance and operational teams. A useful reporting set has two parts. Allocation report. Show the amount raised, the amount allocated by category, the unallocated balance and how it is held, and the split between new financing and refinancing. Keep the categories identical to those in the framework so readers can reconcile the two. Impact report. Give the indicators you promised, such as energy saved, renewable capacity installed or emissions avoided, with the methodology and any assumptions. If you estimate rather than measure, say so. Good habits that save time: Assign a named owner to every indicator before issuance. Reuse the data you already gather for corporate sustainability disclosures. Our piece on new GRI climate disclosure standards shows how those datasets overlap. Think about who will read the report. Investors, regulators and communities want different detail, as we explain in the key audiences of an ESG report. Look at how technology can reduce manual work, a theme we explore in the fusion of technology and the green bond market. Avoiding greenwashing The reputational risk is real. The Climate Bonds Initiative’s analysis of 2025 issuance, as summarised by Negotium Infinitum, suggests that about 17% of bonds marketed as green failed fundamental tests on use of proceeds, reporting transparency or project selection integrity. Treat that figure as indicative, since it is a secondary summary, but the direction is clear: investors are testing frameworks hard. A short self-check before publishing: Can every category be tied to named projects or a defined portfolio? Do you disclose the refinancing share and look-back period? Are the indicators measurable with data you actually hold? Does the governance section name real roles, not just a committee title? Is the review described accurately, as a point-in-time opinion? Is there a plan to update the framework when rules change? Where Exereco can help A framework is only as strong as the data and skills behind it. At Exereco we combine sustainability news and analysis with ESG reporting software, advisory and compliance support, and ESG training. If your team is preparing to report on a green bond, our GRI Reporting course is a practical starting point for building the disclosure habits that allocation and impact reports rely on. For wider questions on your ESG reporting set-up, you can reach us through the Exereco homepage. FAQ Is a green bond framework mandatory? No. It is a voluntary process document under the ICMA Green Bond Principles. In practice, investors expect to see one, and the IMF describes publishing a framework as standard market practice. If you want to use the European Green Bond designation, you must follow the separate requirements in Regulation (EU) 2023/2631. How long does it take to write a green bond framework? The drafting depends on how ready your project pipeline and governance are. The external review is easier to estimate: the IMF cites a provider median of around two weeks, and eight to twelve weeks for some sovereigns. Allow extra time for internal sign-off and for lead manager input. What is the difference between a green bond framework and the EU Green Bond Standard? The framework is your own document describing how you will manage and report on a green bond. The EU Green Bond Standard is a regulated, optional label with fixed rules, including 85% Taxonomy alignment and review by an ESMA-registered reviewer. A framework can be written to meet that standard, or to follow only the ICMA Principles. What should green bond reporting include? At minimum, an allocation report showing how proceeds were assigned and an impact report with the indicators you committed to. Keep categories consistent with the framework and explain your methodology. Reporting continues until the bond matures. Does a second-party opinion guarantee a bond is green? No. It is a point-in-time assessment that investors treat as a starting point. They still run their own analysis, and your ongoing reports are what demonstrate delivery. Recommended Sustainability Bonds: A Mini Overview The Fusion of Technology with the Green Bond Market Understanding the Impact of Quanta’s $10 Billion Green Bond Initiative on ESG and Sustainability Social Impact Bonds: Innovations in Funding Sustainable Solutions

Malta's waste management company WasteServ has issued a tender for excavation works that would increase the capacity of an existing engineered landfill at Magħtab by more than 2.9 million cubic metres, MaltaToday reports. The paper puts that volume at roughly 1,100 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The project will run in two phases. It involves excavating a landfill built in 2004 and deepening it from 10 metres to 54 metres. The aim, according to WasteServ, is to expand capacity while making better use of infrastructure that already exists, instead of taking new land. WasteServ chief executive Richard Bilocca said the project limits environmental impact by using existing resources efficiently, and that it fits Malta's effort to reduce its reliance on landfilling. He also described it as a complement to WasteServ's wider investment in alternative waste treatment infrastructure. Two reuse measures sit inside the plan. Waste removed to prepare for the excavation is being reused in a separate infrastructure project that aims to maximise the capacity of another existing landfill. That project uses a patented technique in which the material forms the foundation of a retaining wall around the landfill, which allows the slope angle to rise to about 70 degrees, compared with the conventional 30 degrees. Capacity is therefore expanded without extra land. The second measure concerns the rock itself. Once the waste is removed and excavation of the bedrock begins, the selected contractor must process the extracted stone into construction products rather than discard it. WasteServ expects this to conserve natural resources and produce significant savings, because the value of the processed materials will offset a large part of the project's costs. The article does not give the tender's value, its deadlines, the contractor or the timeline for each phase, so the scale of the investment and the date new capacity becomes available remain open. What it does set out is a clear logic: use the footprint Malta already has, turn the excavated stone into a resource, and keep building the alternative treatment capacity that should eventually reduce how much waste needs to be buried at all. WasteServ describes the programme as part of a commitment to innovative, practical and sustainable solutions that maximise existing resources, reduce environmental impact and prepare Malta to manage its future waste needs. Why it matters On a small island, land is the scarcest input, so digging down rather than out is a pragmatic choice. The detail worth watching is the stone: if processed rock genuinely offsets much of the cost, the landfill becomes a quarry for the construction sector as well. That is circular thinking applied to an unglamorous asset.

The Central Bank of Egypt has hosted a five-day training programme on climate-risk stress testing for central banks across the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, known as COMESA. According to Daily News Egypt, 25 representatives from 11 member-state central banks took part, together with a delegation from the COMESA Monetary Institute. The sessions were held at the headquarters of the Egyptian Banking Institute in Cairo and focused on how climate-related risks can be built into stress tests at both the micro and macro level. Participants worked through discussions, practical examples and exchanges of experience, using standard models. The stress-testing applications covered credit risk, liquidity risk, climate-related risk and interbank contagion, which is the way a shock at one lender can spread through the wider banking system. The lecturers came from three parts of the Central Bank of Egypt: the Macroprudential Sector, the Offsite Supervision Sector and the Sustainability Department of Financial Inclusion. The programme combined theory with practice, and participants compared approaches, shared expertise and discussed the challenges that climate risks pose to the banking sector and to financial stability. The training is part of the Central Bank of Egypt's continuing cooperation with the COMESA Monetary Institute, which aims to strengthen integration and knowledge-sharing among African central banks. By the end of the week, participants had drafted proposals and recommendations on how including climate-related risks in stress tests could affect the operations of COMESA central banks. Those recommendations are not the end of the process. They are scheduled for discussion by central bank governors at their annual meeting in Malawi in November 2026, which is where the practical question will be decided: whether and how the region's supervisors take the approach forward. Stress testing is one of the main tools supervisors use to ask whether banks could withstand severe but plausible shocks. Extending it to climate risk means asking what happens to loan books, liquidity and the links between lenders when physical hazards or the transition away from fossil fuels change the value of assets and the ability of borrowers to repay. For economies that depend heavily on agriculture, energy and trade, those questions are not abstract. What stands out in this programme is its regional design. Rather than each central bank building its own method in isolation, a group of institutions from eleven countries has been trained on a shared set of models and has produced joint proposals. That can make it easier to compare results, align supervisory expectations and share scarce technical expertise. The report does not say how many of the participating central banks already run climate stress tests, nor does it set out timelines or binding requirements. Those details will depend on what the governors decide in Malawi. For now, the training shows climate risk being treated as a financial stability issue by the institutions responsible for keeping banking systems sound, and it shows an African central bank taking a convening role in building that capability across the region. Why it matters Climate risk is financial risk, and central banks are the institutions that decide whether banks are prepared for it. By training supervisors from 11 countries on shared stress-testing methods, this programme moves climate from the sustainability report to the supervisory toolkit, which is where it shapes lending, capital and resilience.

French President Emmanuel Macron used a visit to Qatar on 21 October to push back against foreign leaders who have blamed migration for the unrest that has shaken French cities since 17 October. Speaking in Doha, on a three-day Gulf trip aimed at securing energy supplies, he described comments made about the riots as "unacceptable and even stupid". He did not name anyone, though Euronews and Al Jazeera both reported that the remarks were read as a response to United States President Donald Trump, who had said earlier in the week that Europe would be finished unless it closed its borders. Macron said the inflammatory comments rested on foreign manipulation of information, including AI-generated videos of the violence, and he denied that foreign interference lay behind the events themselves. He also rejected the claim that France had been overrun by migrants and Islamists, calling it false. He argued that some leaders were campaigning at France's expense, with several countries heading into elections, and he repeated that there is no such thing as legitimate violence. The comments came as other European leaders linked the French events to migration. Reports name German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who spoke of security without naming France, and Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Magyar, who said the events showed why Hungary takes a tough line on immigration. United States Vice President JD Vance blamed Western liberals for importing the third world into France. The picture on the ground is more complicated than that framing. According to Al Jazeera, the unrest began with largely peaceful student protests over crumbling school buildings, overcrowded classes and teacher shortages, then widened into anger about the cost of living. Violence erupted on 17 October, with attacks on city halls and widespread looting. More than 2,000 people have been taken into custody, most of them minors. Trade unions and the Yellow Vest movement also took part in largely peaceful marches, and authorities have acknowledged they lost control of events that day. French authorities have not tied the disorder to migration, and the state does not publish the ethnic or national origin of those arrested, because French constitutional law bars the collection of such data. Think-tank head Emmanuel Dupuy described the question as one of integration rather than immigration, and said the argument was aimed at American voters before the midterm elections. Marine Le Pen has blamed hard-left groups for fomenting disorder, an accusation also made by Macron and Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu. The government's response includes a roadmap with curfews and limits on mass gatherings that will stay in place ahead of fresh protests on 24 October. Macron said he would meet ministers and intelligence officials on Thursday for a detailed account of the 17 October violence, and stressed dialogue with unions and political forces. Separately, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain pledged an extra 200,000 tonnes of diesel a month to France, a sign of how energy costs sit behind the social tension. Why it matters Public trust in institutions depends on leaders arguing from evidence, and this episode shows how quickly unverified claims and synthetic video can outrun the facts. Where the record points to school conditions and living costs, a migration narrative steers policy attention away from the problems young people actually raised. For companies and investors tracking the governance pillar of ESG, information integrity is now part of political and operational risk.