Having just returned to Stockholm after attending the Sustainable Investment Forum Europe 2025 in Paris, I cannot help but wonder: has sustainable investing become a topic for bureaucrats? Have hopes and dreams left the room for good or is it just because of the current political climate?
When I first attended the Sustainable Investment Forum Europe, it was in 2018. The conference was well attended by asset owners and asset managers from all parts of Europe, not the least from the Nordics. It was also well sponsored and supported by large asset managers from France and beyond. Amundi and Candriam, but also BBVA, Fidelity International and NN IP were Headline or Gold sponsors. There was a buzz in the room, a passion in the speeches. Of course, there was the odd whiff of green washing here and there and quite a bit of wishful thinking. There were loads of complaints about the lack of quality data and better EU regulations were high on the wish lists.
Seven years later, past Covid, past SFDR, in the midst of a Trumpian world, with a backdrop of Omnibus, what is going on at the Sustainable Forum Europe? The conference is still held in Paris, albeit at a different venue. Is is still very well attended. Actually, better attended, I would guess, judging with a naked eye. Unfortunately, the passion has mostly left the premises. It seems the Nature Finance Forum Europe, also organised by Climate Action, which took place at the same venue, one day before, has taken the lead when it comes to hope and buzz. On 29 April, when it comes to Sustainable Investments, it seems mostly the “suits” are left. And by that I don’t mean the glamorous litigation lawyers of the series formerly featuring Meghan Markle. I’m talking about the accountants, the data analysts, the pragmatic people, as opposed to the strategists and thought leaders that we can count on to fuel our dreams of a better future. The panels at this conference debated the intricacies of regulations and alliances or reporting and accounting, not so much the possibilities and requirements for real change.
Perhaps the more surprising is that neither the political climate nor the markets enter into the discussion. They are alluded to as in “given the times we live in, you know” – like some taboo we are afraid to name – but never addressed full on. In the face of adversity, it seems, doubling down is not a priority. Reporting is. Just like when I feel anxious about something at work, I start filing receipts. It’s calming, I get it! It needs to be done. Yes, perhaps. But is it the most important thing to discuss?
A few insights did emerge here and there. The panelists and keynotes were extremely knowledgeable and did provide precious insights into their areas of expertise.
A particularly important perspective was brought up by Jean Boissinot, Deputy, Financial Stability, Banque de France & Director, Network for Greening the Financial System, during an on-stage dialogue titled “Anticipate, Adapt, Act: Building Resilience to Physical Climate Risks –Role of Insurance as a Financial Buffer in Supporting Adaptation Efforts.” He mentioned different natural catastrophes, quite well accepted as being, if not caused, exacerbated by climate change, and the cost attributed to them. The floods in Valencia in Spain: north of €10 billion; the last two storms in the US: $60 and 55 billion respectively, together $115 billion; the fires in California: $135 billion and the list goes on. There are other instances that are less spectacular when taken in isolation, such as draughts or smaller temperature issues. The most interesting is that the costs are currently often hidden from investors, according to Boissinot. They do not affect companies directly because they have been absorbed by insurances, mostly. So far so good. The conclusion of this intervention is left for the investor to make.
Indeed, this is an opportunity for the suits to step in. Physical climate risks are real and they will continue to increase, wether deniers are in power or not. As one other panelist pointed out, there is a need for increased resources in these areas. Accountants and data crunchers wanted (before they get replaced by AI).
One last question lingers: where are the big-name asset managers in the sponsorship space. S&P Global is in the strategic partnership line, one of the leading data providers together with Weefin, a data aggregator and Lombard Odier Asset Management, more of a boutique when it comes to the institutional market. MetLife Investment Management does show as a supporting partner. But gone are the Amundi, Candriam, Mirova, Allianz, Invesco, JP Morgan, MFS, NN IP (now Goldman Sachs AM) of yore. Is this a strategic decision? Or has it become controversial to appear supporting these types of events? Or is it the re-naming and anti-green washing legislation spooking them off? I’m curious to see what the 2026 edition will bring.
