Is the transition to a sustainable economy happening to us or because of us? Associate Professor Ioannis Ioannou (London Business School) joins host Kate Webber to unpack the recent ESG backlash and why today’s “disorderly transition” must become an orderly one. We explore how investors can push markets toward aligned capitalism - a system that lives within planetary and social boundaries - while unlocking “trapped competencies” and long-term value.

Overview

Ioannou argues we don’t choose whether to transition—the system is already shifting amid climate change, biodiversity loss, and widening social inequalities. The real choice is whether that transition is orderly (policy-led, long-term, and integrated) or disorderly (reactive, crisis-driven). He outlines how investors can re-center long-termism, integrate sustainability into core strategy (not a side product), and restore the original purpose of capital markets: scaling real-economy solutions.

Detailed coverage

• Orderly vs. disorderly transition: Planetary boundaries are breached; social stress is rising. An orderly path minimises harm and plans within ecological and social limits.
• Aligned capitalism: Capitalism is a human-made system that can be re-ruled to fit reality. Policy, incentives, and investment practices should align with science and society.
• From stranded assets to “trapped competencies”: Future-fit capabilities (circularity, regeneration, inclusion) remain undervalued until the system aligns—creating alpha for first movers.
• Investor playbook: Reframe metrics beyond short-term profits; deploy patient capital toward companies building system-shifting capabilities; advocate for rules that unlock these competencies.
• Integration, not silos: Sustainability must hold authority inside firms; RI can’t be a niche fund while the rest ignores impacts.
• Capital markets’ role: Finance the next industrial transformation (energy, transport, food). Prioritise scaling real solutions over purely financial engineering.
• Beyond shareholder primacy: Re-balance to a “team production” model that values natural and human capital alongside financial capital.
• Long-termism & multilateralism: Global problems need global collaboration; regionalism can’t substitute. Impacts are already “now,” not just long term.
• Why the ESG backlash can help: It forces clearer, evidence-based narrative infrastructure (not just technical standards) that connects with citizens and beneficiaries.
• Agency & communication: Engage end-investors better (including with AI-enabled tools); reflect their values in products; compound positive choices over time.
• Responsibility redefined: Don’t just align—restore and regenerate ecological and social capital.

Chapters

• 00:01 – Welcome & series context
• 00:52 – Guest intro and PRI’s Investment Case database
• 02:11 – Orderly vs. disorderly transition
• 05:38 – Defining “aligned capitalism”
• 07:37 – Future-fit capabilities & trapped competencies
• 10:51 – Investor incentives for alpha & impact
• 14:12 – Making RI core (authority, integration, structure)
• 18:17 – Capital markets’ original purpose
• 21:08 – Shareholder primacy & governance rethink
• 25:30 – Long-termism, regionalism, and global coordination
• 29:02 – Why the ESG backlash might be good
• 31:18 – From technical to narrative infrastructure
• 36:53 –...

A decade on from the Paris Agreement, COP30 in Brazil is shaping up to be the implementation COP. For investors, this means not only understanding the risks of inaction but also seizing the opportunities that climate and nature-based solutions present. In this episode, Tamsin Ballard, Chief Initiatives Officer at the PRI, speaks with Wendy Walford, Head of Climate and Nature Risk at Legal & General and Policy Track co-lead for the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance, about why institutional investors are engaging in the UN climate negotiations and what they hope to achieve

Wendy Walford explains how Legal & General integrates climate and nature considerations into decision-making and why COP30 represents a pivotal moment. She highlights the role of private finance in achieving the Baku to Belém Roadmap commitment of mobilising $1.3 trillion for emerging and developing economies. The conversation explores why investors must be at the table, how alliances can amplify their voice, and why policy stability is the linchpin to unlock large-scale capital flows.

Detailed coverage

• Why COP30 matters to investors: Climate is a systemic risk that directly affects portfolios. Investors need to understand policy outcomes to align long-term allocations.
• The $1.3 trillion roadmap: COP29 in Baku highlighted the necessity of private finance in scaling investment into emerging markets. COP30 will test how barriers to this ambition can be addressed.
• Opportunities and risks: Mobilising finance offers huge upside in renewable energy, adaptation, and nature-based solutions, but investors also face volatility: FX risk, and limited data.
• Investor expectations for COP30: Calls for stable, long-term policy environments, signals to boost confidence, and frameworks to unlock investable opportunities in climate and nature.
• Nature-based solutions: From sovereign debt-for-nature swaps to carbon markets, innovative instruments are emerging but require multistakeholder cooperation and supportive regulation.
• Amplifying investor voices: Alliances like the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance provide a collective voice that ensures investor needs are heard in negotiations.
• The responsibility of investing: Long-termism is essential — balancing short-term returns with the duty to build resilient, sustainable portfolios for future beneficiaries.

Chapters

• 00:43 – Why COP30 matters to investors
• 02:19 – Legal & General’s role and the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance
• 05:23 – Why engage with UN climate negotiations?
• 06:04 – The Baku to Belém Roadmap and $1.3 trillion finance goal
• 08:44 – Barriers and risks in emerging markets
• 11:06 – Opportunities vs. resilience in climate investing
• 14:37 – Key asks for COP30 outcomes
• 15:57 – Nature-based solutions and innovative financing
• 18:18 – Investor expectations for government action
• 20:10 – Practical advice for engaging with the COP process
• 23:49 – What is the responsibility of investing?

Read more about the PRI’s Road to COP30 programme and buy your tickets to PRI in Person at https://www.unpri.org/sustainability-issues/climate-change/the-road-to-cop30

Find out more about the NZAOA at https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-alliance/

Keywords

responsible investment, COP30 Brazil, PRI podcast, Legal & General, Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance, climate finance, systemic risk, Paris Agreement, Baku to Belém Roadmap, emerging...

As geopolitical tensions rise, responsible investors are asking tough questions: Is there a case for responsible investment in defence? In this episode, Nathan Fabian, Chief Sustainable Systems Officer at PRI, is joined by Mark Wade (Allianz Global Investors), Estelle Parker (Responsible Investment Association Australasia), and Torben Möger Pedersen (Danish Foreign Policy Society; former CEO, PensionDanmark) to explore whether defence can be considered part of responsible investment, and if so, under what conditions.

Overview

The discussion examines the complexities of defence in the environmental, social and governance context. With NATO members increasing their budgetary commitments and European states boosting spending, defence is becoming a more prevalent part of the investment landscape. Yet reputational, human rights, and environmental risks remain at the forefront of investor concerns. The panel unpacks exclusion versus inclusion approaches, the rise of dual-use technologies, transparency challenges, and the role of stewardship in shaping defence practices.

Detailed Coverage

• The case for defence investment: Torben argues that democracy and national security are foundational, making military capacity essential to safeguarding rights and advancing long-term societal goals.
• Human rights and environmental risks: Estelle highlights investor obligations for heightened due diligence, noting reputational, environmental, corruption, and legal risks tied to weapons.
• Evolving client expectations: Mark outlines shifting European regulation and investor sentiment, with non-labelled funds more open to limited defence exposure under strict conditions.
• Dual-use technologies: The blurred line between civilian and military innovation (cyber, AI, drones, green energy) challenges investors to navigate benefits and risks.
• Transparency and disclosure: All panelists agree that investors need clearer reporting from defence companies — not on classified technology, but on customers, contracts, and safeguards.
• Stewardship opportunity: Rather than blanket exclusion, investors could push for higher standards by engaging directly with defence companies and shaping industry norms.

Chapters

• 00:44 – Why defence is back on the agenda
• 02:09 – Democracy, defence, adding the “D” into ESG?
• 05:26 – Human rights, reputational, and environmental risks
• 08:53 – Ukraine, NATO, and the defence boom
• 11:47 – Client expectations and regulatory shifts
• 16:08 – Responsible investing frameworks: defence as social necessity?
• 18:24 – Due diligence, customers, and sanctions
• 23:31 – Stewardship, standards, and defence bonds
• 28:33 – Dual-use technologies and transparency
• 37:36 – Human rights due diligence in practice
• 40:04 – Policy, regulation, and long-term certainty
• 45:00 – Final reflections on the future of defenCe investing
• 47:16 – The responsibility of investors in today’s world

Keywords

responsible investment, defence sector ESG, PRI podcast, democracy and defence, sustainable investing, fiduciary duty, NATO defence spending, human rights due diligence, reputational risk, dual-use technologies, defense bonds, military ESG risks, transparency in defence, systemic stewardship, long-term investment strategies, ethical investing, exclusion vs inclusion, autonomous weapons, investor stewardship, sustainable finance regulation

Risk Disclaimer

Your capital is at risk. The value of investments can fall as well as rise, and you may get back less than you invested. Past performance is...