We are thrilled to share highlights from the Oxford Sustainable Finance Student Society’s (OSFSS) first event of the term at Lincoln College last week. We had the privilege of welcoming Dr. David Kampmann, a leading expert in transition finance and Research Fellow, Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, for a deep dive into the intersection of finance and climate mitigation.
The Climate Problem: Why Finance Must Step Up
Dr. Kampmann began by framing the core of the climate issue: finance’s critical role in addressing global GHG emissions, which are climbing dangerously, leading to record atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and ultimately to greater climate instability. This issue, he reminded us, is a “stock problem,” not just a flow problem—GHG emissions linger in the atmosphere, compounding over time. The imperative is simple but daunting: we need to curb emissions quickly and phase out carbon-intensive assets if we are to avoid the worst climate impacts.
Phasing Out Fossil Fuels: A Financial Reality Check
For a viable path forward, fossil fuel investments must drastically decrease, while we prioritize assets aligned with a low-carbon future. Yet transition risk looms large, particularly for companies reliant on fossil-fuel assets. Under TCFD (Task Force on Climate-Related Disclosures) guidelines, companies must confront several major risks, including:
Policy & Legal: Holding fossil fuel assets could lead to high future liabilities.
Reputation: Stakeholder demands for climate accountability continue to grow.
Technology & Market Shifts: Clean tech advancements could leave carbon-intensive businesses stranded.
Steel Industry: The Decarbonization Test Case
Dr. Kampmann discussed innovative approaches to evaluating corporate alignment with climate targets, focusing on high-emitting sectors like iron, coal and steel. Steel companies, for example, face a pivotal choice: reinvest in the current high-emission infrastructure or adopt lower-carbon alternatives like green hydrogen or electric furnaces. Yet, carbon capture, seen by some as a “silver bullet,” remains unproven on a large scale in the near term. The decarbonization roadmap for steel rests on three main levers:
Reduce overall steel demand, through demand-side interventions and a higher rate of recycling.
Increase secondary production, turning recycled scrap into new steel.
Shift to electric furnaces over coal-powered options to cut emissions.
Scrutinizing Transition Plans: Case Study
Dr. Kampmann unpacked the complexity of corporate transition plans to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree target, using ArcelorMittal, a global leader in steel production, as a case study. The steel giant’s carbon-neutral-by-2050 pledge includes an ambitious phase-out of high-polluting assets in Europe but excludes heavily polluting regions, particularly in India, where rapid production is accelerating emissions. This selective approach underscores a gap in global standards, especially in emerging economies where national priorities sometimes overshadow climate goals. Dr. Kampmann stressed the need for international consistency in transition plan design and disclosure to ensure comparability and mitigate greenwashing risks.
The Credibility Crisis in Corporate Climate Commitments
Dr. Kampmann provided unique insights into the credibility of transition plans by emphasizing the importance of harmonising standards and frameworks in corporate policies. Companies frequently employ diverse accounting approaches, further muddling comparisons and requiring deeper focus on bottom-up emissions accounting. Dr. Kampmann highlighted that corporate and global transition plans should detail how companies align their assets, operations, and business models with net-zero ambitions, serving as tools for stakeholders to monitor progress.
Pathways Forward: Collective Engagement and Policy Levers
A blend of private engagement and public policy may offer a solution. Encouraging major emitters to disclose clear, actionable transition strategies could increase transparency and accountability. Governments can drive change, too, by fostering investment in green sectors—as seen in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. But the challenges don’t end there: “greenhushing,” or backpedaling on climate commitments, and anti-ESG backlash both risk stalling progress.
Looking Forward: The Role of Research and Ratings
Research gaps remain in hard-to-abate sectors like cement and petrochemicals, where transition models are scarce. Biodiversity and nature risks are also front and center, but quantifying these issues poses challenges as methodologies remain underdeveloped. Ratings discrepancies only add to the confusion, as ESG ratings vary wildly, each provider using its own opaque methodology.
The session concluded with a lively discussion on emissions reduction theories, engaging our audience in a meaningful dialogue about its limitations, developmental and international challenges and the future of climate transition strategies in the steel industry. Ultimately, Dr. Kampmann’s talk emphasized that achieving sustainable finance is a global, multi-sectoral challenge. While the path forward is complex, OSFSS looks forward to exploring each layer of this journey with our members and esteemed speakers in the months ahead.
Comments