Innovations in Sustainable Finance

In this episode of Innovations in Sustainable Finance, I speak with Matthias Egger, ocean scientist and co-founder of Empaqtify, about scaling impactful ideas. Matthias spent eight years at The Ocean Cleanup, sailed twice to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and came away with a conclusion that has little to do with engineering: the cleanup systems do their job, and what decides whether they reach scale is whether anyone can be persuaded to pay for them. So that is where innovation is needed.

My three key takeaways were:

1. Most plastic pollution is on land, not in the ocean. Less than one percent of the plastic produced each year reaches the sea, and the rest stays on land. As Matthias puts it, one percent of a lot is still a lot. In the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area three times the size of France, that works out at roughly one piece of plastic per square metre, and it is mostly fishing gear, toothbrushes and shampoo bottles rather than the floating bags people picture. Plastic also breaks down instead of disappearing, so the microplastics turn up in food, in the air and in human tissue.
2. The bottleneck is no longer the technology, it is the capital. So-called interceptors already catch more than 90 percent of the floating plastic in a river. From an impact perspective, pushing that to 99 percent matters far less than putting the technology into a thousand dirty rivers. The first decade ran on philanthropy, but the global build-out runs to hundreds of millions. Philanthropy’s real job, Matthias says, is to fund the learning and take the first loss so other capital can follow.
3. Reframing the same machine unlocks a different pool of capital. This is what Matthias calls impact architecture. A river interceptor is not a cleanup system, it is critical infrastructure for a city: take the plastic out of a river in Jakarta and you reduce the risk of flooding during the monsoon, which makes the same asset interesting also to an insurer and a city council, not just development finance. The mission stays fixed while the narrative changes with the audience, so the work is to find out what each stakeholder actually cares about, which is rarely the plastic itself.

What stayed with me is Matthias’s point that the solutions already exist, and so does the capital. What is missing is a common language between the two, and that is a more tractable problem than fixing the ocean.

Spotify: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Apple Podcasts: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Website: Podcast Innovations in Sustainable Finance | unisg.ch

In this episode of Innovations in Sustainable Finance, I speak with Glen Jordan, co-founder of Empowa, about a question that sounds simple and turns out not to be: why can most families in Africa not borrow to buy a home? We talk about how an informal income can be made bankable, why Empowa builds homes that can be moved, and what it would take for investors to treat African housing as a real asset class.

My three key takeaways were:

1. The problem is product fit, not poverty. Around 85% of income in emerging markets is informal, meaning variable, intermittent and mostly unrecorded. Think of a taxi driver: the money comes in daily and largely in cash, so it never becomes a record anyone will lend against. A mortgage asks for formal proof of income and twenty years of consistent payments, so the only housing finance product on offer excludes almost everyone. Glen makes it concrete: when Empowa started in Mozambique there were 600 mortgages in a country of 31 million people. Even in Kenya it is about 31,000 for 50 million, with mortgage debt at 1 to 3% of GDP against roughly 80% in developed markets.
2. Making informal income legible is what unlocks the capital. Empowa turns the mobile money payments people already make into a verifiable track record, and structures the deal as rent-to-own, so every payment builds equity instead of disappearing into rent. The homes are modular, which means they can be relocated if a land title turns out to be disputed. The results so far are striking: an effective rate of 12% a year in Mozambique against a market mortgage rate of 29%, and 100% portfolio performance, because a family building an asset they could not otherwise reach will work hard to keep it.
3. This has to come from outside the banking system. Glen argues the binding constraint is understanding rather than capital. The people making the decisions, as he puts it, sit in air-conditioned offices, drink cappuccino and work on MacBooks, while banks ask for data the informal sector cannot yet produce. His analogy is unsecured lending, which did not emerge from within banking either and only became mainstream later.

What stayed with me is Glen's insistence that none of this is fixed. These systems, as he says, were not ordained by God; they are man-made, and they can be changed. With a listing planned to open the structure to pension funds, the test now is whether capital markets will treat affordable African housing as an asset class rather than a cause.

For anyone who wants to dig deeper, Empowa's platform and housing projects are documented here: https://empowa.io

Spotify: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Apple Podcasts: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Website: Podcast Innovations in Sustainable Finance | unisg.ch

In this episode of Innovations in Sustainable Finance, I welcome back Tom Gosling to discuss the question: what can investors actually do about climate change? The conversation centers on Tom's new report, which explores how the investor role is changing as the climate conversation moves from ambition and headlines to realism, constraints, and policy.

My three key takeaways

1. The environment has changed, and investors are now caught between doing too much and doing too little Tom explains that the surrounding climate context has become more constrained. Climate is now competing with other major priorities, and investors face criticism from both sides: some say they are overreaching, while others say they are not doing enough.
2. Investors must recognize that they cannot do it alone A central argument in the report is that investors cannot drive decarbonization by themselves. Policy and technology are the main forces shaping the transition, which means investors need to be more modest about what they can promise. That also means backing away from overly rigid temperature targets and instead using more directional, credible goals that reflect their real influence and fiduciary duties.
3. Limitations-aware engagement and policy engagement are promising tools The episode makes a strong case for limitations-aware engagement: investors should focus on actions that boards can reasonably take and that are aligned with commercial realities. Tom also argues that policy engagement deserves more attention, especially where investors have a legitimate stake in real-economy transition policy. Together, these tools offer a more practical way for investors to support climate progress without overclaiming their impact.

Final thought I close by asking Tom which climate leadership quality matters most from his list: courage, honesty, curiosity, or commitment. Tom chooses commitment, and that feels like the thread running through the whole episode. In a world of shifting attention and shorter cycles, climate action may matter less as a grand gesture and more as a discipline of showing up consistently over time.

Spotify: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Apple Podcasts: Innovations in Sustainable Finance

Website: Podcast Innovations in Sustainable Finance | unisg.ch

In this episode, I talk about the EU’s omnibus package with Copenhagen Business School Professor Andreas Rasche. The omnibus is a legislative package that aims to simplify several European sustainability directives all at once and has far-reaching implications for the European economy. It is a chance to adjust regulation that has rightly been criticized for being too complex and confusing, but there is a risk that the proposed fixes create more confusion without solving some of the underlying problems.

My favourite insights from this conversation were:

• It’s the right time to engage with your Member of European Parliament and make sure your views and needs with regard to adjusting the CSRD, the CSDDD, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and the EU taxonomy are heard.
• According to a survey that Andreas has contributed to, European businesses would prefer targeted improvements over a fundamental overhaul of the CSRD, given that they have already invested in compliance. It would be a shame if the omnibus ends up as political posturing without delivering on simplification.
• A huge underlying problem is a lack of comprehensive cost-benefit estimates of the existing regulations and the proposed adjustments.
• It seems that European leaders have overly focused on details and failed to consider the bigger picture of what their rules are supposed to achieve. Improving this can hopefully start with frank conversations such as this one. 

I can highly recommend following Andreas for updates on this important topic. Here is a link to the mentioned survey: CSRD Survey

Spotify: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance-Spotify

Apple Podcasts: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance-Apple

Website: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance

In this episode, I return to the topic of blended finance with Nadia Nikolova, a managing director at Allianz Global Investors. She explains how blended finance projects get off the ground and shares her own journey into the field. Along the way, she provides many fascinating anecdotes and insights, especially for those considering a career in blended finance. My favourite insights were:

1. The three essential ingredients for succeeding in blended finance are: leadership, flexibility, and trust.
2. Blended finance projects are a balancing act, because there are very different parties involved, with different incentives and different constraints. Nadia likens it to a Jenga tower, where all parties need to cooperate to keep it in balance.
3. Blended finance is simply a financial technique that can be applied to many problems. When done well, it yields happy investors and social benefits. But flexible capital – the magic ingredient - is scarce. Therefore, blended finance is only suitable for ventures and projects that would otherwise not receive funding.

I hope you enjoy the conversation and get inspired by Nadia’s passion for the subject.

Spotify: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance-Spotify

Apple Podcasts: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance-Apple

Website: https://unisg.link/Innovations-In-Sustainable-Finance

In this episode, I speak with Mac Zellem – a former budget director of the State of New Hampshire - about financing innovation. We explore how public finance can shape the future, why regulations can be both a hurdle and a help, and what Germany might need to get right in its planned fiscal stimulus. It turned out to be a longer conversation, mainly because I found it to become more and more interesting as we went along.

My favorite takeaways from the conversation were:

1. Government as Both Catalyst and Constraint: We talked about the delicate balance governments must strike between enabling innovation and overregulating it. Public procurement, R&D, and credit guarantees can be powerful tools—but only if used with a clear strategy and technical competence.
2. The idea of carried interest dates back to the merchants of Venice: They rewarded risk-taking by not taxing the profits from risky maritime trade. When there is a public interest to have investors take risks, this is a politically charged but functionally interesting policy tool next to subsidies or guarantees.
3. Culture and expertise are important pieces of the puzzle: Mac describes how it’s important to get the right skills in place for good decisions. And that there are vast differences in cultural attitudes to risk and failure, across public and private institutions, but also between the US and Switzerland.
4. Regulations Need a Spring Cleaning: I liked the idea that a “spring cleaning” of outdated or overly complex regulations could unlock new energy in the manufacturing sector, especially for startups trying to enter the space.
5. Germany’s Moment to Lead: Finally, we discussed how Germany’s fiscal stimulus could become a real driver of innovation—if the government provides clarity, consistency, and a long-term plan that builds trust among investors and innovators alike.

For anyone interested in how policy can support innovation while managing risk, this episode is full of practical insights and experiences.

Further Notes:

• I said on the podcast that the Swiss Procurement Budget is around 50 billion CHF. That was overstated; it is around 35-40 billion CHF.
• The story about carried interest in Venice is covered in a fascinating Paper by Diego Puga and Daniel Trefler.
• I mentioned Jean Tirole’s recommendations for innovation in Europe based on this report. 

In this episode, I speak with Paul Smeets, a professor of philanthropy and sustainable finance at the University of Amsterdam, and Dan Stein, founder of Giving Green, a research organization that helps donors maximize their climate impact. Together, we explored the intersection of individual actions, systemic change, and effective giving to address climate change. 

My favorite takeaways from the conversation were: 

1. Massive Carbon Savings Through Strategic Interventions: A compelling example discussed was the advocacy to keep California's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant operational. This single campaign, costing just $3 million, could save 35 megatons of carbon emissions over five years—equivalent to 10% of California's annual electricity-related emissions. It’s a striking illustration of how targeted efforts can have disproportionately large impacts on climate goals. 
2. Gut Feel vs. Voice of Reason—Do Both: Paul shared how his shift to a plant-based diet initially felt undermined when he learned that systemic donations could have a larger impact. Yet, he continues his dietary choices while also donating to climate charities, finding that both approaches can coexist. The conclusion? Embrace the emotional satisfaction of personal action and the logic of systemic impact through strategic giving. 
3. The Power of Giving Green: Dan explained how Giving Green identifies and supports the most effective climate initiatives, such as advancing geothermal energy and advocating for lab-grown meat. Their research process focuses on scalable, feasible, and underfunded opportunities. By donating to Giving Green’s recommended causes, individuals can achieve far greater impact than through behavioral changes alone. 

If you’re curious to learn more: 

• Visit Giving Green’s website to explore their recommendations. 
• Check out Effektiv Spenden (for German-speaking listeners) for efficient donation options to vetted climate charities. 
• Stay informed about cutting-edge solutions like geothermal energy and lab-grown meat. 

For your convenience, I’ve linked the resources we discussed:

• Giving Green: https://www.givinggreen.earth 
• Effektiv Spenden (catering to the German-speaking region): https://effektiv-spenden.org 
• Stanford/MIT study on the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant: https://energy.stanford.edu/news/extending-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-would-help-california-meet-its-climate-goals-new-study 
• A news story about the tasting of the first lab-grown burger: https://www.science.org/content/article/first-artificial-burger-gets-tepid-reviews-billionaire-financier-unmasked 

In this episode, I speak with Annu Nieminen, CEO of Upright, a Finnish technology startup with an automated method to quantify companies' net impact on people, planet, society, and knowledge. Upright combines machine learning and natural language processing to analyze scientific data and company activities, providing an impact profile for companies worldwide.

My favorite takeaways from the conversation were:

1. Compromising the Answer, Not the Question: Annu emphasized the importance of focusing on the right question, even if the answer remains imperfect at first. Upright’s model prioritizes understanding a company's true net impact, even if it challenges traditional ESG metrics.
2. Hidden ESG Champions and Challenges: I loved Annu’s examples of hidden impact champions like condom manufacturers and sewage infrastructure companies—both create significant positive health and societal impacts, even if they’re not traditional ESG darlings. Conversely, modern tech companies working in areas like ad optimization for tobacco or fast fashion can have surprisingly negative net impacts.
3. Scarce Human Capital: Upright introduces the idea of evaluating companies based on the opportunity cost of the human talent they employ. This provocative metric raises critical questions about how we allocate the world’s brightest minds.
4. The Power of Open Data: Annu’s vision for the future is to create a neutral, science-based resource for understanding a company’s impact. She hopes this could become the default source for anyone searching for "Tesla impact" or similar, allowing a common-sense starting point for discussions.

For listeners who want to dive deeper, Upright offers a free version of its platform to explore company impact profiles. Check it out and see what your favorite company is doing for (or to) the world. https://uprightplatform.com

In this episode, I speak with Alex Edmans, a professor of Finance at London Business School. Many of you in the audience will have heard of Alex before. We traced his evolution of thought regarding sustainable finance, covering his extensive body of work, including the book “Grow the Pie,” his academic papers, op-eds, and TED Talks, including his most recent paper: Sustainable Investing: Evidence from the Field.

My favorite takeaways from the conversation were:

1. When I asked when he first got interested in sustainability, Alex surprised me by saying he was never interested in sustainability or sustainable finance per se. He was interested in long-term value creation but noticed that sustainability aspects are sometimes important but overlooked or misunderstood.
2. I realized how the concept of competitive advantage is really at the heart of figuring out how a business or an individual can drive change. Focusing on what you can do very well right now can help to exit ESG compliance mode and enter an innovative mindset that helps society move forward.
3. I asked Alex whether he is more or less optimistic about businesses solving important problems than he was four years ago. Delightfully, he is MORE optimistic, which I find so encouraging.

If you like the pod, I can only recommend diving more deeply into Alex’s work, which is very nicely made accessible on his homepage: https://alexedmans.com

In this episode, I speak with Fridtjof Detzner, co-founder of the climate venture capital fund Planet A, based in Berlin. Fridtjof had early success with an internet company, went on an eye-opening trip to Asia, and came back determined to boost innovation in all climate-relevant sectors and technologies.

My favorite insights of this conversation were:

• Climate tech investing is not narrow. It affects many different industrial processes, from alternative proteins, to plastics, to shipping fuels, to electricity storage, and software.
• The hard part about innovating industrial processes is that scaling is very expensive. Entrepreneurs need money to build large industrial plants, before it is 100% clear that the solution will be profitable. That opens up crucial but also challenging role for investors to enable innovation.
• While large incumbent companies would have advantages to support risky innovations with their balance sheet, history shows that small companies are essential to drive radical innovation.

For those who want to dig deeper here is the link to Planet A, which also has links to the companies that are mentioned during the conversation.