Will the carbon pricing markets pass the Nietzsche Test?

This panel focuses on how climate and carbon have moved inside financial reporting and risk-management systems. The international sustainability standard issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) - namely, International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) S2 - and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and related disclosure rules mean issues once handled by corporate sustainability teams now sit squarely within the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Risk Officer (CRO) and audit committee remit. 1. The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standard S2 (IFRS S2), Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and related disclosure regimes presage change in how companies manage, disclose and report carbon. Which parts of climate and carbon are now clearly within the area of responsibility of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)? 2. It is easy for companies to think about Scope 3 emissions (i.e., carbon emissions that occur outside the direct control of a company, at suppliers, or in products used by customers, or even business travel) as a purely technical reporting challenge. How can companies think about Scope 3 emissions more broadly, in terms of prioritisation, data quality and strategy? 3. Banks and insurers now have to report financed emissions under the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) as well as IFRS S2, with Scope 3 Category 15 emissions (i.e., third party emissions funded by banks, asset managers and insurers). How is that changing portfolio construction, financial product design and engagement with clients? 4. Many companies built net-zero and "carbon-neutral" claims on the back of voluntary carbon credits. As legal, accounting and audit standards tighten, how should they think about their legacy books of credits and historical claims? 5. What is the practical difference, from an audit and litigation standpoint, between using instruments that sit outside sovereign accounting (i.e., traditional voluntary credits) and instruments that are clearly embedded in public law and national accounting systems? 6. What do companies and financial institutions actually need from carbon and climate instruments - in terms of legal clarity, accounting treatment, documentation and data - to be comfortable using them in material disclosures and carbon transition plans? 7. How are custodians and asset-servicing banks supporting institutional investors with carbon and climate data, particularly for financed emissions, portfolio alignment metrics and the treatment of carbon-linked instruments? 8. There is a possibility that companies must treat carbon and climate claims as a source of potential impairment, restatement and litigation risk in the same way they would treat other contingent liabilities. What legal advice are they being given? 9. Disputes, regulatory actions and investor challenges of various kinds are emerging around climate and carbon claims. What can issuers and financial institutions do to reduce those risks? 10. Reliance on buying voluntary offsets no longer looks like a credible strategy for companies and financial institutions. What does a credible alternative, finance-led plan look like?