London Climate Action Week Debrief – Our Top Five Takeaways

London Climate Action Week (LCAW) 2026 took place from 20th–28th June 2026 and is one of the world’s largest independent climate events, bringing together policymakers, businesses, investors, researchers, NGOs and community groups to accelerate climate action.

Our Sustainability & ESG team were on the ground and here are some of our top highlights to share: 

Connecting the dots on the financial impact of inequality, social and people factors 

At the launch of the Taskforce on Inequality and Social related Financial Disclosures (TISFD), we heard that ‘social topics are poorly measured and managed while in many countries, inadequate social protections and systemic weaknesses are failing people’ (World Benchmarking Alliance). In addition, these issues are increasingly linked to financial and systemic risks and impacts for businesses. In response, the TIFSD aims to build a common language on how people and social issues have a financial impact on businesses to give clear direction across strategy, governance, and risk management of social topics. 

Specifically, the aim of the TISFD is to have a consistent framework for businesses to assess areas of impacts and dependencies on people and identify where this could lead to a material risk for their business. For example, the current wave of local community opposition to data centres in the US and Europe could lead to an operational and financial risk for big tech; some speakers suggested that addressing inequality may help reduce political divides. Social issues also do not sit in isolation from environmental issues. Climate change is exacerbating inequality and can erode people’s rights and wellbeing. If the transition is not just, i.e. taking account of the impact on people then this can undermine support for the green transition.  

At the roundtable’s experts across investment, finance, human rights and social impact debated what the most impactful areas of focus should be. With challenges such as lack of comparability, data gaps and evidence, the next phase of the TISFD will focus on the development of metrics & targets. Individuals are able to have their say via the public consultation here, open until 31st July.  

Sustainable benefits can be broader than environmental action 

Often when thinking about sustainability, people are drawn toward environmental considerations. While emission reductions, carbon measures and decarbonisation initiatives are all crucial in curtailing the impacts of ongoing climate change and global warming, the view can be myopic, and risks overlooking the additional positive social impacts generated through sustainability related projects and activities. 

Consider carbon credits that achieve emissions avoidance rather than removal, which do not directly remove carbon from the atmosphere but offer additional social benefits beyond the environmental. Many of these credits are generated through projects that simultaneously provide communities in developing countries with safer, more accessible means of cooking, preparing food, and collecting water. The same is true of decentralised renewable energy projects across Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, which are measured primarily by the emissions they avoid, but additionally provide more immediate and tangible impact by delivering reliable electricity to schools, clinics, and households that previously had none. These are not incidental outcomes.  Many of these outcomes can represent meaningful, measurable improvements to people’s lives.

As the sustainability challenge is multifaceted, so too can the review of impacts derived from projects and efforts, including holistic reviews of impacts, to think more broadly about what sustainability can deliver for people, beyond the environmental outcomes most commonly cited.  

Sustainability messaging, where possible, needs to be simplified 

There is a growing sign of fatigue regarding how sustainability is communicated. Increasingly technical and scientific language, driven by topic maturation, has contributed to stakeholders becoming less engaged and also to a gap in knowledge of relevant topics, as recent academic and survey insights suggest. This is not a new concern for those working in sustainability communications, but it is one that is beginning to become more widespread. In addition, as we highlighted in a recent edition of ESG+, that there is a growing swell of distrust amongst the environmental claims made by companies. Taken together, these trends suggest that sustainability communications may benefit from a broader rethink of how it engages its audience. 

While still too early to comment on broad market behaviours, stakeholders at LCAW were enthused by a perceived change in how sustainability and annual reports have started to diverge from convention, with an increasing number of companies adopting more authentic, accessible approaches to articulating both their commitments and the outcomes they have achieved. This shift matters beyond optics. For investors, consumers, and the broader public, the degree to which sustainability is understood is the degree to which it is valued and acted upon. A concept that cannot be communicated clearly to those without specialist knowledge will always remain niche. The more sustainability can be spoken about in plain, honest terms that resonate across different audiences and levels of familiarity, the more embedded it becomes in the decisions and behaviours that ultimately drive change. 

Sustainability outcomes need to make financial sense for stakeholders  

 Sustainability arguments grounded in moral or ethical reasoning tend to resonate most strongly with those already engaged in the field. However, for those on the outside looking in, moral and ethical arguments alone are rarely sufficient motivation to engage.  Financial considerations remain an important driver of decision-making across investors, corporates and, to a certain extent, consumers. This points to a broader question: how can sustainability shift from theoretical commitment to demonstrable impact, linking sustainable choices directly to economic resilience, improved livelihoods, or the practical realities of operating in an ever-changing regulatory and stakeholder environment.  

From conversations we had during LCAW, this principle is one that will be key for corporates, institutions and public bodies alike to consider, when advancing their respective sustainability goals. Whether it is attracting capital from investors, shifting business models toward more sustainable alternatives, or keeping pace with market norms, the reasoning behind sustainability action is becoming increasingly tied to economic outcomes rather than principle alone. 

In certain cases, external forces do much of the heavy lifting. Such as growing physical climate risks beginning to make resilience investment a straightforward financial decision for many business and asset owners. But these moments of alignment, between sustainable and financial self-interest are not always naturally occurring. Where they do not, advocates, practitioners and policymakers have an opportunity to better demonstrate how sustainability can create economic value and make the financial benefits more tangible and compelling. 

Debrief from SBTi’s CEO on the new V2  

A fireside chat with David Kennedy, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) CEO, revealed the top five things you need to know if you have or are considering setting a science- based target. Kennedy noted that: 

1. Target setting options: These should reflect what levers the company has at its disposal to reduce emissions. If you’re not doing this it doesn’t just make no sense for emission reductions it doesn’t make any commercial sense. Companies are progressing on scope 1 & 2 but are struggling with scope 3.  
2. Implementation hierarchy: This traces emissions via categories of activities not necessarily by companies in the supply chain where you may struggle to access data.  
3. Framing of the Corporate Net Zero Journey: Its difficult, messy and non-linear.  The key is to have periodic performance assessments, be transparent to avoid greenwashing accusations and get assurance.  
4. Targets are not binary: The ‘best efforts’ basis is because there is a high degree of dependencies and uncertainty. It’s not a free pass. If a gap between target and action emerges be transparent about it. If you are doing all within your control that is progress not failure. 
5. Role of high integrity carbon credits: We need a huge focus on a lot of removals over the next decade and management of ongoing emissions responsibly.  

David acknowledged that the ecosystem of corporate Net Zero is not fully joined up yet and partnerships is a key focus for the next phase of SBTi’s strategy as is expansion in Asia. More guidance on V2 will be issued in the coming months.