对话CDP气候变化总监：气候行动正从公关宣传转向核心商业战略

文 | 新浪财经李欣然、刘浩（实习）

在气候行动空前紧迫的当下，让更多企业意识到气候变化相关的风险与机遇显得尤为重要。近日，新浪财经对话了全球环境信息研究中心（简称CDP）气候变化总监Amir Sokolowski先生，探讨气候行动与经济发展的关系、气候相关数据披露趋势，以及企业气候行动的进展与未来方向。

Sokolowski强调，气候行动与经济增长并非对立关系，而是相互促进。他指出，科学证据已充分证实气候变化的真实性，企业正日益将环境可持续性视为风险管理的必要举措和竞争优势的来源。

关于可持续信息披露，Sokolowski指出，气候信息披露的演变反映了行业正从数据收集阶段走向战略聚焦阶段。在他看来，简化披露的目的是增强而非削弱信息的可信度。

谈及中国企业的气候行动表现，Sokolowski引用了一系列数据，表明中国企业对环境信息披露的参与度不断提升，但他也指出，在制定减排目标方面仍有更多提升空间。

最后，Sokolowski指出，当下一些企业在气候行动上的表态看似有所弱化，但这更多是战术层面的调整，而非实质性的转变。他强调，大多数组织依然将可持续性融入其核心运营战略。这不仅源于道德考量，更是因为投资者和市场对此有着明确的需求。在他看来，未来企业不应仅停留在表面承诺，而应将气候考量全面嵌入战略、治理和价值链中。从商业角度来看，可持续发展的重要性已毋庸置疑。那些着眼于未来的企业都明白，保护地球不仅是对环境负责，更是保障自身长期生存和盈利空间的关键。

以下是对话实录：

Q：有人声称气候变化是伪科学，也不愿把气候变化治理或环境保护视为优先事项。有些人即便承认气候变化悄然来临，仍认为气候治理应置于经济发展这种更重要的议题之后。您如何回应这一观点？您认为该如何平衡环境保护与经济增长之间的关系？

A：这其实是两个独立的问题。首先，全球变暖究竟是否是场骗局？科学正日益表明，世界正以前所未有的速度发生改变。这些改变大多源于气候变化及诸多与之相关的现象。因此，关于“气候变化是场骗局”这一说法，我无法认同。毕竟科学证据越来越充分，足以证明这不是骗局。

事实上，你提出的重要问题是，承认气候变化与金融实践之间是否存在冲突。我认为两者并不冲突。大约从20世纪30年代开始，全球范围内的金融实践就要求企业考虑未来可能存在的风险。如今，许多风险不可避免地源于环境风险。我们看到企业正日益关注两类风险：第一类是物理风险。如果企业不将会发生的物理损害所带来的财务风险纳入考量，就无法为未来做好准备。第二类是监管风险。尽管存在一些政策上的波折和起伏，但全球正朝着同一个方向前进，监管不可避免地会将气候变化纳入考量。

我们的数据显示，仅2024年，占全球市值三分之二的企业就通过CDP进行了披露——其中包括93%的富时100指数成分股公司和86%的标普500指数成分股公司。市场本身已认识到，两者不仅不存在冲突，相反，回避应对气候变化才是真正的冲突。人们对环境问题的意识在提升，但温室气体排放量仍在增加，生物多样性正以惊人的速度消失。到2050年，每年的损失可能达到38万亿美元，全球收入预计将下降近20%。然而，维护地球的最佳利益，同样符合企业的最佳利益。如果我们采取正确行动，到2050年有望为全球GDP额外贡献7%。我们的数据显示，根据披露数据的企业预测，在适应气候变化方面，每投入1美元可产生2至19美元的回报。那些在供应链中深度减排的企业已节省了超过130亿美元的成本，这证明对地球有利的决策也对企业有利。我还可以列举更多例子，但究其核心，是两者不存在冲突。这在理论和实践中都已得到认可。

应对气候变化不仅能缓解风险，还能带来诸多商业机遇。更确切地说，机遇远大于风险。通过战略性管理，企业还能顺利从应对风险转向把握机遇。具体而言，通过CDP披露信息的企业已识别出超过16万亿美元与气候和自然相关的机遇。

Q：从行业角度出发，您如何看待不同行业的脱碳前景？

A：我认为全球行业可分为三类。第一类是注定会被淘汰且面临风险的行业。第二类是处于平衡状态的行业。它既有可能向着机遇前行，成为我们所期待的该领域领军者之一，也可能会逐渐掉队。我认为能源行业将成为表现最佳的行业之一。第三类是对我们的生存至关重要的行业（包括建筑、钢铁、水泥、食品和农业）。对于这些行业而言，这种转型不是选择，而是必需。

我认为能源行业以及金融行业的某些领域，将处于未来发展的核心，并存在巨大机遇，因为能源行业需要经历最重大的转型。历史上从未有过如此强大的支持力度以推动一个行业朝着一个特定方向发展。这是一项重大挑战，所以转型融资问题同样至关重要。

在所有披露转型计划、设定可信目标并逐年报告进展的企业里，能源行业的占比一直名列前茅。能源行业影响着每一家企业，市场上任何一项脱碳激励政策，能源公司及其所有用户都会直接受其影响；而用户又会反过来激励能源公司践行脱碳。因此，能源企业有潜力整合所有这些激励措施，并采取相应行动，这也正是我们对它们的期望。

Q： 那么，您认为能源行业在脱碳过程中面临的最大挑战是什么？

A： 我认为挑战之一是情绪抵制。能源行业具有最大的获益潜力，但对于某些特定发展方向而言，其潜在损失也最大。我认为，制定完善的转型计划能帮助那些损失风险最大的群体跻身获利阵营。不过，这一挑战需要进行短、中、长期的综合考量。

众所周知，金融体系的考量周期通常是5、6或7年。购电协议（PPAs）的期限可长达20年，电网协议的期限可延续30年。调整这些协议需要付出成本，我认为最大的挑战在于时间和资金上的期限错配。

Q：下一个问题关于信息披露，因为气候相关数据披露是有效气候治理的基础。但目前许多企业认为，复杂的披露要求增加了运营负担。欧盟委员会今年发布的《综合法案》（Omnibus Package）也倾向于简化可持续发展相关信息的披露。您如何看待气候相关数据披露的演变？您认为简化披露会削弱数据的可用性吗？或者相反，它能提高实际披露效率吗？未来 CDP 是否计划对其披露框架及要求的信息体量作出进一步调整？

A：需要明确的是，《综合法案》只是一项建议。欧洲各地向我们反馈，该地区许多企业已做好实施企业可持续发展报告指令（CSRD）的准备，并且能够落实。事实上，许多企业反对取消相关要求，并表示加强相关信息披露很有意义并且知道如何去做。

在我看来，世界上大多数政策实施都会经历大约四到五个阶段。首先是“我很重要”阶段，政策制定者要求执行者“关注我，披露所有信息，告诉我一切”。然后进入需要大量数据的阶段。之后是数据碎片化阶段。再之后是数据过多的阶段。最后，人们才会明白什么才是真正重要的，流程也会随之简化——但这需要时间。

我认为CDP在这一进程中起到了引领作用，目前正从注重数据量转向追求数据的连贯性。起初我们必须收集所有数据，因为当时并不清楚全球各个企业的发展方向，用户不同因而需要数据的内容也不同。现在，我们正朝着连贯性的方向推进。

说到底，我们所期望的 “披露简化” 与真正关键的 “信息可信度” 之间可能存在冲突。即便如此，我仍然认为简化并非坏事，因为简化有助于更好地分析哪些企业在真正付出努力，激励真正致力于可持续发展的企业，而非聚焦于其他因素或更难的披露要求上。因此，我认为这是气候信息披露的发展方向，并不会降低可信度。只是我们现在对“可信度”有了更清晰的认知，因此操作起来也就更得心应手了。

依我看来，CDP 也好，整个相关体系也好，对数据的要求都只会越来越高。不管是现在越来越普遍的转型金融，还是越来越多的绿色分类标准，对数据的需求量不会降低，只会更多。

Q：近年来，中国企业参与CDP披露的热情日益高涨，其CDP得分也显著提升。您认为中国企业在环境信息披露和环境保护方面的进展与全球相比如何？

A：数据显示，中国取得了显著进展。2024年，中国有3651家企业通过CDP开展披露工作，较2023年增长6.3%。根据CDP的报告，其中约19%的企业有望实现其气候目标。在这些有望达标的企业中，高达77%的企业将高管薪酬与气候目标挂钩，这表明领导层具有很强的问责意识。2022至2024年，有望实现气候目标的中国企业市值增长了4.7%，而未能达标的企业仅增长3.9%。这表明环保与获利不仅兼容，而且环保还有益于企业利润提升。

然而，在目标设定方面还存在明显挑战。中国企业中设定目标的比例（19%）低于全球平均水平（33%）。全球通用的做法是设定目标，但许多企业在设定目标时并未充分理解其含义，只是希望到2050年取得显著成果。相比之下，中国企业多秉持审慎态度，认识到设定目标不仅是喊口号，更要让它可落地、有意义，因此对目标设定的重视程度相对较低。

Q：基于此，您对中国企业进一步推进气候行动有何建议？

A：首先，数据信息披露仍是环境行动进程中的关键一环。其次，制定经核实的气候转型计划和减排目标至关重要。第三，董事会层面的监督和全价值链行动必不可少。78% 的领先企业已将高管薪酬与气候成果挂钩，近九成（87%）的企业在整个价值链中与供应商和客户就气候议题展开合作。那些将气候和自然因素融入战略、治理、财务规划及供应链管理的企业，正在引领行业的发展。

总之，我认为企业首先需要设定目标，这一过程会让它们了解其中的挑战有多大。确立目标后，就需要制定转型计划来识别主要问题。这些问题将分为两类：技术挑战和供应链挑战。供应链挑战往往更为复杂，但也能带来更高的投资回报。

Q：接下来，我想与您探讨气候治理的未来。当下，气候行动在部分地区和国家遇冷，一些企业和金融机构迫于经济压力等因素，对气候行动的热情有所减退。例如，一些大型银行退出了净零银行联盟。您如何看待这一现象？您认为这一趋势是暂时波动还是反映了更深层次的问题？您对气候治理的未来有何展望？

A： 我认为这是气候行动中的暂时波动。它反映了缺乏灵活性等相关的更深层次问题，不过我认为这些问题正在得到解决。倘若这发生在15年前，环保运动可能会陷入严重困境。但现在环保运动已被明确视为必要之举、硬性要求和客观现实，这一点在投资中也有所体现。

我认为不能将一些机构的务实性策略当作实质性的转变。也就是说，一些银行虽然退出净零银行联盟，但并不代表他们的减排目标发生了改变，它不过是在战术上做了调整。如果联盟现在处境不妙，企业会继续在公司内部推进这些目标，并将许多目标内化。换句话说，公开退出那些高关注度的联盟并不一定意味着彻底放弃可持续发展目标。在许多情况下，企业可能是在远离气候治理带来的政治或声誉风险，同时在幕后继续推进脱碳工作。

许多组织参与环境倡议，不再仅是因为这是“正确的事”。它们这样做是因为意识到自己将承担责任——要么来自投资者，他们觉得“如果不规划环境变化，就是不规划未来”；要么来自公众舆论，公众会因企业未管理自身风险而对其作出负面评判。这不再仅仅是贴上“绿色”标签的问题，相反，这反映了一种转变，那就是将气候风险内化于商业核心战略中，并不仅是通过外部承诺进行宣传。在理想情况下，环境考量应融入所有事务，因为它们反映了我们所处的生存环境。我认为我们离这种理想状态正越来越接近。

Q：最后，我想聚焦中国绿色电力市场的一项突破。2025年5月8日，RE100（100%可再生能源）倡议宣布认可中国绿色电力证书（GECs）。这一突破备受关注，作为RE100的重要合作伙伴，伴随这一进展，CDP会做怎样的调整？又将采取哪些措施支持这一发展？

A：气候组织（Climate Group）与CDP已建立新的合作伙伴关系，以确保RE100倡议能够顺利实现其目标，即到2040年加速全球电网向零碳转型。我们将继续紧密协作，CDP仍将是RE100的重要技术合作伙伴。

RE100倡议的日常治理将由气候组织全权负责，其核心任务在于开拓新市场、吸引本地成员并推进政策工作。CDP现在将专注于其作为RE100技术与披露合作伙伴的现有职责，所有成员将继续每年向CDP递交报告。

以下为英文原文：

Q: Some people claim that climate change is a hoax and don't see addressing it or protecting the environment as a high-priority issue. Even if they acknowledge that climate change is happening, they still believe it should take a back seat to other higher-priority issues, such as economic development. How would you respond to this viewpoint? How to balance environmental protection and economic growth?

A: These are actually two separate questions. The first question is whether climate change is a hoax. Science is increasingly showing that the world is changing at an unprecedented speed. Most of these changes are attributed to climate change and the many related phenomena. So, regarding the first question about it being a hoax, I can't say it is. Science is only firming up and showing that there is no hoax.

In fact, the important question you are asking is whether there is a conflict between acknowledging climate change and financial practices, and there actually is no conflict. Financial practices globally, probably since the 1930s, asked companies to take into account what future risks might be, as a financial practice. It is inevitable now that many risks are environmental risks. There are two forms of these risks that we see companies increasingly taking into account. The first is the physical risk. If companies don't include the financial risk of physical damage that could happen, then they are not future-proof, because whatever your position may be, that is a reality. The second is regulatory risk. While there are some bumps and occasional setbacks, we see the world moving in the same direction, where regulation is inevitably going to take climate change into account.

Our data shows that in 2024 alone, companies representing two-thirds of the global market cap disclosed through CDP—including the vast majority of the FTSE 100 (93%) and the S&P 500 (86%). The market itself is recognizing that not only is there no conflict, but rather, walking away from addressing climate change seems to be the real conflict. Awareness of environmental issues is growing, but emissions continue to rise, and nature is vanishing at an alarming rate. By 2050, damages could reach US$38 trillion annually, with global incomes projected to decline by nearly 20%. However, the best interests of the Earth are also the best interests of business. If we take the right actions, we could add an additional 7% to global GDP by 2050. Our data shows that investing in adaptation could deliver returns of $2 to $19 for every $1 spent, according to projections from companies that disclose their data. Companies that have cut emissions deep in their supply chains have already saved over US$13 billion in costs, proving that decisions that are good for the Earth are also good for business. I could go on, but the bottom line is that there is no conflict. It's recognized in theory and also in practice.

Addressing climate change not only mitigates risks but also presents numerous business opportunities. To put it more eloquently, the opportunities far outweigh the risks. When managed strategically, they can also ease the transition from risk to opportunity. Specifically, companies disclosing through CDP have identified over $16 trillion in climate and nature-related opportunities.

Q: How do you see the decarbonization prospects for different industries from a sectoral standpoint?

A: I believe there are three types of sectors in the world. First, there are those that are doomed to be phased out and are at risk. Second, there are those that stand on the balance. It could either fall to the side of opportunity and become one of the best actors in the field, as we hope, or it could lag behind. I believe the energy sector will be one of the best performers. Third, there are the sectors that are essential for our survival and for whom this transition is not a choice but a necessity. These include construction, steel, cement, food, and agriculture.

I think the energy sector, unsurprisingly, along with certain elements of the finance sector, will be at the heart of any future development and will reap most of the opportunities, rather than face the risks. This is because the energy sector needs to undergo the most significant transformation. Never in our history has there been such strong support for a sector to move in a particular direction. It is a huge challenge, and hence the question of finance remains crucial.

The energy sector has one of the highest percentages of companies reporting transition plans, credible targets, and progress over the years. The energy sector impacts every single company. Every incentive put in the market to decarbonize is directly felt by energy companies and by every single one of their users, who in turn provide incentives for the energy companies to do the same. So, they have the potential to collect all these incentives and act accordingly. That's what we need from them.

Q: So, what do you think is the biggest challenge for the energy sector in decarbonizing?

A: I think one of the challenges is the pushback. This is a sector where there’s the most to gain, but for certain specific directions, there’s also the most to lose. I think having a good transition plan would help those who have the most to lose flip to the side of those who gain. However, it's a challenge that requires short-, medium-, and long-term thinking.

We all know that the financial system generally thinks in terms of 5, 6, or 7 years. Power purchase agreements (PPAs) last for 20 years, and grid agreements can last for 30. Changing those comes at a cost, and I think that's the biggest challenge: the mismatch between time and money.

Q: The next question is about reporting, since climate-related data disclosure is the foundation of effective climate governance. However, many companies currently feel that complex disclosure requirements add to their operational burden. The Omnibus Package recently released by the European Commission has also moved to simplify the disclosure of sustainability-related information. What is your view on the evolution of climate-related data disclosure? Do you think simplifying disclosure will weaken the availability of data? Or, on the contrary, could it actually improve the efficiency of disclosure? And are there any plans to make further adjustments to CDP's disclosure framework and the amount of information it requires in the future?

A: It's important to remember that the Omnibus Package is just a suggestion. Europe has already reported to us that many companies within the region are CSRD - ready and could implement it. In fact, a lot of them were pushing back against the cancellation, saying, “We know how to do this. It makes sense.”

I think in every field in the world, no matter what the field, you go through about four or five stages. First, there's the “I'm important” stage: “Look at me, disclose anything to me, tell me everything.” Then you move into the stage where someone is asking for a lot of data. After that comes the fragmentation of data. Then there's the stage of having too much data. Finally, you recognize what's truly important, and it becomes simpler—but it takes time.

I think CDP has led the way through much of this journey and is now moving from a focus on quantity to a pathway toward coherence. We had to collect all the data initially because it was unclear which direction each company was taking in the world. Different users needed different elements of the data. Now, we’re seeing a push toward coherence.

And at its core, there's a conflict between simplification, which we all want, and credibility, which is the real issue. That said, I still believe simplification is not a bad concept. Simplification allows for better analysis of who's making a genuine effort, incentivizing true ambition rather than focusing on other elements or more difficult disclosures. So I think that is the direction of climate disclosure. I don't think it will reduce credibility. It's just that we now have a clearer understanding of what credibility looks like, so it's easier for us.

CDP and, I would argue, the entire ecosystem, are only seeing an increase in data requests. Whether it's for transition finance, which is on the rise, or for an increasing number of green taxonomies, I don't believe the need for data will decrease, nor will its use.

Q：In recent years, Chinese companies have shown increasing enthusiasm for participating in CDP reporting, and their CDP score results have also improved significantly. How do you think Chinese companies compare globally in terms of progress on environmental information disclosure and environmental protection?

A：The numbers show that China has made significant strides. In 2024, 3,651 Chinese companies disclosed through CDP, marking a 6.3% increase from 2023. According to CDP's Corporate Health Check Report, around 19% of these companies are on track to achieve their climate targets. Among those on track, a significant 77% link executive-level pay to these goals, signaling strong accountability at the leadership level. From 2022 to 2024, Chinese companies on track to meet their climate targets have seen a 4.7% increase in market capitalization, compared to just 3.9% for those that aren't. This demonstrates that balancing planet and profit is not only possible but also beneficial.

However, there is a notable challenge when it comes to target-setting. Fewer Chinese companies (19%) have established targets compared to the global average 33%. Setting targets is a common global approach, but many companies set them without fully understanding their implications, hoping to achieve remarkable results by 2050. In contrast, China, in a characteristically cautious manner, recognizes that setting a target is not just about making a declaration; it is about doing so in a credible and meaningful way to align with the rest of the world. At present, I would argue that setting targets is the most significant challenge.

Q: Based on this, what suggestions do you have for Chinese companies to further advance their climate action?

A: First, disclosure remains the essential first step on the environmental journey. Second, setting verified climate transition plans and emissions targets is critical. Third, board-level oversight and value chain action are vital. 78% of frontrunners already link executive-level pay to climate outcomes, and nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) engage with climate topics throughout the value chain with suppliers and customers. Companies that integrate climate and nature into their strategy, governance, financial planning, and supply chain management are leading the way.

In conclusion, I think companies need to set a target first, and that process will teach them how challenging it is. Once they have a target, they need a transition plan to identify the major issues. There will be two types of issues: technological challenges, including those related to the grid, and supply chain challenges. The supply chain challenges are often more complex but also offer a higher return on investment.

Q: Next, I want to discuss with you the future of climate action. It must be acknowledged that there appears to be a "backlash" against climate governance, with some companies and financial institutions showing waning enthusiasm for climate action due to economic pressures and other factors. For example, some major banks have withdrawn from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. What is your take on this phenomenon? Do you think this trend is a temporary fluctuation or reflects deeper issues? How do you foresee the future of climate governance?

A: I believe this is a temporary fluctuation within the environmental movement. It reflects deeper issues related to a lack of flexibility, which I think are being addressed. If this had happened 15 years ago, the environmental movement might have been in serious trouble. But now, it's so well-established as a necessity, a requirement, and a physical reality that we see it reflected in investments.

I would also caution against interpreting a pragmatic structural response as a substantive one. That is to say, leaving an alliance doesn't mean you've changed your target; it means you've changed your tactic. If the alliance is now under threat, I will continue pursuing those goals internally and internalize many of the targets. In other words, public disengagement from high-profile alliances does not necessarily equate to a complete reversal of sustainability goals. In many cases, firms may be distancing themselves from the political or reputational risks associated with climate governance while continuing to pursue decarbonization behind the scenes.

Many organizations are no longer engaging in environmental initiatives just because it's the right thing to do. They're doing it because they realize they’ll be held accountable, either by investors who say, “If you're not planning for environmental change, you're not planning for the future,” or by the court of public opinion, which will judge them for not managing their own risks. It’s no longer just about applying the label “green.” Instead, it reflects a shift towards internalizing climate risk within core business strategy rather than merely broadcasting it through external commitments. In an ideal world, environmental considerations are integrated into everything because they reflect the world in which we operate. I think we're moving closer to that ideal.

Q: Finally, I want to focus on a breakthrough on China's green electricity market. On May 8, 2025, the RE100 initiative announced recognition of China's Green Electricity Certificates (GECs). This breakthrough has garnered significant attention. As an important partner of RE100, how will CDP's role change alongside this progress? What measures will CDP take to support this development?

A: Climate Group and CDP have entered a new partnership to enable the RE100 campaign to continue to successfully deliver on its goal to accelerate change towards zero carbon grids globally by 2040. We will continue to work closely together, and CDP will remain a vital technical partner for RE100.

Day-to-day governance of the RE100 campaign will become the sole responsibility of Climate Group, focused on moving into new markets, attracting local members and advancing our policy work, CDP will now focus on their existing role as the RE100 Technical and Disclosure partner, with all members continuing to report annually to CDP.