Uncategorized

By Walter Bachmann, Prof. Kristjan Jespersen 

For years, green bonds captured the imagination of investors and issuers alike, promising a genuine win-win outcome: capital would flow into projects with measurable environmental benefits, and the firms raising that capital could do so at a lower cost than in the conventional bond market. This attractive combination, widely referred to as the green premium or greenium, implied that investors were willing to accept slightly smaller yields in exchange for the satisfaction of financing climate solutions. The narrative proved compelling. Policymakers welcomed it as evidence that financial markets could help close the climate-finance gap, companies used it to signal corporate responsibility, and asset managers viewed it as a practical way to align portfolios with sustainability mandates. 

Early empirical studies appeared to confirm the promise. Analyses of primary-market data from the mid-2010s reported yield discounts of three to eight basis points for green instruments relative to comparable vanilla issues. As a result, the labelled market expanded rapidly. By 2023 outstanding green bonds totalled roughly six hundred billion dollars, and the structure migrated from being a niche offering to becoming a standard tool for investment-grade corporations, financial institutions, and sovereign treasuries. 

Whether the pricing advantage survived this remarkable expansion is the central question addressed here. This study assembles an issuance-level dataset covering almost fifty thousand bonds launched between 2015 and 2025 in Europe, North America, and China, of which around 2 thousand were formally labelled as green. These three regions dominate both global bond volumes and global greenhouse-gas emissions, so results carry relevance beyond local markets. Ordinary least squares regressions and issuer-fixed-effects panel models are employed to estimate the difference in initial yield spreads while controlling for rating, tenor, currency, coupon type, and issuer characteristics.  

Results from the cross-sectional ordinary least squares model reveal a clear trend. From 2015 through 2017 the coefficient on the green label is negative and statistically different from zero, confirming that green bonds were indeed issued at lower yields. Yet the absolute size of the discount narrows every year, falling from roughly six basis points in 2015 to a statistically negligible level by 2020. By 2024 the coefficient has turned positive, indicating that issuers of green bonds now pay a slightly more. Confidence intervals widen in the later years, suggesting growing dispersion in investor valuations as the market matures and supply becomes abundant. 

Panel estimates reinforce the narrative but add nuance. Once constant issuer characteristics are stripped out, the green-bond premium oscillates around zero with greater variability than in the pooled sample. The discount disappears roughly two years earlier than in the cross-sectional case, while the subsequent up-turn begins in 2021 and reaches significance in 2024. These findings imply that unobservable differences between repeat issuers played a role in the early period but faded as disclosure standards converged and investors gained experience with the product. Furthermore, sectoral breakdowns deepen the picture. When combined the high-emitting industries such as oil and gas, metals, and chemicals never achieve a material greenium. Their environmental projects may be essential for the transition, yet investors appear unconvinced that a green label overrides broader balance-sheet exposure to carbon risk. 

Three structural forces explain the vanishing greenium. First, supply has caught up with demand. When labelled bonds were scarce, impact-oriented investors competed for limited paper, pushing up prices. By the early 2020s the market had produced enough volume that scarcity ceased to be a driver. Second, transparency improved. Harmonised taxonomies, second-party opinions, and post-issuance allocation reports reduced information asymmetry, leaving little hidden value for investors to monetise. Third, macroeconomic conditions shifted. Rising interest rates, elevated inflation uncertainty, and renewed focus on credit fundamentals compressed risk premia across asset classes, making non-pecuniary benefits a luxury many investors were unwilling to fund through lower yields. 

The erosion of the pricing advantage has practical consequences. For issuers, the green label no longer reduces interest expense in a predictable way, but it still confers reputational capital and may help diversify the investor base. Regulators are also moving toward mandatory sustainability disclosure, implying that future issuance choices will be influenced as much by compliance considerations as by cost. For investors, the disappearance of the yield concession heightens the importance of rigorous impact assessment. In the contemporary market the premium that matters is credibility. Transactions backed by verifiable environmental metrics, stringent use-of-proceeds frameworks, and transparent governance continue to attract strong demand, even if they no longer command higher secondary-market prices. 

The green-bond market has transitioned from novelty to norm. The financial incentive that once spurred issuers has largely evaporated, replaced by intangible benefits linked to brand value, stakeholder expectations, and regulatory readiness. Yet the instrument retains strategic importance as a conduit for climate finance. Its standardised documentation, earmarked proceeds, and investor familiarity make it uniquely suited to mobilise private capital at scale. Policymakers seeking to revive any lost cost advantage may consider tax incentives, credit guarantees, or structured co-financing that reward measurable emissions reductions. Ultimately, the path from green label to green impact will depend less on marginal changes in coupon rates and more on the integrity and transparency of the projects being financed. 

About the Authors  

Walter Bachmann recently completed a MSc Finance and Investments with a Minor in Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). During his time as a student, he also worked as a research assistant for the Nordic ESG Lab and as M&A Analyst at LNP Corporate Finance. This September he will commence his second master’s degree at Imperial College Business School, where he will dive deeper into sustainability and financeWith a finance degree already in hand, the additional qualification from Imperial, combined with his prior ESG experience, positions him well to advance in sustainable finance. 

Prof. Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor in Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Kristjan is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). As a primary area of focus, he studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance. He has a background in International Relations and Economics.   

By Prof. Kristjan Jespersen,  Justus Claudius Ernst and Áron Radványi

Today’s global environment is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA). This heightened uncertainty underlines the importance of organizational resilience—how companies prepare for and respond to adverse events. Frequent crises in the 21st century highlight severe consequences when disruptions occur in our fragile and interconnected socioeconomic systems. Companies have a dual responsibility: minimize their contributions to disruptions and mitigate their impacts on their own operations. 

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) mandates companies to perform Double Materiality Assessments (DMA). These assessments help identify and report impacts, risks, and opportunities (IRO) related to sustainability. Additionally, CSRD requires businesses to disclose how resilient their strategies and business models are. Despite these regulations, many companies lack a clear method for integrating DMA into resilience-focused strategies. 

DMA as a Strategic Learning Loop 

Our research found that DMA, when used strategically, becomes more than a mere reporting requirement—it transforms into a catalyst for continuous learning, innovation, and resilience. Our findings are based on 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives from 13 C25 companies and two sustainability advisory firms. Using a resource-based view and the dynamic capabilities framework, we analyzed the data to understand DMA’s strategic potential for organizational resilience. 

Instead of a one-off annual exercise, strategically applied DMA creates a continuous learning loop. Regularly reassessing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues and stakeholder concerns leads to ongoing improvements. Each assessment cycle provides insights that inform decision-making, helping companies adapt proactively to emerging sustainability trends and stakeholder expectations. This process institutionalizes a habit of learning and adaptability within organizations. 

DMA as a Strategic Knowledge Asset 

Insights gained through DMA become strategic intangible assets. By understanding stakeholder priorities, environmental risks, and social impacts deeply, companies generate knowledge that fulfills the VRIO criteria: 

• Valuable: Helps identify and mitigate risks. 

• Rare: Unique due to specialized DMA methods. 

• Inimitable: Built on unique stakeholder relationships and proprietary data. 

• Organized: Fully integrated into the company’s operational systems. 

These insights provide competitive advantages. Sustainability practitioners can leverage DMA to generate proprietary intelligence, such as early identification of environmental risks or emerging consumer concerns ahead of competitors. 

DMA Enhancing Dynamic Capabilities 

Treating DMA strategically strengthens a company’s dynamic capabilities—its ability to adapt rapidly to change. Our study found that firms deeply engaged with DMA: 

• Enhance their sensing abilities by scanning continuously for risks and opportunities. 

• Improve their seizing capabilities by integrating DMA insights into business operations. 

• Strengthen their transforming abilities by adjusting operations or products based on new sustainability insights. 

Companies that approach ESG as merely a compliance checklist often lack the agility required to respond to new challenges. Conversely, those strategically leveraging DMA foster cross-departmental collaboration and innovation, increasing their overall resilience. 

The Integrated DMA Ecosystem 

Embedding DMA into core corporate processes further enhances organizational resilience. Instead of being confined to sustainability teams or annual reports, DMA becomes integrated into broader corporate strategy, risk management, governance, and stakeholder engagement. This holistic integration ensures organization-wide alignment in monitoring and responding to ESG issues, enabling proactive identification and mitigation of risks. 

For example, early detection of supply chain vulnerabilities or community concerns through DMA prompts preemptive actions, cushioning potential crises. A proactive approach involving cross-functional workshops, regular updates to the materiality matrix, and executive goals linked to sustainability outcomes transforms companies from reactive to proactive entities. 

Conclusion 

Strategically embracing DMA shifts the focus from mere compliance to building long-term organizational resilience. Integrating DMA into business strategy and routine learning enables companies not just to meet regulatory requirements but also to proactively anticipate and adapt to sustainability challenges. This resilience-focused approach ultimately unlocks sustained competitive advantages in an increasingly volatile world. 

About the Authors 

Prof. Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor in Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Kristjan is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). As a primary area of focus, he studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance. He has a background in International Relations and Economics.  

Justus Ernst recently completed a Master’s degree in Accounting, Strategy and Control at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), alongside a CEMS Master’s in International Management. During his studies, he worked at Jabra, focusing on pricing and commercial excellence. In September, he will join Valcon as a Graduate Management Consultant.

By Prof. Kristjan Jespersen, Oda Solend and Anna Sophia Burri

In today’s global landscape, geopolitical risk (GPR) is rising in both frequency and intensity. War in Ukraine, rising U.S.-China tensions, trade disruptions, resurgent nationalism, and mounting global uncertainty all challenge the stability of investment environments. For investors, this creates a turbulent decision-making climate. At the same time, sustainable investments are becoming a central tool in the global response to climate change. Recognized by both policymakers and markets, they help redirect capital toward renewable energy, green infrastructure, and ethical developments. Investment into sustainable assets has grown exponentially, from $13.3 trillion in 2012 to over $30 trillion by 2022, with forecasts pointing to $40 trillion by 2030. But what happens to these investments when geopolitical instability rises?
This tension between growing climate urgency and increasing geopolitical volatility builds the starting point of our master thesis. Existing research primarily explores their relationship through quantitative models, focusing on market volatility or asset prices. A crucial gap, however, remains: How do sustainable investors assess GPRs? And how does this influence their investment decisions? That’s what we set out to explore.

How We Studied It
To unpack how GPR influences sustainable investments, we conducted a three-part qualitative study:

• GPR Mapping: We developed a comprehensive typology of 63 specific GPRs, organized into three overarching categories: geography, politics, and macroeconomics. This mapping helped us ground the study and design the next stages.
• Scenario-Based Workshop: We facilitated a workshop with six sustainable investors, using a geopolitical scenario to explore real-world sensemaking and decision-making processes.
• In-Depth Interviews: We conducted interviews with five sustainable investors and three geostrategic consultants to deepen our understanding of the internal and external dynamics shaping investment decisions.

What We Found
Our findings show that GPR influences sustainable investments in two key ways: through material disruptions and investor interpretations.
Investors increasingly see GPR as a structural and unavoidable factor in investment processes and decision-making. GPR shapes not just which investments are made, but how they are assessed, managed, and adapted over time. In many cases, decisions are influenced by perceived threats as much as actual events. We found that GPR influences decisions both before and after capital is committed. Prior to investment, GPR can act as a hard stop or shift strategic focus toward lower-risk regions. After commitment, especially in illiquid assets like infrastructure, investors adapt through ongoing monitoring, stakeholder engagement, or scenario planning.

However, the way investors respond to GPR is highly context-dependent. Some firms rely on informal, individual-level assessments, while others have formalized internal structures and public affairs teams. Organizational structures, exclusion criteria, previous experiences, informal norms, and external mandates all shape how investors interpret and act on GPR.

In other words, GPR influences both the rationale and the reality of sustainable investing, and it does so in ways that are filtered through both institutional pressures and personal judgment.

Interpreting Complexity: Our Contribution
By combining two theoretical perspectives – neo-institutional theory and sensemaking theory – we were able to connect the dots between organizational structure and individual interpretation shaping GPR assessments of sustainable investments.

Our thesis contributes to the underexplored literature on GPR and sustainable investing by showing how investors interpret, assess, and respond to geopolitical events in a world of growing complexity. Instead of treating geopolitics and geoeconomics as separate, we show how investors perceive macroeconomic and political threats as intertwined.

We also highlight the limits of quantification: GPR doesn’t always lend itself to measurable indicators. Its ambiguity requires judgment, narrative framing, and forward-looking models. Our study shows how qualitative inputs, like scenario planning, expert insight, and internal considerations, are crucial to making sense of geopolitical uncertainty.

By combining insights from both organizational structures and individual sensemaking, our thesis answers recent academic calls to bridge the macro and micro levels of analysis.
Together, these lenses allowed us to offer qualitative insights into the “how” behind GPR assessment and decision-making – complementing the dominant focus on quantitative research in this field.

What Sustainable Investors Can Do
In practice, sustainable investors should:

• Actively monitor GPR, both through one-off assessments and ongoing tracking.
• Use scenario analysis to explore potential future developments and translate qualitative inputs into quantitative investment impacts, thereby increasing both awareness and preparedness.
• Develop internal structures for coordination between investment teams and risk experts.
• Embrace nuance: GPR is interpretive, contextual, and messy. Trying to reduce it to a single metric can be misleading.
• Identify strategic opportunities: GPR can open up space for leadership and long-term impact. Turning uncertainty into advantage is a hallmark of resilient investing.

Final Thought
In an era where the world is heating up – geopolitically and environmentally – GPR returns as a top concern among sustainable investors. They need frameworks to understand, tools to adapt, and strategies to act amid uncertainty. This thesis is our small step toward helping sustainable investors navigate that uncertain future.

About the Authors 

Prof. Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor in Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Kristjan is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). As a primary area of focus, he studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance. He has a background in International Relations and Economics.  

Oda Solend recently completed her Master’s degree in International Business and Politics at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), with a minor in ESG. She will join KPMG as a Risk and Regulatory Consultant in August. Previously, she worked at Novo Nordisk, supporting innovation initiatives in the life science ecosystem, and volunteered with femella, a network organization dedicated to empowering female students and young professionals in their careers and personal development.

By Prof. Kristjan Jespersen, Cecilie Duch and Nathalie Fichte

In an era marked by accelerating ecological degradation and increasing demand for sustainable economic models, the field of sustainable finance is experiencing a paradigm shift. While CO2 emissions have long dominated environmental metrics in investment decisions, this focus captures only a small part of the sustainability agenda. While important, this narrow focus captures only a fraction of the sustainability agenda. Integrating circular economy (CE) principles offers a broader and more regenerative framework, complementing carbon metrics with deeper insights into material flows, resource efficiency, and long-term system resilience.  

The inclusion of circularity into portfolio design 

The global economy remains largely entrenched in a linear ‘take-make-waste’ paradigm, wherein resource extraction and waste generation proceed with minimal regard for ecological thresholds. This cradle-to-grave model has propelled humanity toward multiple breached planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2023). The ‘Limits to Growth’ report (Club of Rome, 1972) warned already over fifty years ago of the environmental consequences of indefinite economic expansion. Today, its predictions are no longer hypothetical.  

In response, the circular economy proposes a fundamental shift in economic logic—from throughput maximization to regenerative value creation. Circularity emphasizes design for durability, reuse, repairability, and closed-loop systems, aiming to decouple growth from environmental harm. Embedding these principles into investment logic may reshape how capital allocation drives systemic change. 

Development of the Circular Investment Tool (CIT) 

To effectively integrate circularity metrics into portfolio design, a framework for investment screening in the following called CIT was developed. This framework blends automated data analysis with manual review, enabling a more complete and nuanced assessment based on publicly available information.  

The CIT is designed to integrate seamlessly into investment workflows and includes four key phases: 

1. General Requirements: Includes sector definitions, financial benchmarks, and minimum ESG thresholds. 

2. Automated Analysis: Uses publicly available data to assess indicators such as material circularity, product lifespan, and design-for-disassembly. 

3. Manual Review: Addresses gaps in automated data through qualitative evaluation of transition narratives and disclosures. 

4. Active Ownership: Encourages investor engagement with portfolio companies to foster long-term improvements in circularity performance. 

This integrated approach bridges the gap between data-driven screening and investor stewardship, enhancing both rigor and strategic influence. 

Main Findings 

The findings present both challenges and opportunities for integrating circularity into sustainable finance: 

• Lack of Standardization 

A recurring theme was a conceptual ambiguity around circularity, as different practitioners interpreted it in varying ways. There is currently no standardized or universally accepted approach to assessing circularity in investments, which makes its scalability more difficult. 

• Proxy Reliance 

GHG emissions remain the default proxy for sustainability, overshadowing the complexities of assessing and defining nature and how it is affected by human-led business activities. 

• Challenges around data quality and availability 

Other prominent challenges were the quality and availability of sustainability and specifically circularity data provided by companies. This was highlighted as an issue limiting integration into portfolio design. 

• Proof of Concept – CIT in Practice  

Applying the CIT, we constructed a portfolio of 39 consumer goods companies and benchmarked it against sector-specific indices. The circular portfolio achieved comparable financial performance relative to traditional benchmarks but demonstrated greater resilience during periods of market volatility. This suggests that circularity metrics may bolster risk-adjusted returns and improve foresight in capital allocation. 

• Alternatives of the CIT 

The discussion of the research elaborates on potential adaptations of the CIT, including the expansion of the manual analysis in regard to its feasibility and added value, the third-party verification of data and its impact on reliability, transparency, and data quality and availability, and the aspect of active engagement 

Implications and Future Research 

The conducted research explores the reasons behind the absence of a standardized understanding of circularity within the investment landscape, suggesting that this may be partly due to the concept’s relative immaturity. It also highlights the growing relevance and potential influence of circularity in a world marked by geopolitical uncertainty and complex challenges. In addition, the research examines the composition of the designed portfolio, which leans more towards companies demonstrating transitional circular potential rather than incorporating companies with fully circular business models. This underscores the significance of corporate initiatives and forward-looking commitments in advancing circularity. 

While the study focused on the consumer goods sector, the CIT was designed with cross-sector applicability in mind. Sectoral expansion should be guided by materiality considerations. Promising applications include construction, industrial manufacturing, and agriculture, where resource intensity and environmental impact are significant. 

Integrating circularity into investment decision-making does not compromise financial outcomes. On the contrary, it offers a pathway to enhanced risk mitigation, portfolio resilience, and alignment with long-term sustainability goals. As data quality improves and circular economy principles become institutionalized, tools like the CIT will be essential in shaping the next generation of sustainable investing. 

About the Authors 

Prof. Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor in Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Kristjan is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). As a primary area of focus, he studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance. He has a background in International Relations and Economics.  

Cecilie Duch has a HD in business administration and accounting, alongside a Cand.merc in strategy, organization and leadership topped with a minor in ESG from Copenhagen business school (CBS). She has a lead role as a sustainability auditor and consultant. She consults on topics such as ESG, VSME and CSRD reporting, internal sustainability controlling environments and audits of annual sustainability reports. Academically she focuses on sustainability in the business sphere spanning reporting, integration, and responsible investments.

Nathalie Fichte recently completed a MSc in Strategy, Organization, and Leadership with a Minor in Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). She was working in sustainability consulting and assurance and has prior experience in the area of international development cooperation. This August, she will be continuing working within the field of ESG through joining the department of Management, Society, and Communication at the center for sustainability at CBS as a research assistant. Her academic interest spans from circular economy, ESG reporting, to sustainable finance topics.

By Prof. Kristjan Jespersen, Oliver Daniel Koch and Ida Marie Arends. 

In today’s rapidly evolving landscape, financial institutions are increasingly pressured to prioritize Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations. But what does strategic ESG alignment really entail, and how does it shape sustainability commitments in the Danish banking sector? 

Denmark, renowned for its proactive stance on sustainability, provides a rich context to explore these dynamics. At the heart of this landscape is Nykredit, whose status as a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI) and its unique association-owned structure position it uniquely to support Denmark’s ambitious green transition. 

Balancing Stakeholder Expectations 

Banks today must navigate complex stakeholder environments, balancing long-term sustainability with profitability. Through our study of Nykredit, we applied both Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory, shedding light on how banks balance societal and institutional pressures while strategically managing diverse stakeholders. 

Our research found that stakeholders within the Danish banking industry hold diverse expectations regarding ESG actions. For Nykredit, stakeholders such as regulators, owners, civil society, and customers emerge as particularly influential, due to the bank’s ownership structure and customer-centric business model. 

Illustration 1: Power/Attention Matrix of Influence from Stakeholders on Nykredit and Peers 

ESG Integration and Institutional Pressures 

Nykredit, along with its peers, experiences significant regulatory pressures, reflecting strong coercive isomorphism. Regulations have increasingly formalized corporate governance processes, compelling banks to adopt consistent ESG standards. Alongside regulatory pressures, mimetic pressures – where institutions follow leading practices – have pushed Danish banks toward convergence in sustainability commitments. 

Yet, Nykredit stands apart by proactively integrating ESG responsibilities at the highest decision-making levels and through differentiated sustainability commitments. Rather than widespread ESG campaigns, Nykredit emphasizes targeted communication with key stakeholder groups, enhancing its responsiveness and reinforcing its leadership position among peers. 

Benchmarking ESG Leadership 

A comparative analysis against Denmark’s largest banks shows Nykredit’s proactive and strategic leadership. Nykredit’s strategic alignment with stakeholder expectations has not only concretized its ESG efforts but has also elevated the ambition and depth of these initiatives, positioning the bank strongly in addressing climate-related risks and enhancing overall resilience and reputation. 

Our findings indicate that conflicting stakeholder expectations are not fundamentally opposed but rather differ in terms of urgency, ambition, and pace. This nuanced understanding offers valuable insights for financial institutions aiming to align their strategies effectively with stakeholder expectations. 

Illustration 2: Benchmarking of Nykredit, Danske Bank, Nordea, and Jyske Bank 

*SBTi validated. 

Practical and Theoretical Implications 

For banks and financial institutions, our study highlights the importance of viewing competitors as ESG stakeholders whose strategies significantly influence sector-wide standards. It underscores how stakeholder-oriented ownership structures can foster ESG leadership, providing banks with practical insights for strategic planning and stakeholder engagement. 

On the theoretical front, the study challenges traditional assumptions in Institutional Theory about uniformity in ESG practices. It demonstrates how banks strategically leverage isomorphic pressures to enhance their sustainability profiles and competitive advantage. 

Conclusion: Strategic ESG as a Competitive Advantage 

Ultimately, our research underscores that aligning ESG strategies with stakeholder expectations transcends mere compliance or reputation management. Instead, it becomes a strategic enabler driving deeper sustainability commitments, competitive differentiation, and institutional leadership. Nykredit’s experience illustrates clearly how proactive engagement and alignment with stakeholders can fundamentally transform a bank’s ESG strategy, setting a benchmark for sustainable finance across the sector. 

About the Authors 

Prof. Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor in Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Kristjan is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS). As a primary area of focus, he studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance. He has a background in International Relations and Economics.  

Ida Marie Arends holds a MSc in General Management and Analytics with a minor in ESG, Metrics, Reporting, and Sustainable Investments from Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Ida works in Application Portfolio Management in e-Trading at Nordea Markets, where responsibilities include assessing and managing risks, application governance, and compliance of trading and sales applications. 

Oliver Daniel Koch holds a MSc in General Management and Analytics with a minor in ESG, Metrics, Reporting, and Sustainable Investments from Copenhagen Business School (CBS). Oliver works as an analyst in Institutions in Nykredit Markets, where responsibilities include overseeing Nykredit’s correspondence network in Denmark and internationally and relational work with institutional clients, mainly banks.