Connect with us

Finance

Finance for Biodiversity updates nature target-setting framework for investors

Published

on

Finance for Biodiversity updates nature target-setting framework for investors

The Finance for Biodiversity (FfB) Foundation has launched an updated version of its nature target-setting framework for asset managers and asset owners. 

Developed with FfB members, the guidance follows a beta version released in November, and seeks to help investors align financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

The Finance for Biodiversity Pledge was launched in 2020 and boasts 177 signatories, including Amundi, Fidelity International, Legal & General Investment Management and Federated Hermes. Signatories commit to collaborate, engage, set targets and report on biodiversity before 2025.  

In 2021, the FfB Foundation was set up to “support a call to action and collaboration between financial institutions via working groups as a connecting body for contributing signatories and partner organisations”.  

Financial institutions that have signed the pledge can become members of the foundation if they want to be active in the working groups. There are currently 76 members. 

Advertisement

Among the updates to Wednesday’s document surround the types of nature targets for investors to set. 

Target reshuffle

The beta version outlined four types of targets: initiation, sector, engagement and portfolio coverage. 

The latest guidance proposes three types: initiation targets, optional monitoring targets and portfolio targets. 

The initiation targets would still see investors committing to assessing and disclosing their exposure to nature-related impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities in line with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures recommendations.

It also recommends setting targets on governance. For example, an investor could commit to ensuring board or executive-level oversight of the management of nature-related factors by a certain year. 

Advertisement

Turning to the optional monitoring targets, these are designed to ensure investors monitor sector-relevant KPIs “across priority sectors and implement stewardship actions to address the identified key impact drivers on nature”. 

An example of a monitoring target would be the percentage of companies with a deforestation and conversion-free policy, while a stewardship action could see the investor determine the engagement universe of companies to target on nature. 

Finally, for the portfolio targets the Foundation suggests a two-pronged approach: setting portfolio sub-targets, as well as stewardship sub-targets. 

An example of a sub-portfolio target could be that by 2030 a percentage of firms from relevant sectors will have committed to implement a validated Science-Based Target for Nature.

A stewardship sub-target could see an investor commit to engaging with a certain number of companies per year on each of the relevant pressures on nature. 

Advertisement

“The portfolio and stewardship sub-targets are complementary and indissociable as the latter is the lever through which the investor will influence companies to reduce their pressures on nature thereby achieving the required reduction to meet KPI thresholds,” according to the document. 

Unified approach

Another key change since the beta version is the removal of beginner and advanced tracks, which had different timelines for achieving targets. 

Instead, the foundation now advocates for a unified approach to applying these targets over time.

“This adjustment ensures that all targets are set to be achieved by 2030, in alignment with the GBF’s mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. However, investors retain the flexibility to target shorter timeframes according to their specific goals,” it said. 

Currently the framework remains limited to listed equity and corporate bonds – additional asset classes, including sovereign debt, will be integrated into the guidance in future iterations. 

Advertisement

The foundation said it is also planning to create guidance on how to set positive impact targets. 

ENCORE update 

In related news, the ENCORE nature tool has had a major update.

Launched in 2018 to help financial institutions and companies understand how their activities rely on nature, ENCORE is a collaboration between Global Canopy, the UNEP Finance Initiative, and the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).  

Previous updates included in 2019 when its functionality was extended to enable institutions to also assess their impacts on nature. 

One of the latest expansions is growing its previous list of 92 “production processes” to 271 “economic activities”.

Advertisement

These economic activities, ranging from livestock farming to the manufacture of chemicals and nuclear power production, “offer a more detailed breakdown on economic sectors”. 

It has also added information on key value chain links, covering two tiers of suppliers and two tiers of consumers for each economic activity, “enabling users to see their indirect nature-related impacts and dependencies”. 

“The release of an enhanced ENCORE methodological structure and knowledge base is more than just a procedural update,” said Neville Ash, director of UNEP-WCMC.

“The improvements come in response to pioneering users’ appetite to better understand how nature underpins their operations, and we encourage the business and financial community to use the tool to drive their decision-making towards a sustainable future – for economies, consumers and the planet.” 

Advertisement

Finance

Paul Pratt has been appointed Director of Finance and Development at Trilogy Hotels

Published

on

Paul Pratt has been appointed Director of Finance and Development at Trilogy Hotels

Trilogy Hotels is pleased to announce the appointment of Paul Pratt as Director of Finance and Development, a move that reinforces the independent operator’s commitment to optimising financial and operational outcomes across its portfolio.

Pratt joins Trilogy Hotels with more than two decades of senior leadership experience across finance and operations, including key Regional and Vice President finance roles with Accor in both Australia and Asia, as well as prior senior positions with TFE Hotels. Over this time, he has led large multi-country portfolios, partnered closely with owners, and delivered strong financial and operational performance.

In his new role, Pratt will be responsible for driving Trilogy Hotels’ portfolio performance, enhancing financial analysis and feasibility, and contributing to new management opportunities. Trilogy Hotels

Trilogy Hotels
Sydney
Australia

Senior ManagementSydneyAustralia

Continue Reading

Finance

Four things we learned from Wisconsin’s 2024-25 NCAA financial filing

Published

on

Four things we learned from Wisconsin’s 2024-25 NCAA financial filing
play

  • Media rights income from the Big Ten’s TV deal accounted for nearly a third of the department’s total revenue.
  • Volleyball ticket sales saw another significant increase in 2024-25.
  • Football and men’s basketball had the highest team-specific operating expenses at $41.5 million and $12.4 million, respectively.

MADISON – The cost of doing business for the Wisconsin Badgers is nearing the $200 million mark.

The Wisconsin athletic department had $197.9 million in total operating revenue and $193.6 million in total operating expenses in the 2024-25 fiscal year, according to the annual financial report that was due to the NCAA this month and obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

Advertisement

Those figures are up from $190.6 million and $186.7 million, respectively, in the 2023-24 fiscal year. They are nearly identical to UW’s $197.7 million in revenue and $194 million in expenses in 2022-23.

The annual NCAA financial filing comes with several caveats. The way that the NCAA measures revenue and expenses are different from the way that universities may internally count revenue and expenses in their operating budgets. (So the $4.3 million difference in revenue and expenses on the NCAA report does not necessarily equate to a $4.3 million profit.)

The 2024-25 fiscal year ended on June 30, 2025, so the report that becomes available in January 2027 will be more illuminating regarding how Wisconsin is using its resources in the era of direct player compensation following the House vs. NCAA settlement.

That being said, here are three takeaways from the financial report:

Wisconsin’s revenue increasingly tied to media rights

As Wisconsin’s revenue continues to increase, the portion that comes from media rights income unsurprisingly also continues to rise.

Advertisement

The Badgers reported $62.9 million in media rights income in 2024-25 – the second year of the Big Ten’s massive media rights deal with Fox, CBS and NBC – which was up $15.5 million from the $47.4 million in 2023-24. That represented 31.8% of UW’s total reported revenue for 2024-25.

The only other categories that made up more than 10% of total revenue were ticket sales (19.4%), contributions (12.9%) and royalties, licensing, advertisement and sponsorships (12.5%).

Wisconsin reported significantly fewer contributions in the 2024-25 report than in the 2023-24 report – a $16.2 million decrease from $41.8 million in 2023-24 to $25.6 million in 2024-25. But Wisconsin reports the philanthropic funding drawn from the UW Foundation rather than how many contributions the foundation received. So a decrease in reported contributions simply indicates less of a reliance on donations for that fiscal year.

Advertisement

Team travel costs are lower in first season of expanded Big Ten

One of Wisconsin’s biggest areas of savings was in team travel.

After spending $13.7 million in team travel in the 2023-24 fiscal year, Wisconsin reported only $11.2 million in spending on team travel in 2024-25 – an 18.1% decrease. The drop in team travel spending was despite the Big Ten’s addition of USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington.

Much of that increase can be tied to men’s basketball, which went from spending $2.4 million on travel in 2023-24 to $1.5 million in 2024-25. Football also saw a drop in travel costs from $3.7 million to $3.2 million, which is unsurprising given the proximity of road games at Iowa and Northwestern.

Ticket revenue was booming for volleyball, stagnant for basketball programs

The Kelly Sheffield-led Wisconsin volleyball program has kept winning on the court and in the box office.

Advertisement

Wisconsin volleyball ticket sales jumped from $1.6 million in the 2023-24 fiscal year to $2.3 million in the 2024-25 fiscal year. It is a 36.8% one-year increase and a remarkable 216.3% three-year increase since Wisconsin’s national-championship-winning season.

Football ticket sales revenue increased from $24.1 million in 2023-24 to $25.8 million in 2024-25 despite subpar results in Luke Fickell’s second season. The Badgers went 5-7 in 2024 and missed a bowl game for the first time since 2001. (The ticket sales figures from Fickell’s most recent 4-8 season will be in the 2025-26 NCAA financial report that comes out in January 2027.)

Men’s and women’s basketball each experienced decreases in ticket sales in 2024-25. Greg Gard’s program saw a slight dip from roughly $6.7 million to $6.6 million in ticket sales, and women’s basketball saw a drop from $333,584 to $265,680 in Marisa Moseley’s final season at the helm.

Wisconsin women’s basketball benefited in 2023-24 from a home game against Caitlin Clark and Iowa women’s basketball, which drew sellouts across the country. With Clark off to the WNBA and Iowa not on the home slate in 2024-25, UW did not have that same boost.

An athletic department spokesman said the 2024-25 women’s basketball ticket sales were in line with expectations, and the slight fluctuation for men’s basketball was a result of the home schedule being “less conducive for single-game ticket sales.”

Advertisement

Which Wisconsin teams had biggest budgets in 2024-25

Nearly half of Wisconsin’s total operating expenses – $88.9 million of the $193.6 million – were not attributed to a specific team. That keeps any comparisons between different programs at different schools – Wisconsin football vs. Illinois football, for example – from being apples-to-apples.

But the total operating expenses reported for each team does give some idea of where the Badgers are devoting their financial resources within the athletic department. Here are the six teams that had the highest team-specific total operating expenses in 2024-25:

  • Football: $41.5 million
  • Men’s basketball: $12.4 million
  • Men’s ice hockey: $5.5 million
  • Women’s volleyball: $5.3 million
  • Women’s basketball: $5.2 million
  • Women’s ice hockey: $4.3 million

All other UW teams were below $4 million. Men’s tennis had the lowest total operating expenses of any UW team at just over $1 million.

Continue Reading

Finance

German finance minister supports Macron on readying EU trade ‘bazooka’ against Trump

Published

on

German finance minister supports Macron on readying EU trade ‘bazooka’ against Trump

“Everything must be prepared now,” he added, while also emphasizing “we are ready to find solutions. We are extending our hand, but we are not prepared to be blackmailed.”

French President Emmanuel Macron’s office had announced Sunday that France would ask the EU to activate the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, nicknamed the trade bazooka.

Germany is usually more reluctant to take such far-reaching measures, not least to protect its ailing and export-dependent economy. But Klingbeil’s latest comments signal a willingness to take a harder line with Washington — at least on the part of his Social Democrats, that govern in a coalition government with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives.

“We are constantly experiencing new provocations. We are constantly experiencing new antagonism, which President Trump is seeking. And here we Europeans must make it clear that the limit has been reached,” Klingbeil said.

All eyes are now on Merz, who will speak to journalists later on Monday and has in the past been more conciliatory toward the Trump administration than the center-left vice chancellor.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending