Key Findings & Take-Aways of the 7th CSPF meeting
Global Investment and Public Funding Context
▪ UN: SDGs
▪ EU: Taxonomy on Sustainable Activities
▪ European Commission is likely to steer projects towards CO2 emission reduction focus.
▪ Private: ESGs (to be replaced)
Possible City Government Roles
Conforming to EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Activities:
▪ Developing frameworks to guide private sector investment and
▪ Defining “social return” linked to procurement
▪ 1. Project tenders including social return
▪ 2. Relevant indices for measuring social return
▪ 3. Effective methods for evaluation/measuring these indices
▪ Cooperative design of projects:
▪ Fostering cooperation among professionals while facilitating interface with citizens through merging front-offices
▪ Meeting with variety of entities, collaborative approach, to avoid repeat applicants (Trondheim experience)
Challenges with “greening and social return”
▪ City contracting from firms with established “social profile” can hurt competition, openness to new entities applying for tenders;
▪ Cumbersome social return section in tenders can lead greater need for consultants, so that funding goes to consultant sector rather than actual ends;
▪ Need to avoid green-washing and social-washing means city has to invest in thorough measuring/evaluation methods/staff; would need to be compensated by clear financial return;
▪ Rising costs associated with non-financial elements in tenders should not be incurred by citizenry, risk of reaction (the Gillet Jaune phenomenon);
▪ Comparing data and publishing:
▪ Comparing financial data across cities is interesting, but inexact given differences in the services offered to citizens, etc.
▪ Informal comparisons and benchmarking are useful, f.e. in structuring investment portfolios, but politicians would have to approve publication.