Postgraduate elective · five-day intensive

International Sustainable Finance Law

A course built around one question the market has never satisfactorily answered: who decides what counts as green?

Format
5 teaching days
Structure
20 × 90-minute blocks
Mode
Face-to-face, case method
Level
Postgraduate / LLM
Practitioner guests
8–10 per delivery

The argument

Every instrument in this market contains a determination somebody has to make

Sustainable finance is usually taught as a catalogue: green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, carbon credits, taxonomies, disclosure regimes. Taught that way it is a list of labels. This course teaches it as a sequence of decisions, and the identity of the decider changes from day to day.

Each session is read through the same five-part device. Once students have it, they apply it to instruments the course never covers, which is the point.

Greenwashing is what happens when a determination is re-made after the fact, by someone else, against the person who originally made it. The whole week builds to that collision.

The week

Five days, five deciders

Each day opens with a short pre-class commitment task in which students commit to a position in writing, and closes with a debrief against what actually happened in the room.

Day oneThe state decides

Public definition, and what happens to a market when a state withdraws one.

  1. What sustainable finance is forPurpose, mechanism, measurement, accountability, integrity. Each participant maps their own mandate and professional lens onto the framework before any doctrine is taught.
  2. Taxonomies and the regulatory architectureCompeting public definitions across the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Singapore–Asia region — and what the market does when an expected taxonomy fails to arrive.
  3. Disclosure, reporting and supply-chain due diligenceHow the reporting unit gets defined, who assures it, where the boundary of legal concern is drawn, and where enforcement bites.
  4. The state as financier and as issuerDevelopment finance institutions, blended finance and guarantee structures; sovereign green bonds, where the state writes its own eligibility criterion and then issues against it.Guest
Day twoThe parties decide, bilaterally

Definition by negotiation, and definition delegated to a standard neither party wrote.

  1. Green and social loansUse of proceeds, eligibility criteria and reporting covenants. Who signs off on eligibility, and what a lender can actually do when the borrower's project stops qualifying.
  2. Sustainability-linked lendingKPI selection and target calibration, the sustainability co-ordinator's role, and the margin ratchet as the sole consequence. Students negotiate a term sheet and occupy the definer's chair.Exercise
  3. Environmental and social standards as outsourced definitionIFC Performance Standards, the Equator Principles and action-plan mechanics. Neither borrower nor lender drafted the standard, yet both are bound by it through contract.Guest
  4. Renewable energy project financeCut around the environmental and social covenant package rather than generic risk allocation — where the sustainability determination sits inside a project financing.Guest
Day threeThe market decides, answering to nobody

Private standard-setters, proprietary methodologies, and no external body positioned above any of them.

  1. Green bondsFramework, offering document and terms; the competing criteria of the market principles, the climate standard and the European regulation — and the absence of a green event of default.
  2. Sustainability-linked bondsKPI architecture and the structural loopholes documented in the empirical literature; and why the same determination behaves differently in a syndicate than across a bilateral facility.
  3. ESG ratings, second-party opinions and external reviewWho checks the referee. Proprietary methodology, the emerging regulation of ratings providers, and the terminal question in the chain.
  4. Carbon credit integrityCompliance and voluntary market architecture, methodology and validation, and the market's own attempt to build a verifier of the verifiers.Guest
Day fourThe investor decides, for itself

Maximum discretion, with fiduciary duty as the only real constraint on self-definition.

  1. Impact investing: the market and the backlashWhat separates impact from ESG in practice rather than in marketing, how the market is sized, and the current political and commercial retreat.
  2. Impact fundsPlacement memorandum, limited partnership agreement and side letters. Where the impact promise actually lives in the documentation, and what a limited partner can do when it is not kept.
  3. Impact measurement and fiduciary dutyMeasurement frameworks and operating principles set against trustee and fiduciary obligations — the constraint that binds an asset owner writing its own screen.
  4. The investor's screen in practiceHow a large institutional investor builds, applies and defends an exclusion policy. Paired with a fund pitch exercise in which students take the limited partner's chair.GuestExercise
Day fiveA court, regulator or claimant decides, after the fact

The collision. Every determination made earlier in the week gets re-opened by someone who was never party to it.

  1. Mapping ESG and climate litigationThe major strands of climate and sustainability litigation, including parental liability and transnational claims against corporate groups.
  2. Greenwashing enforcement and directors' dutiesThe regulator applying a criterion retrospectively and without notice; disclosure liability and the duty of care as it is now being argued.
  3. Strategic litigation and shareholder activismChallenging the board's own determination from inside the company — resolutions, say-on-climate votes, standing, costs and justiciability.Guest
  4. Complaints mechanisms and access to remedyThe one chain in the course where the challenger is an affected community rather than an investor, and where the process is deliberately not a remedy. Research paper wrap-up.

Who speaks in the room

The course is taught with practitioners who do not agree with each other

Senior practitioners contribute to each delivery, drawn deliberately from opposing vantage points in the same market. The market body that wrote the bond principles presents in the same week as the litigator who argues the resulting architecture produces no remedy. The asset owner who sets a screen presents alongside the fund manager measured against it.

The standing question put to every guest: on your last deal, who actually decided whether it qualified — and what would have happened if they had said no?

Assessment

Students argue a position and then have to defend it

What students take away

A method, not a catalogue

Cut the Crap — the briefing

The developments that matter, tested against the documents.

Subscribe

Delivered via Substack. No spam — unsubscribe anytime.