Global Green Finance Index 5: Europe Leads The Way For Green Finance – and Electric-Vehicle Fleets

Since we at TextileFuture are convinced that you are all occupied with the consequences of Covid-29 pandemic, we would like to bring up some other topics. Global Green Finance Index is just one of it, and we feel sure that you will enjoy reading these results.

The second feature titled “Charging electric-vehicle fleets: How to seize the emerging opportunity” is based upon an article of McKinsey and gives a oversight of the electric-vehicle fleets, many companies will entertain, with a focus on the U.S., but the conclusions are particularly valid anywhere in the world.

Here starts the first feature:

The reports cover. All graphs courtesy by Zyen

GGFI 5 Headlines

Continuous Improvement Being Sustained

• There is growing confidence in the development of green finance across all regions. Ratings of green finance rose in almost all centres for both depth and quality. All centres received a higher rating for depth than in GGFI 4; and all but five centres received a higher rating in quality.

Europe Leads The World In Green Finance

• Western Europe continues to lead the world’s centres in green finance depth and quality, taking nine of the top ten places in depth and the top 12 places in quality. This reflects the continuing work being undertaken by European financial institutions, central banks, regulators, and the European Union to embed sustainability in their regulatory work.

Specialised Centres Outperforming The Established Order

• Amsterdam retained its leading position in the depth index, with Luxembourg still in second place.

• London retained its position as first in the quality index, albeit with a smaller margin than before, with Amsterdam only 6 rating points behind. The leading centres in Western Europe are catching up with London’s ratings for quality and on current trends, London will drop to third in the quality rankings by the time we publish GGFI 6 in six months’ time.

• Larger, well-established generalist financial centres are not rated highly as green financial centres. For example, Singapore, which consistently ranks in the top five centres in the Global Financial Centres Index, and which has recently launched a green investments programme and taken action on stimulating green investment and lending, ranks 27th for depth and 21st for quality in GGFI 5.

Green Finance In China: Progress And Prospects

• The last few years have seen explosive growth in the uptake of green finance in China. Great strides have been made in the wholesale adoption of green bonds and green loans as well as innovation in green fintech and the adoption of mandatory environmental reporting.

• However, in common with other systems around the world, the Chinese financial system continues to provide capital for environmentally damaging activities such as coal mining and high-carbon energy generation. This suggests that despite recent impressive progress, there is still a long way to go to green the financial system as a whole.

• China has made substantial progress in greening its financial system driven by a strong political commitment and implemented via a top-down governance model. China has not only begun to make serious inroads into existing green finance markets, such as green bonds but is also a pioneer in new areas in green finance governance and monetary policy.

• Looking forward, China needs to speed up its gains in this field in order to finance an increasingly ambitious climate and environmental agenda. Only by driving cultural change, which moves green finance from niche to mainstream within the financial system can these goals be achieved. What remains to be seen is the pace at which this transition can be made, in a financial system that faces many other challenges.

Leading Centres

• On depth, the leading nine centres all stayed in the top group, with some minor adjustments in placing. Vienna and Geneva moved into the top ten, on equal ratings. Vancouver dropped from 10th to 17th place.

• On quality, Vienna moved into the top ten and Geneva regained its lead over Brussels to take it into 9th place. Munich has fallen to 11th position. London’s lead in the quality index has reduced from 52 points in GGFI 1 to 6 in GGFI 5, with Amsterdam and Zürich both able to overtake its rating in the next six months.

• Narrow margins continue to separate centres at top of the tables. Among the top ten centres the spread of ratings is 44 out of 1000 for depth (47 in GGFI 4) and also 44 for quality (53 in GGFI 4).

Western Europe

• Western Europe continues to improve its ratings across depth and quality, with all centres receiving improved ratings for both depth and quality.

• Vienna rose 16 places for depth and nine places for quality to enter the top ten on both measures.

• Hamburg fell back slightly on both measures, while Geneva gained ground.

• Hamburg, Munich, Edinburgh, and Lichtenstein fell in the rankings for both depth and quality.

• Oslo entered the index for the first time, ranking 12th for depth and 13th for quality.

North America

• Montréal again took first place in the region for depth, retaining at ninth position overall, but fell six places to 19th in the quality measure. San Francisco was again the leading centre for quality in North America, although it dropped two places overall to 13th. It increased its ranking by one place to 16th in the depth index.

• Vancouver, Boston, and Calgary fell in the rankings for both depth and quality, while Los Angeles improved its position on both measures.

• Canadian centres continue to outperform the USA both in depth and quality.


• Asia/Pacific centres overall fell back in the rankings for both depth and quality, even though ratings improved overall, meaning that other centres improved their performance at a faster rate.

• Sydney has taken the lead in the region in both depth and quality, with Beijing second for depth and Singapore second for quality.

• Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Melbourne fell more than five ranking places since GGFI 4 for depth. For quality, Guangzhou improved its ranking place 13 places, and Kuala Lumpur was up six places, while Melbourne dropped 13 places.

Middle East & Africa

• Casablanca maintained its position as the leading centre in the region, although its overall ranking dropped as Western European centres continued to move forwards. Tel Aviv is in second place in the region on both measures.

• Centres in the region generally lost ground in the quality index.

• Doha entered the GGFI for the first time.

Latin America & The Caribbean

• São Paulo retained its leading position in the region, although its rank dropped slightly in both depth and quality as new centres entered the index. Cayman Islands took second place in the region for depth and quality.

• Rio de Janeiro and Bermuda fell in the rankings for both depth and quality.

Eastern Europe & Central Asia

• Prague continued to lead the region, and rose eight places to 32nd for depth, while falling ten places to 32nd for quality.

• Warsaw and Moscow fell in both the depth and quality rankings.

Full details of GGFI 5 can be found at

Dr Rhian-Mari Thomas, Chief Executive of the Green Finance Institute, said:

“Unlike previous economic trends or cycles, the inviolable nature of the physics of climate change means that whilst there remains some uncertainty about how exactly we embed science into our business, finance, regulatory and policy decision making, decarbonising our global economy is an imperative and is ultimately inevitable.

Successfully reallocating capital towards the opportunities presented by this economic transformation requires an understanding of the technologies and the societal behaviours that are rapidly replacing existing systems.”

Wang Yao, Director General of the International Institute of Green Finance, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, said:

“From a Chinese perspective, we are pleased to see strong representation in the Global Green Finance Index from the key Chinese financial centers of Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong. While green finance is a rather new concept in the Chinese context, through strong political commitment and a top-down governance model, China made substantial progress in greening its financial system and creating global top tier green financial centers.”

Professor Michael Mainelli, Executive Chairman of Z/Yen, said: “Green finance, to date, has depended on public policy. Public policy, to date, has largely been driven by public awareness. This heavy dependence on public policy distinguishes green finance from ‘normal’ finance. The strength of centres in Western Europe in green finance reflects both the action taken by the European Union, governments, and regulatory authorities, as well as public demand for action on sustainability.”

We invite all those with an interest in green finance to take part in GGFI 6 by rating the financial centres you know here –

The full Report can be had here

Top Centres Drop In Global Financial Centres Index Ratings Reflecting Uncertainty Over Trade and Geopolitical Unrest

GFCI 27 Headlines

New York again headed the rankings in the Global Financial Centres Index 27, launched today by Z/Yen Group in partnership with the China Development Institute (CDI) in London and Seoul.

London retained its second position, and Tokyo jumped into third place, easing out Hong Kong, Singapore, and Shanghai.

GFCI 27 showed a high level of volatility, with 26 centres rising ten or more places in the rankings and 23 falling ten or more places. This may reflect the uncertainty around international trade and the impact of geopolitical and local unrest with a flight to stability; and reflects the importance of sustainable finance, with Western European centres benefitting, and centres with a legacy of brown finance losing ground.

The top 20 centres are shown in the table below:

Other News

• Nine of the top ten centres in the index had lower ratings (eight of these centres fell by 12 points or more). Of the next 40 centres, 24 improved their rating while 16 fell.

• Eastern Europe & Central Asia showed the strongest regional improvement with twelve centres increasing their rating, while only two centres received lower ratings.

Leading Centres

• New York retains its first place in the index, further extending its lead over London from 17 to 27 points (although the ratings for both centres dropped by more than 20 points). Tokyo moved up three places to rank third in the index. Hong Kong fell from third place to sixth. Five Asian centres are now within ten points of London.

• Geneva, Los Angeles, and San Francisco entered the top 10, easing out Dubai, Shenzhen, and Sydney.

Within the top 30 centres, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Geneva, Hamburg, and Stockholm all rose by more than ten places.

Western Europe

• After a mixed performance in GFCI 26, this region had a strong performance in GFCI 27, with 23 centres rising in the rankings and five falling. Fourteen centres increased their ranking by ten places or more, including Geneva which is now in the top 10.


• Asia/Pacific Centres had a somewhat downbeat performance with fifteen centres falling in the rankings and ten rising. This appears to reflect levels of confidence in the stability of Asian centres and in their approach to sustainable finance, which appears to be growing in its effect on the overall rating of centres.

• Tokyo and Shanghai improved their ranking in the top 10, whilst Singapore and Hong Kong fell.

North America

• North American centres showed little change from GFCI 26, with the exceptions of Calgary, which climbed 17 places, and Toronto which fell 12 places.

Four out of the eleven North American centres are in the top 20.

Eastern Europe & Central Asia

• All bar two centres in this region improved their rating (the exceptions being Nur-Sultan and Istanbul). Nur-Sultan may rise rapidly as people become more familiar with the new name and residence of the Astana International Financial Centre.

• Nine of the centres improved their ranking (moving mainly from the bottom of the index to its middle), with four falling and one (Moscow) remaining in the same position.

Middle East & Africa

• Centres in the Middle East and Africa performed poorly with ten of the 13 centres falling in ranking. Only Nairobi and Riyadh improved their position. Tehran entered the index for the first time.

Latin America & The Caribbean

• Centres in Latin America & The Caribbean also performed poorly, with only the British Virgin Islands increasing its ranking (by 15 places). Barbados is a new entry.

Island Centres

• The British Crown Dependencies’ performances bounced back with the Isle of Man up 12 places in the rankings, Jersey up 10, and Guernsey rising 19 places.


• For the second time, we include within the GFCI a separate index ranking financial centres as competitive places for FinTech.

New York leads the FinTech rankings, followed by Beijing, Shanghai, London, and Singapore. Seven of the top ten centres for FinTech are Chinese.

• Vilnius, on its first entry in the GFCI, ranks 13th in the FinTech ranking.

Full details of GFCI 27 can be found at

The Mayor Of Seoul, Mr Park, Won-soon, said:

“Seoul Metropolitan Government has cultivated Yeouido to be one of the world-leading financial centres and implemented various policies to support finance industries in Seoul. The expertise and data-based information of the Z/Yen Group were a great help for Seoul Metropolitan Government to support finance and fintech industries.”

Professor Michael Mainelli, Executive Chairman of Z/Yen, said:

“These are challenging times for the financial sector. In this edition of the GFCI, there has been a shift to established centres, and the political stability of Western Europe. Uncertainty about trade, the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has led to much more volatility in the index results than is normal. Competition remains fierce amongst financial centres.”

About GGFI 5 GGFI 5 rates 67 financial centres across the world on the depth and quality of their green finance offering, combining assessments from financial professionals with quantitative data which form instrumental factors. GGFI 5 uses 4290 financial centre assessments collected from 717 people working in green finance who responded to the GGFI online questionnaire. GGFI is updated regularly and ratings change as assessments and instrumental factors change. To find out more about sponsorship opportunities, joining the Vantage Financial Centres network, further research and bespoke reports on individual financial centres, please contact us (For more information please email Mike Wardle at or by phone on +44 (0) 20 7562 9562 or +44 (0) 7880 737319.
Previous Editions Previous editions of the GGFI can be accessed at
Long Finance GGFI is part of the Long Finance initiative (, which undertakes research programmes on Financial Centre Futures, Sustainable Futures, Distributed Futures, Eternal Coin, and Meta-Commerce. Please get in touch for more details on Long Finance.

Here starts the second feature:

Charging electric-vehicle fleets – How to seize the emerging opportunity

By guest authors Rob Bland, Wenting Gao, Jesse Noffsinger, and Giulia Siccardo. Rob Bland is a partner in McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office, Wenting Gao is a consultant in the Houston office, Jesse Noffsingeris an associate partner in the Seattle office, and Giulia Siccardo is an associate partner in the San Francisco office.

By 2030, the US market for energy-optimisation services to support the charging of electric-vehicle fleets could be worth USD 15 billion per year. Here is how companies can capture the opportunity.

As more people and organisations acquire electric vehicles (EVs), companies will have chances to lift their revenues not only by selling more electric power and charging infrastructure but also by providing services that support the charging of EVs. EV fleets represent a particularly promising segment of the potential market for charging services, which can help fleet operators reduce their costs by procuring and managing energy in efficient ways. In the United States, the market for fleet-charging services could amount to USD 15 billion per year by 2030. Although this market is fragmented and undeveloped, it is not too early for companies to position themselves to compete in it. Companies should recognise that delivering these services will likely require new business models—and prepare accordingly.

Finding the profit in EV fleet charging

Thanks to such factors as falling costs, widening availability, and support from policy makers, US sales of commercial EVs have continued to grow. Looking ahead, the operators of vehicle fleets may be especially enthusiastic buyers of EVs. EVs do cost more than comparable vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs). However, their superior efficiency, the moderate price of electricity, and the high utilisation of fleet vehicles allow fleet operators to quickly recoup the extra up-front cost of an EV and achieve a lower total cost of ownership. Our estimate suggests that fleet EVs can have a total cost of ownership that is 15 to 25 % less than that of equivalent ICE vehicles by 2030. 1

Assuming widespread EV adoption, McKinsey projects that commercial and passenger fleets in the United States could include as many as eight million EVs by 2030 (compared with fewer than 5000 in 2018), which would amount to between 10 and 15 % of all fleet vehicles. Powering those EVs will require a great deal of investment and infrastructure. McKinsey estimates that the United States will need some USD 11 billion of capital investment by 2030 to deploy the 13 million chargers needed for all of the country’s EVs. 2 Fleet EVs alone would consume up to 230 terawatt-hours of power per year, which would be approximately 6 % of current US power generation. Their batteries would offer roughly 30 gigawatt-hours of electricity-storage capacity, or 15 to 20 % of projected capacity in 2030.

Mass deployment of EV charging infrastructure will bring opportunities to run that equipment more efficiently and cost effectively. Our estimates indicate that services to support the charging of EV fleets could be worth some USD 15 billion in annual revenues and cost savings. Much of that money would come from three activities (exhibit). 3

  • Procuring renewable power directly from the source. Purchasing electricity directly from off-grid generation facilities, rather than the power grid, could yield $8.6 billion in cost savings, thanks to the difference between retail and wholesale energy prices (without accounting for avoided demand charges, which we discuss below). Our analysis suggests that in many geographies, the least expensive form of off-grid power would be solar, generated from on-site installations or purchased under direct contracts with large-scale installations.
  • Offering energy-management services. Commercial-scale batteries would let fleet operators buy power during off-peak hours and use the stored power to recharge EVs when electricity prices are highest. Practicing time-of-use arbitrage in this way could produce cost savings of roughly USD 4.4 billion.
  • Providing ancillary grid services. Selling power stored in EV batteries back to the grid during periods of peak demand, which is a form of “vehicle to grid” (V2G) service, not only lessens maximum loads on the grid but also allows EV owners to capitalize on high electricity prices. Similarly, charging stations can be configured to refill EV batteries with grid power when prices dip. Doing this helps vehicle owners avoid demand charges (additional fees, levied according to the maximum rate at which power is drawn), which can make up about 90 % of a charging station’s electric bill. 4 Fleets with lower vehicle utilization and reliable charging patterns would be particularly suitable for V2G services. School buses, for example, have predictably low utilization during hours when power demand peaks. Setting EV-recharging patterns to deliver V2G services and minimize demand charges could generate USD 1.6 billion in cost savings and revenues.

We believe that opportunities in EV fleet charging will materialize first in places with high-demand charges and sunny weather, which makes solar-power generation more economical. A favorable policy environment is important, too. Just as policies have aided the growth of the US market for EVs, they could also help the EV fleet-charging market to develop. No fewer than 15 states and territories offer incentives and tax credits for the installation of EV charging stations. (One reason for policy makers to support the development of the fleet-charging sector is that optimized fleet charging could also bring about other outcomes, such as reduced use of energy-intensive thermal “peaker” plants, expansion of renewable-generation capacity, and lower emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.)

Capturing opportunities in EV fleet charging

We believe that companies can best capture the opportunities in the EV fleet-charging market by offering a well-rounded set of services. To do this, four elements will need to be in place:

  • Hardware and software integration, which helps fleet operators optimize energy and vehicle use by setting driving schedules and routes, charging intervals, and vehicle maintenance in alignment with customer demand, power prices, traffic conditions, and charging-station availability. Such solutions may need to be customized or developed.
  • Digital, analytics, and connectivity supporting activities across the value chain, from data management to customer communications.
  • A large base of installed EV chargers running at high utilization rates.
  • Access to price signals from the power market, which can help optimize charging by enabling real-time decisions and avoiding peaker-plant energy generation.

Several kinds of companies have begun offering EV fleet-charging services, though they have yet to develop all of the capabilities described above. Solar-power companies have ventured into the business, generally with solutions that target individual vehicle owners rather than fleet operators. A segment of solar companies, solar carport providers, serves commercial and municipal fleets. But few of those offer substantial storage capacity, and their off-grid systems carry high balance-of-system costs (required costs related to hardware, software, and services other than the solar panel or battery).

Utility companies manage most customer touchpoints and data, so they are well positioned to market new offerings. However, in the United States, about 60 % of US power demand is found in competitive generation markets, where offering integrated charging services is difficult because power producers and distribution utilities must be separate companies. Makers of EV charging equipment are moving further downstream into energy management and operations, but few of them generate power. Nor do providers of energy-management services.

Companies that wish to provide EV fleet operators with charging services will need to look beyond existing business models. It may require an investor or a well-capitalised business to combine multiple entities into one with all the right capabilities, or complementary businesses to join forces in a partnership.

The TextileFuture Newsletter of last week

Perspectives for North America’s fashion industry in a time of crisis and consumer sentiment in the most touched countries by the virus  

The highlights of TextileFuture’s News of last week. For your convenience just click on the feature.


Cematex elects permanent Secretary General

Dr. Nora Anna Escherle will be the new managing director of the Swiss Association of Women Engineers (SVIN)


Nestlé recognised for higher animal welfare standards


As China recovers from COVID-19, small businesses are struggling to re-open

PRODYE installation begins in China


Is anyone still shopping for Clothes during the Coronavirus?


Unilever outlines extensive Coronavirus response programme

SHIMA SEIKI releases Data for Another Knitted Mask

Burberry contributes to fight against COVID-19

B&O designated as a COVID-19 essential service by US DOD,  Homeland Security and State of Massachusetts

Turkey increases capacity to meet COVID-19 aggravated demand   

COVID-19 Impact at the International Bureau of WIPO

Wolford has converted its Austria and Slovenia factories into Face Mask Production Sites

COVID-19 outbreak may cause a 50 % drop in sales and production states Euratex

Some say there is a trade-off: save lives or save jobs – this is a false dilemma

The false choice between Lockdowns and the Economy


Making day-to-day warp knitting easier

Resilience down to the smallest detail by Groz- Beckert

Swiss Zehnder Group decreases the dividend for the 2019 financial year

Finland’s Knokkon Textiles grasps the nettle  


Early Impacts of Covid-19 are Crippling the Cotton Supply Chain says ICAC

ICAC’s ‘Cotton Connects’ Videos to keep people informed throughout the COVID-19 Crisis


Swiss retail trade turnover fell in February 2020

At the turn of the year the effects of Corvid-19 leave already first flaws in Germany’s textile world

2019 EDANA Nonwoven Statistics released

ITMF-Survey about the impact of the Corona-pandemic on the global textile industry

Swiss Consumer Prices increased by 0.1 % in March 2020

OECD annual inflation slowed marginally to 2.2 % in February 2020

A Widening Toll on  U.S. Jobs – This thing is going to come for us all

U.S. Employers cut 701000 Jobs in March 2020


Homo ex Data: Design in the Age of Big Data  

3D Printing

SHINING 3D is using 3D Scanning and 3D Printing Technologies to support the allocation of much-needed medical equipment in the fight against Covid-19


Resolve Business Management launches Global PrintExpo as first Virtual Exhibition and Conference facilty

Innovation Forum announces that this year’s Sustainable Apparel and Textiles Conference will now take place virtually on April 27 – 29, 2020

3D Printing

University of Chemical Technology: Strengthening FDM 3D Printing with Starch Additive for PCL


Textile Exchange’s free online resources


2020 North American International Auto Show Cancels Amid COVID-19 Pandemic/Expected TCF Centre Conversion

Men’s future Fashion

Spanish Tailor Adrián Seligra launches a brand New Book about the Future of Men’s Fashion


Mike Ashley apologises to staff for handling of Frasers Group’s coronavirus response

Coronavirus: Moody’s downgrades M&S’s credit score

L.L.Bean CEO says Congress must do more to address ‘serious’ retail crisis


Robots help to fight coronavirus worldwide

Success Story

Reifenhäuser Reicofil supplies meltblown line for the production of filter material for FFP respirators to Berry Global Group


Efficient solutions for a clean economic growth

H&M Group Sustainability Performance Report 2019


NCTO Statement on U.S. Administration’s Reported Tariff Deferral


ICIS Free Webinar on “Do you know how Coronavirus is impacting petrochemicals?” (April 2, 2020)

Webinar by Xometry – Master On-Demand Manufacturing with Xometry Greg (April 9, 2020)