《转型金融指南》全球意见征询问卷
Global Consultation Questionnaire on the “Transition Finance Guidelines”

Is the structure of the Guidelines, Principles, Universal Factors and Contextual Factors appropriately explained and workable (i.e. the construct and relationship between them, rather than the Principles and Factors themselves)?

2.2 在指导原则“可信的雄心目标”中，有关“可信路径”的定义是否兼顾了以下几点：(1) 便于实践评估，(2) 有效驱动脱碳，以及(3)充分考虑到了新兴市场的工业运营中面临的能源安全和自身发展相关的挑战？若尚未能兼顾以上要点，您建议应进行哪些完善或调整？

Does the Credible Pathway definition (contained in the Credible Ambition Principle) achieve the right balance between 1) being practical to assess 2) driving decarbonisation and 3) acknowledging the energy security and development challenges of industrial operators in emerging markets? If not, are there builds or adjustments you would propose?

3.1 您是否认同通用要素的整体设计？（包括阶段性目标&指标、实施、财务可行性、参与、治理及披露）

Do you agree with the overall themes of the Universal Factors? (Interim Targets & Metrics, Implementation, Financial Viability, Engagement, Governance and Disclosure)

3.2 无论作为资本提供方还是实体企业，您认为参考《通用要素》的评估标准，在实践层面是否具备可操作性且合理（尤其是与现有披露要求重叠的内容部分）？您认为哪些通用要素涉及的证据收集将会比较困难？为什么？针对此类举证难题，您有哪些建议？

As either a capital provider or an entity, do you feel the assessment against the criteria in the Universal Factors is practically implementable and reasonable (considering the overlap with existing disclosure requirements)? Which Universal Factors do you foresee being most difficult to evidence and why? How would you practically approach that challenge of evidencing?

Do you believe an entity should be required to meet all the written criteria, or do you think it would be appropriate to split the criteria into categories of “essential” and “desirable”?

3.4 若您支持对标准进行分类，请就《指南》中提出的分类方案提出改进意见，并/或选出您认为最具操作可行性的划分方式并阐述理由。

If you support the splitting of the criteria, please comment on the split suggested in the Guidelines and/or select which approach could practically work best and explain why.

3.5 若您认同特定实体仅需满足核心标准，您认为应如何界定适用的实体范围？

If you believe certain entities are only required to meet ‘essential’ criteria, how would you set an expectation of what type of entity this is?

Do the Universal Factors set an appropriate threshold for transitioning entities including entities in emerging markets or medium-sized entities?

Are there any amendments required in relation to the carbon lock in wording?

3.8 关于通用要素，您是否有其他补充意见, 包括应该参考的其他相关框架或指南的建议？

Are there any other comments you would like to make about the Universal Factors, including other frameworks or guidance that should be referred to?

4.1 您是否认同情境要素的考量方式和适用条件？若不认同，应如何优化使其清晰明确？

Do you agree with how and when Contextual Factors are considered? If not, how could it be made clearer or improved?

4.2 关于情境要素，您是否还有其他需要补充的意见？

Are there any other comments you would like to make about the Contextual Factors?

Is the purpose of the Implementation Handbook clear, and does it deliver on that purpose? If not, how do you think the structure, length, navigation could be improved?

6.1 本小节是否充分阐明了《指南》与其他方法论和框架的衔接与互操作性问题？有哪些地方需要更清晰的说明，或哪些重要框架有遗漏？

How well does this section address the interaction of the Guidelines with other methodologies and frameworks? Do any areas require more clarity or are there any significant frameworks we have missed?

注：基于此前咨询所获反馈，我们尤其关注对以下新增章节的反馈意见：3.4与《净零投资框架》的互操作性 和 3.6与公私债务框架的互操作性

Following feedback from the previous consultation, we are particularly interested in opinions on new sections 3.4 Interoperability with the Net Zero Investment Framework and 3.6 Interoperability with frameworks for public and private debt.

6.2 您是否担心本《指南》与您正在使用的其他框架或分类标准存在冲突或不一致？若有，请具体说明是那些冲突或不一致？

Do you have concern that the Guidelines conflict or are inconsistent with other frameworks and taxonomies you use? If so, what conflicts or inconsistencies are you most concerned about?

Is this section useful to you? If no, please suggest how it might be added to, e.g. is there a necessity to see examples of credible primary and secondary data, and when proxy data might need to be used?

Do the examples provided in this section make it clearer how certain criteria could be evidenced and what the threshold of expectation is? How could the structure/depth of the case studies be improved to be more practically useful?

8.2 您是否认同案例在《手册》中的编排方式？即：将案例集中收录于单一文档是否便于使用，或您更倾向于采用可动态更新的网页形式（此举将大幅缩减《手册》篇幅）？

Do you agree with the placement of the case studies within the Handbook? i.e. Is it useful to have them in one document, or would you prefer to have them as live web pages which would then reduce the length of the handbook?

8.3 针对哪些通用要素（或具体标准），您认为有必要增补更多案例？

Which Universal Factors (or specific criteria) would it be useful to see additional case studies on?

8.4 对于本节中的所有案例研究，您是否有其他具体反馈意见？

Do you have any other specific feedback on any of case studies in this section?

How would you propose the Guidelines could better address challenges for EMDEs and SME? Can you provide examples of tools you have used or case studies in these contexts that helped address those challenges? (e.g. good practice for assessing the credibility of pathways for high-emitting sectors in emerging markets).

Is there any other feedback you would like to give on this section?

Is the structure of this section intuitive and useful? (i.e. splitting the content between pre investment and post-investment, addressing key themes like strategies and data availability). Do you have any suggestions of how to make this section more useful?

10.2 若您希望本小节内容扩展至其他资产类别，请告知具体类别，以及您是否有意向参与起草工作？（委员会目前计划拓展至实物资产、私募债权等类别，具体将根据实际情况推进）。

If you are interested in seeing this section expanded to other asset classes, please let us know which ones and whether you would be interested in collaborating in drafting? (the Council is currently planning on building out to real assets, private debt and potentially others, though this is dependent on capacity).

10.3 《手册》是否就"可信转型路径"及与《巴黎协定》兼容性，为用户提供了充分指导？在哪些方面（如有）可以进一步阐述或改进？

Does the Handbook provide enough guidance in relation to Credible Pathways and compatibility with the Paris Agreement for users on how to satisfy these expectations? What, if anything, could be made clearer or improved?

11.1 我们欢迎对《指南》或《手册》的任何其他反馈或建议，包括但不限于：需要删减的内容，以及论证不足或待完善的内容。如有，请在下方填写。

Please let us know if you have any other feedback or suggestions to improve the Guidelines or Handbook. This may include removal of material or build out of areas you consider to be under-developed or absent.

We would be grateful for any case studies with relevance to these Guidelines. Particularly where challenges have been faced, or where it has been difficult to assess whether an entity meets the requirements to qualify as transition finance. Where assessment criteria used bear some resemblance to the Principles/Factors, we are very interested to know how this has been applied.

您可在下方简要填写，或发送邮件至transitionfinancecouncil@cityoflondon.gov.uk。

If you would prefer, please email your case studies to transitionfinancecouncil@cityoflondon.gov.uk.