摘要：在全球应对气候变化与追求经济发展的双重挑战下，如何实现两者的协同共进已成为各国亟需解决的核心议题。当前可持续发展面临哪些现实困境？如何重构经济增长范式、重塑商业格局以及强化全球协作以推进可持续发展进程？为此，新浪财经对话了剑桥大学可持续领导力学院（Cambri
文 | 新浪财经ESG评级中心 李欣然
在全球应对气候变化与追求经济发展的双重挑战下，如何实现两者的协同共进已成为各国亟需解决的核心议题。当前可持续发展面临哪些现实困境？如何重构经济增长范式、重塑商业格局以及强化全球协作以推进可持续发展进程？为此，新浪财经对话了剑桥大学可持续领导力学院（Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership，以下简称CISL）CEO Lindsay Hooper，探讨企业转型、政策制定和国际合作，以及如何在动荡时代实现可持续领导力。
Hooper指出，气候变化与经济发展并非对立关系，而是需要重新定义“增长”的内涵，将市场机制引导至更具韧性、创新性和低碳的经济模式。她认为，各国应通过碳定价、清洁能源投资等政策推动经济转型，加速电气化进程、提升能源效率，并充分重视自然资本的价值。尽管部分企业近期出现了可持续发展承诺的倒退，Hooper强调，真正的领导力在于将可持续性融入企业核心战略。政府需强化监管，金融体系也应全力支持经济转型。
在谈到中国在可持续发展领域的进展时，Hooper认为中国在清洁能源领域已经取得了显著成就，但在低碳转型过程中仍需逐步减少对煤炭的依赖，以增强国际社会对中国在可持续发展领域领导力的信任。她特别指出，国有企业应超越最基本的ESG合规标准，将可持续发展内化为企业战略，并积极参与国际可持续发展标准的制定，以提升自身的长期竞争力和国际地位。
展望未来，Hooper表示，可持续领导力的核心在于系统性思维和对长期公共价值的坚守。技术进步，尤其是人工智能的快速发展，既带来了巨大的机遇，也引发了治理、安全和不平等问题。她强调，必须确保技术进步的普惠性，避免其仅惠及少数精英阶层。在全球范围内，多边合作依然是实现可持续发展的关键。新兴的区域和双边伙伴关系可以作为多边机制的有力补充，共同改造现有体系，以实现可持续发展目标。
以下为对话实录：
Q：气候变化是一个与经济发展相互交织的紧迫问题。您如何看待经济增长与气候行动之间的平衡？各国可以采取哪些实际行动来实现可持续的经济发展并显著减少温室气体排放？
A：要平衡气候行动与经济增长，必须重新审视“增长”的本质。那些破坏自然系统的经济活动，绝非真正的增长，而只是以短期利益为代价，换取长期的损失。我们面临的真正挑战，不是在繁荣与气候行动之间二选一，而是要重新设计市场机制，让市场能够奖励那些具有韧性、富有创新精神且注重长期价值的经济行为，而非仅仅追逐短期回报。
各国应从传统的碳密集型和资源密集型经济模式中转型，迈向以效率提升、循环经济和低碳创新为核心的新型经济模式。这需要明确且有力的政策框架作为支撑，包括实施碳定价机制、加大对清洁能源的投资力度以及制定绿色工业战略等。同时，我们还需要正视那些抵制变革的政治和经济利益集团。如果没有政府的可信行动来制定规则、引导方向，私营部门的积极行动将只能局限于局部和碎片化的进展。
我们不应再纠结于“是否负担得起气候行动”这种问题。一个更值得深思的问题是：我们是否能承受继续构建一个从设计之初就存在脆弱性的经济体系的代价？
在实际行动中，这意味着要加速推进电气化进程，加大对电网的投资与升级；在建筑和工业领域全面扩大能源效率提升的规模；利用公共资金为清洁基础设施项目中的私人资本提供风险保障，降低其投资风险；设计出能够支持创新和绿色制造的工业战略；在财政和监管体系中充分重视自然资本的价值。这些举措并非空洞的理论，只要以高度一致性和规模化的方式加以推进，它们将成为增强经济韧性和竞争力的有效手段。
Q：近期，商业领域在可持续发展方面的努力似乎出现了倒退。例如，一些大型跨国公司和金融机构推迟或搁置了此前设定的雄心勃勃的气候目标。在这种背景下，您认为全球可持续发展的未来前景如何？您认为应采取哪些措施来确保可持续发展能够继续稳步推进？
A：企业可持续发展承诺的退缩是一个现实且令人深思的现象。它充分暴露了当前模式的缺陷：过度依赖自愿行动和以营销为导向的ESG战略，而未能将商业模式和投资流向与系统性风险的现实紧密对齐。这正是CISL最新发布的报告《在颠覆时代竞争》（Competing in the Age of Disruption）所关注的核心问题。该报告为企业在应对挑战的同时继续推进可持续发展提供了一条清晰的路径。值得欣慰的是，许多企业已经深刻认识到这一点，并在支持力度较弱的环境中依然坚定地采取行动。
这并非可持续发展的终点，而是一场战略性的考验。在当前动荡的经济形势下，最可靠的生存之道并非固守现状，而是积极投资于具有长期发展潜力的商业模式和技术——那些与资源高效利用和低碳经济相契合的领域。真正聪明的企业已经意识到，如今的韧性和竞争力不再取决于回避压力，而是取决于如何有效应对这些压力。
我们迫切需要一场变革性的重新定位。政府必须通过强有力的监管来提升行业标准；金融体系亟待重新配置，以全力支持经济转型，投资者应要求企业提供可信的转型计划，而非满足于含糊其辞的承诺；企业自身则必须增强自身韧性，巩固因效率提升而带来的收益，同时推动真正的经济转型——将资本、能力和合作资源集中到能够塑造整个市场并为转型创造激励机制的关键领域。
这意味着企业需要在竞争前开展合作，协调政策和基础设施，发出对低碳材料的明确需求信号，并围绕未来价值重塑整个行业。面对政治阻力时，保持沉默或退缩只会延缓可持续发展的进程，将阵地拱手让给那些从拖延中获利的既得利益者。在全球竞相定义未来市场的激烈竞争中，这种损失是任何有抱负的企业都无法承受的。
可持续发展的未来，将不再仅仅由目标设定和信息披露来决定，而是取决于我们能否构建起一套涵盖金融、政策和工业战略的全方位支持体系，使可持续行动在商业上可行且在战略上具有不可抗拒的吸引力。
Q：我们了解到，您参与过银行业、采掘业、零售业、公用事业和制造业等多个领域的相关研究，并且在中国和中东地区与主要城市和国有企业开展过合作。鉴于您丰富的经验，您如何评价中国在可持续发展方面的表现？您对中国国有企业的可持续发展有何建议？
A：中国在可持续发展的多个领域已经展现出卓越的全球领导力，特别是在太阳能、电动汽车和电池技术方面。正如尼古拉斯·斯特恩 (Nicolas Stern) 勋爵近期所指出的，中国如今正处于清洁能源创新、实施和融资的前沿位置。
当然，在中国低碳转型的过程中，也面临着一些挑战。例如，中国对煤炭以及高排放基础设施的依赖在一定程度上仍然存在。这些因素可能会对中国的气候目标产生一定的影响，甚至可能在当前全球合作至关重要的时刻，削弱国际社会对可持续发展承诺的信任。在一个日益分裂的地缘政治环境中，信任至关重要。在可持续发展方面，如果缺乏承诺与行动的一致性，就无法获得真正的领导地位，尤其是在涉及煤炭的问题上。
在CISL，我们十多年来一直与中国合作伙伴紧密合作，支持那些能够为人类和地球创造共享价值的创新。我们的中英可持续发展创新中心为研究人员、企业和公共机构之间的合作搭建了一个平台。通过这些合作，我们看到，一旦优先事项达成共识且障碍得以清除，中国在工业转型方面的能力是无与伦比的。
国有企业对可持续发展议程的推进至关重要。鉴于它们在能源、基础设施和制造业中的主导地位，国有企业必须超越合规要求，将可持续性融入其核心战略——这不仅是为了实现国家目标，更是为了增强长期竞争力和提升国际地位。这意味着需要更高的透明度、更明确的责任制，以及更积极地参与国际可持续发展标准的制定。
如果我们要在一个有限的地球上实现共存，而不是陷入贸易战和环境冲突，那么中国的角色至关重要。世界不仅需要中国在技术方面发挥领导作用，还需要中国在建立信任方面发挥领导作用。这包括解决当前的矛盾，开始逐步减少煤炭使用，并在仍有可能实现共同进步的领域扩大合作。
Q：您认为可持续领导力中最重要的因素是什么？您是否认为技术进步，尤其是人工智能的快速发展，将重塑商业格局？展望未来，您是否预见到可持续领导力的内涵或要求将出现新的变化？
A：可持续领导力的未来，不会由任何一个单一政府或机构来定义，而是取决于我们集体在复杂环境中引领变革的能力。正如我们2024年2月召开的“全球领导力峰会”（Global Leadership Summit）上所探讨的，当今的领导者必须应对动荡不安的局势、不断攀升的公众期望，以及迫切需要协调一致的长期行动。在这种背景下，领导力不再仅仅是专业知识的体现，更是关乎信任、系统性思维以及对长期公共价值的坚守。
数字技术，尤其是人工智能，将深刻地塑造未来。这些工具为改进预测、跟踪供应链以及衡量风险和影响提供了强大的机遇。但与此同时，它们也引发了重大的治理、安全和不平等问题。在CISL，我们已经开始探索可持续未来的领导力如何必须在数字时代演变——不仅要利用这些工具做好事，更要确保社会的福祉和韧性始终处于核心地位，以惠及所有人，而不仅仅是精英阶层。
尽管全球存在紧张局势，我们仍然看到英国、欧盟和中国通过联合国框架、生物多样性目标和国际绿色金融对话，表达了在气候和自然问题上进行多边合作的坚定承诺。我们欢迎中国持续的——并且最近重新强调的——承诺。我们还看到新的区域和双边伙伴关系正在不断涌现，包括新的能源、资源和供应链联盟，以及新的区域和行业转型计划。这些计划将公共部门和私营部门聚集在一起，进行务实的规划，以协调目标、投资和基础设施。这些新兴的合作模式并非旨在取代多边主义，相反，只要它们围绕共享目标和开放标准进行设计，就将成为多边主义的有力补充。
在这一新的格局中，CISL的角色是充当一座桥梁：帮助企业和投资者以及政策制定者重新调整现有机构，以快速实现长期可持续性。我们相信，我们没有时间从头开始重建整个系统，但我们确实有时间改造我们已经拥有的系统，设计市场以激励私营部门采取行动。无论是全球范围内的工作，还是在中国的实践，我们的目标始终是为领导者提供坚实的支持，通过分享前沿的见解、提供实用的工具，并构建基于信任与相互尊重的伙伴关系，助力他们实现可持续发展目标。
以下为英文对话原文：
Q: Climate change is a pressing issue that intersects with economic development. How do you see the balance between economic growth and climate action? What are some practical steps that countries can take to achieve both sustainable economic development and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
A: Balancing climate action with economic growth requires rethinking the fundamentals of what growth means. Economic activity that undermines the natural systems on which we depend is not growth - it is short-term extraction at long-term cost. The real challenge is not choosing between prosperity and climate action, but redesigning markets to reward resilience, innovation and long-term value over short-term returns.
Countries need to shift from carbon- and resource-intensive economic models to those based on efficiency, circularity, and low-carbon innovation. That means clear policy frameworks - carbon pricing, clean energy investment, green industrial strategies - and an honest reckoning with the political and economic interests that resist change. Without credible government action to set the rules of the game, private sector leadership will remain limited to pockets of progress.
We should stop asking whether we can afford climate action. The better question is: can we afford to keep building an economy that is vulnerable by design?
In practical terms, this means: accelerating electrification and grid investment; scaling energy efficiency in buildings and industry; using public funds to de-risk private capital in clean infrastructure; designing industrial strategies to support innovation and green manufacturing; and valuing natural capital in fiscal and regulatory systems. These are not theoretical levers, they are proven drivers of resilience and competitiveness when deployed with consistency and scale.
Q: It appears that there's a retreat in sustainable development efforts within the business sector. For example, some large multinational corporations and financial institutions have abandoned their ambitious climate goals. Given these challenges, what do you think the future prospects are for global sustainable development? What measures do you believe should be taken to ensure that sustainable development continues to move forward?
A: The pullback we're seeing from corporate sustainability commitments is real and revealing. It exposes the limits of a model that relies too heavily on voluntary action and marketing-led ESG strategies, rather than aligning business models and investment flows with the realities of systemic risk. This was the focus of CISL's recent report Competing in the Age of Disruption which sets out a pathway for business to respond to these challenges while continuing their sustainability efforts. Crucially, many businesses do understand this and are still committed to action even in a less supportive context.
This is not the end of the road for sustainable development but it is a test of strategy. In today's volatile economy, the most reliable lifeline isn't to defend the status quo, but to invest in the business models and technologies with a long-term future - those aligned with a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy. Smart businesses understand that resilience and competitiveness now depend on navigating these pressures, not avoiding them.
What's needed is a reset. Governments must raise the floor through regulation. The finance system needs to be rewired to support the transition with investors demanding credible transition plans, not vague promises. And businesses must build resilience, bank the benefits of efficiency savings while also driving real economic transformation - moving capital, capability and collaboration to where they can shape entire markets to create incentives for transition.
That means working pre-competitively to align policy and infrastructure, send demand signals for low-carbon materials, and reshape sectors around future value. Silence or retreat in the face of political resistance only delays progress and cedes ground to vested interests profiting from delay. In the global race to define tomorrow's markets, that's a loss no serious company can afford.
The future of sustainable development will be decided not by targets and disclosures, but by whether we can build the enabling conditions - across finance, policy and industrial strategy - that make action commercially viable and strategically irresistible.
Q: We learned that you have personally led engagements across banking, extractives, retail, utility and manufacturing sectors, as well as with major municipalities and SOEs in China and the Middle East – engagements which have resulted in transformational change and enhanced organisational performance. Given this background, how would you assess China's performance in sustainable development, and what suggestions do you have for Chinese SOEs?
A: China has demonstrated global leadership in several areas of sustainable development - particularly in solar, electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries. As Lord Stern recently noted, China is at the forefront of clean innovation, implementation, and finance.
But these advances are in tension with an ongoing commitment to coal and reliance on high-emission infrastructure. This contradiction not only undermines China's climate targets - it risks eroding international trust at a time when global cooperation is essential. In an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment, credibility matters. Leadership on sustainability cannot be claimed without consistency, especially when it comes to coal.
At CISL, we've worked for over a decade with Chinese partners to support innovation that delivers shared value for people and planet. Our Sino-UK Centre for Sustainability Innovation provides a platform for collaboration between researchers, businesses, and public institutions. Through this work, we've seen that China's capacity for industrial transformation is unmatched when priorities align and barriers are removed.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are critical to this agenda. Given their dominance in energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing, SOEs must move beyond compliance and embed sustainability into their core strategies - not only to meet national targets, but to enhance long-term competitiveness and global standing. That means greater transparency, clearer accountability, and more active contribution to international sustainability standards.
If we are to achieve coexistence on a finite planet - rather than trade wars and environmental conflicts - China's role is pivotal. The world needs China not just to lead on technology, but to lead on trust. That includes addressing contradictions, beginning to phase down coal, and expanding collaboration in areas where shared progress is still possible.
Q: What do you think is the most important factor in sustainable leadership? Do you believe that technological advancements, especially the rapid progress of AI, will reshape the business landscape? Looking ahead, do you foresee new connotations or changes in what sustainability leadership entails?
A: The future of sustainability leadership will not be defined by any single government or institution - it will depend on our collective ability to lead through complexity. As we explored in our Global Leadership Summit , today's leaders must navigate volatility, rising public expectations, and the urgent need for coordinated long-term action. Leadership in this context is not just about expertise - it is about trust, systems thinking, and a commitment to long-term public value.
Digital technology, especially AI, will dramatically shape this future. These tools offer powerful opportunities to improve forecasting, track supply chains, and measure risk and impact. But they also raise significant governance, security and inequality concerns. At CISL, we are beginning to explore how leadership for a sustainable future must evolve in the digital age - not only to harness these tools for good, but to ensure that the wellbeing and resilience of societies remains central, in ways that work for all and not just for elites.
Despite global tensions, we continue to see the UK, EU and China express commitment to multilateral cooperation on climate and nature - through UN frameworks, biodiversity targets and international green finance dialogues. We welcome China's sustained – and recently reemphasised - commitment. We also see new regional and bilateral partnerships emerging, including new energy, resource and supply chain alliances and new regional and sectoral transition plans that bring together public and private sectors for pragmatic planning, to align ambitions, investments and infrastructure. These don't replace multilateralism - they complement it, if designed around shared goals and open standards.
CISL's role in this new landscape is to act as a bridge: helping businesses, investors and policymakers retool existing institutions to deliver long-term sustainability - fast. We believe we don't have time to rebuild entire systems from scratch, but we do have time to transform the systems we already have, to design markets so they incentivise private sector action. Our work in China and globally aims to equip leaders to do just that - through shared insight, practical tools, and partnerships built on trust and mutual respect.
来源：新浪财经
