Climate Finance Terms Explained: A Vogue Business Glossary for Business Leaders
July 8, 2025
•
5 mins read
As the global sustainability conversation matures, so does the language. Concepts like blue bonds, carbon leakage, and financed emissions are no longer the domain of climate policy insiders; they’re now central to decision-making in boardrooms, supply chains, and marketing teams. Yet, as climate finance grows more complex, many professionals lack the vocabulary to keep up.
That’s where Vogue Business comes in. The publication has released a Climate Finance Glossary designed to decipher the technical terms reshaping corporate sustainability. While Vogue may be best known for fashion, this initiative acknowledges the deep financial implications of sustainability, particularly in industries like apparel, where environmental impact is closely tied to sourcing and production decisions.
The definitions are not oversimplified; they’re clear but grounded in academic and policy expertise. Contributors include researchers from the University of Exeter and Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, lending credibility to what could otherwise be seen as a lightweight effort.
The result is a tool that helps close the gap between sustainability and finance teams, especially in companies navigating incoming ESG regulations like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) or the Green Claims Directive.
Why This Glossary Matters
Many sustainability professionals, especially those outside the finance world, are overwhelmed by ESG jargon. At the same time, finance teams often lack the environmental literacy to assess risks in areas like biodiversity loss or Scope 3 emissions. This glossary offers a shared language.
More than just a communications tool, it’s a strategic enabler. With greater climate disclosure, rising litigation risks around greenwashing, and investor expectations for transparency, understanding climate finance is no longer optional. It’s a baseline requirement for leadership.
This glossary arrives not a moment too soon for industries like fashion and retail, where storytelling, brand purpose, and supply chain transparency intersect.
Final Thoughts
The Vogue Business Climate Finance Glossary signals something larger: climate finance is no longer niche. It’s becoming a mainstream business competency. And when major business media take steps to make it more accessible, they’re not just informing; they’re helping shape the future of corporate sustainability.
As climate risk becomes investment risk and ESG moves from marketing to materiality, shared understanding will be the foundation of credible action.
SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights
Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.
November 11, 2022, FTX, a $32 billion cryptocurrency exchange company that many believed would “change the world,” filed for bankruptcy. This news shook the crypto and financial communities, compelling many to debate the future of the crypto market and its platforms.
How did FTX collapse?
You could say that FTX’s collapse began before the news broke, but here’s a summary of events as The New York Times and ABC News details:
Breaking news
In early November, CoinDesk, a crypto publication, broke the news on a leaked document from FTX. The balance sheet showed that the hedge fund run by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), Alameda Research, held a substantial amount of FTT tokens. In short, SBF had set up Alameda (his trading firm) and FTX (his exchange firm) in such a way that if one unit experienced trouble, such as dropping cryptocurrency prices, the other experienced it, too.
First domino falls
By the way, FTT is used for various functions, including traders’ payment of operation fees. Also, by the way, Changpeng Zhao, Binance’s Chief Executive, sold his stake in FTX to SBF in 2021, partially with FTT. So, “due to recent revelations,” Binance (Zhao) announced on November 6, 2022, that it would sell its FTT tokens.
Other dominos follow
Traders responded; they hurried to pull funds out of FTX out of fear, and FTT’s price fell. Meanwhile, FTX processed withdrawal requests over three days, amounting to an estimated $6 billion. The liquidity crunch was upon it.
Then, on November 8, Binance said it would bail out FTX. But on November 9, Binance backtracked and announced in a Tweet that it would not “as a result of corporate due diligence,” while also citing regulatory investigations and reports of mishandled funds.
Things get worse
The next day, November 10, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas froze FTX’s assets, citing the public statement about potentially “mishandled” and “mismanaged” customer funds. On November 11, FTX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections, and SBF resigned as CEO. John J. Ray III—famously known as the CEO who headed the infamously known energy company, Enron, through its collapse in the 2000s—replaced SBF on November 17.
Fallout
Today, FTX faces federal investigation for securities laws violations based on a report by The Wall Street Journal regarding FTX lending customer deposits to Alameda Research for liabilities, of which the company’s top executives were aware. Investors have suffered loss, traders have suffered loss, and the greater crypto community and regulators are asking questions.
FTX and SBF web data analysis
News about FTX’s collapse generated tons of web data for us to scour. With this data, here’s what we aimed to find out:
How did the public web react to FTX’s collapse?
Could we have seen red flags before the news broke?
What was FTX’s collapse’s effect on the cryptocurrency market’s sentiment?
Is it possible to evaluate cryptocurrency exchange companies’ ESG risks and opportunities?
Was FTX’s collapse unprecedented? If not, what does web data tell us about that?
FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried mentions analysis
Web public sentiment for FTX and SBF was consistently positive until Q1 of 2022. As mentions volume increased, their sentiment polarity decreased (Figure 1). The mentions spike for both in November when CoinDesk broke the news. Likewise, polarity dips into the negative range for both.
Definition: Polarity represents the aggregate of positive and negative sentiments (opinions or reviews) on a company. A 0 score means there is as much positive as negative sentiment expressed. The dotted and dashed lines represent sentiment in the following charts.
Figure 1: FTX and SBF mentions and sentiment over time.
Looking closer at Q1 (Figure 2), we find that mentions affecting sentiment increased for FTX and SBF during this period. What are the mentions about, and why did they affect polarity negatively?
Figure 2: FTX and SBF pre-bankruptcy mentions and sentiment.
It turns out that SBF is linked to other keywords—we call these co-mentions—and between January 2022 and November 2022, SBF/withdrawal co-mentions (Figure 3) spiked in July when SBF defended Terra Luna’s founder, who was accused of peddling a Ponzi scheme.
Figure 3: FTX and SBF withdrawal co-mentions.
If withdrawal co-mentions brought up possible reasons why SBF and FTX experienced dips in sentiment, what other co-mentions could give us more insight? How about donations, SEC, and U.S. elections?
Figure 4: Donations, SEC, and U.S. elections co-mentions with SBF.
Corporate governance stands out when evaluating SBF’s ESG risks, but his social risks are nothing to ignore either.
Figure 5: SBF governance risks over time.
Two areas of governance risks to note are money laundering and board of directors (Figure 5). Money laundering as a co-mention has been an issue as early as February 2022, but it became a bigger issue in October. These risks may be popping up due to allegations of manipulating the price of the APT token and a securities violations probe.
If you’ve read this far, you by now get an impression of FTX and SBF, from mention volume to sentiment analysis and ESG risk. But how did FTX’s collapse affect the overall cryptocurrency market? Let’s find out.
In comparing the sentiment polarities for FTX and the crypto market from January 2021 through November 2022 (Figure 6), the sentiment for crypto remains relatively steady despite FTX’s sentiment taking a hit.
Figure 6: Effect of FTX collapse on the crypto market.
When comparing other cryptocurrency exchanges to FTX (Figure 7), sentiment polarity for them is hardly affected, except Binance, because of its connection with FTX. Oddly enough, eToro experienced a boost in sentiment, possibly because of its core values around openness and transparency, the fact that they’ve been around since 2007, its early compliance with regulations (i.e., AMF, FCA, ASIC, BaFin, and ACPR), and that it also proposes investing in stocks and ETFs, a contrast to most other crypto market exchanges. Bitfinex has its own issues, so its dip in sentiment might not be correlated.
Figure 7: FTX sentiment comparison across competitors.
At this time, FTX’s ESG risks based on the mention volume are only surpassed by Bitfinex (Figure 8), which its risks are based on many other reasons we won’t get into in this article.
Figure 8: FTX and competitors ESG risks by mention volume.
Centralized vs. decentralized crypto exchange platforms
FTX’s collapse also affected sentiment around the centralized vs. decentralized debate. Since October 2022, sentiment for centralized exchange platforms, such as FTX and its competitors, has fallen (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Centralized vs. decentralized mentions and sentiment over time.
Likewise, the mention volume for self-custody has more than doubled in the last couple of months (Figure 10). Although centralized platforms offer quicker and easier access to crypto trading, traders are considering complex but more secure options such as crypto wallets and keys because, like banks, centralized exchanges can do what they will with cryptocurrency while it’s in their possession. With self-custody, owners are in control.
Believe it or not, FTX was not the first crypto exchange to collapse. In 2014, Mt. Gox—the biggest crypto exchange at the time—lost half a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin due to a hack. How did Mt. Gox’s collapse affect sentiment for the crypto market then? The short answer is: It didn’t.
Figure 11 shows that while Mt. Gox’s sentiment polarity fluctuated, even reaching negative territories, the sentiment for the crypto market remained relatively stable and positive.
Figure 11: Mt. Gox and crypto sentiment comparison.
Is FTX’s collapse a warning for investors?
Our analysis is that investors should treat cryptocurrency exchanges like any investment opportunity. Do your due diligence and monitor your portfolio with tools like SESAMm’s TextReveal®.
As for the cryptocurrency market, data shows that sentiment for it remains level and positive. We speculate that cryptocurrency and centralized exchanges are here to stay. However, based on historical data and current news, we suspect conversations about crypto regulations to increase.
Reach out to SESAMm
For a deeper analysis of FTX’s collapse and access to all charts and supportive-article links, reach out to a representative today.
With sustainability being imperative, it's essential to examine how public and private companies align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This article, leveraging insights from SESAMm's TextReveal, dives into the behaviors of both sectors across industries, exploring their impact on achieving a sustainable future. Join us as we unravel the complexities of corporate contributions to the SDGs, highlighting key differences and challenges public and private entities face in their journey toward sustainability.
What are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals?
The 17 UN SDG objectives, introduced in 2015 with the target of achievement by 2030, are geared towards building a sustainable society. Initially designed for governments, certain companies can contribute significantly to these goals through their products or conduct. However, our focus here will center on identifying behaviors that counter these 17 objectives.
The analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) adverse behaviors, as identified by SESAMm's TextReveal, offers a comprehensive comparison between public and private companies within various industries. The focus is to discern disparities in SDG behaviors within the same sector and pinpoint the predominant SDG goal breaches in these industries.
Excluding Goal 2 ("End hunger") due to its alignment with state-related initiatives, the analysis concentrates on corporate-impactful goals.
Public and private sectors face challenges in meeting SDGs, particularly Goals 1 ("End poverty") and 16 ("Peace & justice and strong institutions"), with issues in labor rights and governance. However, public companies are more aligned with Goal 8 ("Decent work and economic growth") across industries, facing a range of controversies from biodiversity to management issues. In contrast, private companies focus on Goal 11 ("Sustainable cities"), dealing with climate change and customer relations risks.
Goal 16 ("Peace & justice and strong institutions") is significant in both sectors but particularly in the Financials and Information Technology for public companies and in Financials, Fossil Fuels, and Health Care for private companies. This goal involves human rights, labor rights, human capital, and governance-related controversies.
These findings highlight the profound impact of SDG-related risks on economic growth and stability across various sectors. Industries like Information Technology, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary exhibit heightened susceptibility to SDG adverse behaviors, underscoring the necessity for vigilant risk management to ensure economic prosperity and security.
Industrial UNGC Use Case
What is the UN Global Compact?
The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), established in 2000, outlines ten principles across four main pillars: human rights, labor standards, and anti-corruption. These principles are critical in guiding companies toward ethical and responsible behaviors.
Figure 1: UNGC for public companies.
Figure 2: UNGC for private companies.
The analysis reveals distinct patterns in breaches of UNGC principles. Private companies in the industrials and fossil fuel sectors show a notable correlation with anti-corruption breaches, emphasizing the importance of due diligence in these areas. In the fossil fuel industry, public companies primarily breach environmental principles, while private companies show more breaches related to anti-corruption along with environmental concerns.
Private industrial companies also display a significant number of anti-corruption breaches involving various legal challenges. In the consumer staples sector, public companies primarily face human rights breaches, including forced labor and privacy violations. The private consumer discretionary sector also shows a high number of human rights breaches, particularly related to privacy and diversity and inclusion.
Overall, public companies across various sectors tend to have more frequent or severe UNGC breaches compared to private companies. This highlights the different challenges faced by public and private entities in adhering to the UNGC principles.
Conclusion
Significant variations in sustainability strategies emerge when looking at public and private companies through their SDG performances. Public companies prioritize economic growth and grapple with environmental and governance concerns, while private companies focus on creating sustainable cities, addressing climate change, and fulfilling social responsibilities. Both sectors encounter obstacles in eradicating poverty and ensuring justice, highlighting their crucial roles in promoting global sustainability objectives. This analysis underscores the essential proactive approach needed from both public and private entities to tackle sustainability challenges effectively.
Download the full report to discover how different sectors navigate regulatory pressures and sustainability challenges with real-world examples to guide your strategy.
Reach out to SESAMm
TextReveal’s web data analysis of over five million public and private companies is essential for keeping tabs on ESG investment risks. To learn more about how you can analyze web data or to request a demo, reach out to one of our representatives.
Juliette Fafa and Thibaut Gunsey will join the conference virtually. Feel free to reach out to them and schedule a meeting to learn more about our ESG technologies.
.webp)
.webp)
.png)