Target 17.7: Transfer of environmentally sound technologies
Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Clean technologies are largely owned by private firms, so licensing and investment terms set by energy, equipment and technology companies affect diffusion. UNCTAD's LDC Report 2024 shows how little climate-linked finance reaches LDCs: 403 million dollars in carbon credit revenue in 2023, against 1.48 trillion dollars needed by 2030 for their NDC targets. Owners can encourage concessional licensing and LDC investment. The concessional and preferential terms this target calls for are mainly financed by governments and multilateral funds, so the lever is helpful rather than necessary.
How this was scoredHelpful
Helpful. Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
No shareholder advocacy found yet
We looked and found nothing that met our standard, which is a source we opened and confirmed. ICCR's technology transfer results are entirely about pharmaceutical equity and COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing transparency, which is a different concern from environmentally sound technologies. There is a real shareholder record on pharmaceutical technology transfer and access to medicines, but none on transfer of clean or environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on concessional terms. Nothing met the standard for this target.
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is UN Sustainable Development Goals's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.