At the 2025 IFCII, themed “Do More with Less: The Future of Sustainable Finance”, the high-level dialogue on “Challenges and Solutions: The Future of Sustainable Development” attracted wide attention. The panelists were Pipit Aneaknithi, President of Kasikornbank, Xinyi Han, CEO of Ant Group, and Lin Xu, Chairman of the China-U.S. Green Fund. Moderated by Weiguo Zhang, Former Member of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the panel explored how to advance impact investing and sustainable development amid growing global political and economic uncertainties.
As moderator Weiguo Zhang remarked at the opening, the world faces many challenges today. Amid today’s multifaceted global challenges, the insights of three leading experts could illuminate the path toward win-win cooperation for sustainable development. Despite severe geopolitical tensions, especially uncertainties brought by the Trump administration’s return, Shelley’s words still resonate: “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?”.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Amid escalating global tensions, from trade war and tariff war to supply chain decoupling and disruption, how can Southeast Asian countries, especially Thailand, continue to strengthen economic ties with China and pursue win-win cooperation, particularly in green and low-carbon development?
Pipit Aneaknithi (President of Kasikornbank)
First, in terms of macro policies and the broader landscape, it’s important to recognize that we’re all navigating the same geopolitical headwinds.
Second, global value chains and supply chains are two key issues to address. For Thailand, the focus is on industrial upgrading and meeting growing future demands, which are the two main reasons driving the need to prioritize global value chain and supply chain development.
China is currently undergoing an industrial transformation that depends not only on policy but also on having effective technological solutions to tackle fundamental challenges. Looking ahead, we aim to harness new technologies to improve productivity, staying at the forefront of the industry and competing effectively in the global market, especially in the post-pandemic era.
For example, China leads the world in green technology, especially new energy vehicles (NEVs). When you walk on the streets of Thailand, you can see China-made EVs everywhere. The import volume of NEVs has already exceeded 10,000 units. Additionally, they are widely used in public transportation and logistics sectors, such as trucks. The rollout of these technologies and brands from China has been remarkably rapid. Furthermore, in areas like smart cities, smart agriculture, and smart manufacturing, China possesses advanced and commercially mature technologies, which can offer us new opportunities.
You brought up how Southeast Asia, Thailand in particular, can work with China. I see cooperation on emerging technologies as the start of a new chapter that opens up fresh opportunities, especially in the field of green technology.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Since Trump’s return to the presidency, he appears intent on adopting a “divide and conquer” approach, pushing countries or regions to reduce or even sever economic ties with China, including Southeast Asia. Do you think the U.S. can achieve this goal in Southeast Asia? Why or why not? Could you also outline three key measures China could take to prevent or mitigate U.S. interference?
Lin Xu (Chairman of the China-U.S. Green Fund)
I think it’s clear that China-U.S. relations are in a rough patch. However, I personally remain optimistic about the future. Why? Historically, the United States has provided China with significant assistance. Of course, the two countries have had military conflicts, such as in Korea and Vietnam. But at least from my own experience, over the 40 years since China’s reform and opening up, the U.S. has contributed greatly to China’s economic development.
You mentioned my involvement in China’s accession negotiations to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Back then, without the support and acceptance from the United States, China’s entry into the WTO would have been very difficult. The WTO provided China with a wide platform to better access global markets and resources. In the 20-plus years since then, China’s economy has grown rapidly. During this period, its cumulative trade surplus in goods has reached approximately $7 trillion, a tangible reflection of this progress.
In the eyes of the States, China poses some realistic challenges. With innovation and government support, China’s growing competitiveness and import substitution have threatened U.S. industries that once held a strong edge. Naturally, the U.S. feels uneasy about China’s rise and has sought to highlight perceived issues in China, particularly those it believes undermine fair competition and trade, as grounds for confrontation. If we put ourselves in their shoes, this reaction is somewhat understandable. However, I believe conflicts between countries should be resolved through engagement and negotiation, by finding mutually acceptable compromises that allow cooperation to continue. After all, the collaboration between China and the U.S., two major powers, is not only beneficial for both countries but also for the world at large.
Why was the China-U.S. Green Fund established? The idea originated from foresight by the then Director of the Office of Central Financial and Economic Affairs Commission of China and the former U.S. Treasury Secretary. Anticipating potential challenges in bilateral relations, they sought to create a mechanism—this fund—to advance investments in green and low-carbon sectors. Both recognized that the green transition represents a crucial opportunity for China, the U.S., and the world at large, with vast investment potential. By operating as a market-driven entity, the fund aims to demonstrate that green initiatives can yield financial returns while fostering cooperation.
The China-U.S. Green Fund also aims to serve as a platform for people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. Beyond my roles as a businessman and investor, an important part of my work involves facilitating dialogue on two key issues: climate change and climate finance. These dialogues were not interrupted during the pandemic. The next China-U.S. Dialogue on Climate Change is set to take place in Beijing next month.
A more important and sensitive area of China-U.S. dialogue is the digital economy, semiconductors, and AI. Competition is intense, and the U.S. has imposed many restrictions on China in these sectors. Nevertheless, industry professionals, academia, and some former government officials from both sides continue to engage in these talks. This year, the dialogue will be held in Beijing in October, as we typically alternate hosting between our two countries. In facilitating China-U.S. people-to-people exchanges, I understand that multi-level communication between the two nations helps ease tensions, foster mutual understanding, and reduce misunderstandings.
Regardless of the Trump administration’s position on climate policy, there remains a significant disparity in sustainability approaches across U.S. states and private sector actors. Many American companies remain committed to reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainability. A case in point: Last year, we co-hosted a China–U.S. forum in Zhejiang with the U.S. Commercial Service China, bringing together enterprises from both countries to explore low-carbon building retrofit solutions.
Whether the U.S. can actually achieve its desired outcomes in these areas remains highly questionable. Take its stringent export controls on China in key technology sectors, for example. Ironically, these very restrictions have served as a powerful motivator for China, accelerating indigenous innovation and R&D to achieve import substitution. China possesses a unique advantage: once a technological breakthrough occurs and finds sufficient application scenarios, it can rapidly achieve economies of scale and drive costs below global competitors, creating formidable international competitiveness.
This dynamic of mutual escalation makes it unlikely that the U.S. can fully achieve its objectives through its current approach. However, the short-term disruptions are undeniable. During my dialogues with American counterparts on semiconductor and digital economy issues, I’ve explicitly pointed out: “The higher your ‘high fences’, the broader China’s innovation and import substitution will become. Ultimately, this may cost U.S. companies their market share in China and risk accelerating decoupling between our economies, an outcome that benefits neither side.”
China’s economy is currently undergoing three major transformations that are deeply interconnected and mutually reinforcing: The shift toward a service-driven economy, a digital economy, and a green and low-carbon economy. Among these, digital and intelligent transformation plays a particularly pivotal role. Under normal circumstances, these structural shifts would have created significant opportunities for U.S. companies specializing in advanced digital technologies and semiconductors. However, due to Washington’s restrictive policies, many American firms are gradually losing their foothold in the Chinese market.
Frankly, this is an undesirable outcome for both sides. I believe it may take time—as both nations grapple with the consequences of their rivalry—to fully recognize that the current path leads to mutual detriment. Only after this period of friction and reflection might our governments finally sit down calmly and acknowledge that our previous approach was misguided. Perhaps we need a new framework, one defined by greater cooperation and shared success.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Let me add that I fully agree with Mr. Xu. In my opinion, the most fundamental principles of economics boil down to two: comparative cost and economies of scale. Neither can be overlooked.
A few days ago, I watched a video of a U.S. congressional hearing featuring four prominent AI figures, all of whom remained quite composed. The lawmakers zeroed in on two basic questions: First, how far ahead is the U.S. compared to China in AI? Second, can the U.S. win? The most interesting revealing response came from Microsoft’s CEO. He said the outcome hinges on the market dynamics: If the U.S. seeks decoupling, it must solve the equation of 300 million versus 1.4 billion consumers, while securing its position in the remaining 70% global share.
Now, let’s start the second round of questions. The first question is for Mr. Han. Mr. Tu and other panelists emphasized that today’s global backlash is a corrective backlash against the economic liberalization and globalization driven by the laissez-faire theory in the last three or four decades. While its positive impacts are undeniable—China is also a beneficiary—it has also spawned negative consequences: wealth inequality, economic disparities between nations, and more. Sustainability efforts emerged largely to address these imbalances, yet recently, we’ve seen a reversal. Some major asset managers have scrubbed ESG from key documents; governments and corporations are rolling back DEI (namely, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. Even Unilever’s CEO was ousted for over-prioritizing such agendas. Drawing from Ant Group’s experience, how would you advise firms to balance corporate versus social value, shareholder returns versus broader stakeholder interests?
Xinyi Han (CEO of Ant Group)
Thank you, Mr. Zhang. This is a very good question. Just two months ago, we began discussing Ant Group’s second three-year ESG strategy. Before the meeting, we asked advisors to brief us on global ESG trends, because today, no company can shape its strategy in isolation from the broader currents.
First, let me share the story of Ant Forest. This year marks its tenth anniversary. To date, we’ve planted 600 million trees across China and created 4.2 million jobs. Why does this story still matter today? In the fast-moving internet industry, most narratives lose relevance within three years; few can sustain public interest for a decade. But ESG is different. It’s a long-term commitment; meaningful impact may only materialize after a decade or more of persistent effort.
Secondly, Professor Zhang, regarding your emphasis on shareholder interests, here’s my personal perspective as a finance professional. We all know that a company’s valuation hinges critically on its long-term sustainable growth rate. True corporate success stems from enduring sustainability. ESG efforts ultimately aim to secure sustainability and maintain an elevated sustainable growth rate.
Regarding why Ant Group is doing this, I believe it ties back to our vision. Ant Group’s vision can be summarized in two statements:
First, to bring small yet beautiful changes to the world;
Second, to build a great company that lasts for 102 years.
You can see that ESG is embedded in our vision—it’s only natural for a company to act in alignment with its vision. However, companies are run by people, and employees staying five or ten years at one company is already considered a long tenure. To build a company that lasts 102 years, we must pass these values down across generations. To truly embed these principles in everyone, we must connect them to concrete actions. This year, we reviewed our ESG reports from the past three years, which covered 19 subtopics—most of which were deeply integrated with our business. We believe that treating ESG as separate from operations (‘two disconnected layers’) would only create additional burdens. But when ESG is fully integrated into business practices, it not only reduces operational friction but also helps every participant better understand how ESG and business interconnect. When the business thrives sustainably, everyone benefits, creating a virtuous cycle. That’s our philosophy.
Finally, we’ve seen firsthand how ESG creates value for us. Today, a corporation is more than a legal entity—it’s like a living, breathing person. First, ESG has become Ant Group’s calling card. When engaging with new partners, nothing opens doors faster than sharing our ESG commitment.
Second, ESG gives every employee a sense of purpose and perseverance. As the saying goes, “It takes ten years to grow a tree, but a hundred years to nurture people.” That’s why we keep sharing the story of Ant Forest—while tree-planting represents a decade-long commitment, building a great company is a century-long endeavor of cultivating people.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
At a seminar last year, a banking expert made a point that echoes what Mr. Han just said: ESG cannot operate in isolation from the core business. Some companies may have recently adopted ESG strategies, even establishing dedicated committees or departments in their management structures. However, once ESG becomes fully embedded in operations, standalone ESG structures may become unnecessary. I shared this observation with Mr. Chen of Kasikornbank. Notably, some Chinese banks have moved away from separate ESG committees. Traditionally, their operations were divided into retail banking, corporate banking, etc. Now, with the “Five Priorities” in the financial sector, all are inherently linked to ESG. Mr. Chen, as a banker, what’s your take? Should banks create standalone ESG committees or departments?
Pipit Aneaknithi (President of Kasikornbank)
If we rewind five years, when we first planned this ESG initiative, it was undoubtedly a completely standalone department. But through our commercial journey, we’ve gained diverse insights.
What’s become clear is the critical importance of integrating ESG into core operations. Over the
past year, we’ve entered a new phase—embedding ESG into commercial activities across all six business divisions. ESG has now become an inherent part of our commercial activities. This approach resonates strongly with investors and stakeholders, who recognize it as the optimal path forward. Similar transformations are underway across Thailand’s financial sector.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Nest question is for Mr. Xu: Against the backdrop of intensifying China-U.S. tensions, are there still significant areas where both nations can collaborate meaningfully on sustainable development initiatives?
Lin Xu (Chairman of China-U.S. Green Fund)
I believe significant opportunities remain for Sino-US collaboration in sustainable development. Take China’s massive green energy transition as an example — replacing traditional energy with green and low-carbon alternatives is now a critical challenge. As we recognize, this new energy paradigm is inherently digital. The shift toward renewable-powered smart grids requires digital energy solutions. This explains why Huawei established its dedicated Digital Power unit — they recognize this inevitable industry transformation.
The U.S. holds an advantage in digital technology, which can be effectively integrated with China's green energy capabilities. Such collaboration would be mutually beneficial and commercially viable—why not pursue it? Both nations share common responsibilities in addressing global climate change. On climate finance, China and the U.S. could leverage existing frameworks like the World Bank, ADB, AfDB, and IMF to pool resources, adopt unified standards, and jointly promote global climate financing—another actionable area.
A third area lies in new energy, where China leads in technology. While the Trump administration showed little support, many U.S. households, businesses, and cities have actively promoted green energy, including solar power and energy storage facilities. These efforts rely heavily on Chinese products.
To rebalance trade between China and the U.S., Chinese companies could invest in America, setting up factories and supplying cost-effective, high-tech products. Such trade and investment arrangements would create win-win outcomes. However, this potential has not been fully tapped, and both governments and industries should work together to explore and expand these opportunities. Beyond this, China and the U.S. can also engage in deeper dialogue and cooperation on global climate action and the reform of the international trade system.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Thank you, Mr. Xu. I’d like to draw your attention to a U.S. solar case—it’s essentially what Mr. Xu just described about integrating solar, digital tech, and finance. This company installs solar panels using imported Chinese solar cells. Here’s the kicker: Installing a home solar system in the U.S. costs $60,000–70,000 upfront—way too expensive for most Americans who don’t have that kind of savings. So, they invented “power-as-a-service”: No huge lump sum. Instead, you sign a 20-year contract paying just a few hundred bucks monthly, and they handle installation, maintenance, everything. The company digitizes the whole process and eventually securitizes it. Basically, it has created a trust product for the solar industry. Brilliant model, if you ask me.
Later, this company faced bankruptcy, largely due to macro policy shifts. Its aggressive expansion relied heavily on debt financing under this model. When interest rates surged, most loan facilities became unsustainable. Compounding the crisis, U.S. restrictions on China’s solar imports drastically raised costs. Tariffs ultimately pushed the firm to the brink of collapse.
So, if China and the U.S. collaborate, as Mr. Xu suggested, it would undoubtedly be a win-win scenario.
Following Mr. Xu’s point, I’d like to ask Mr. Han: In this convergence of finance, technology, and digital integration that Xu described—do you see digital-native tech companies like yours emerging as the ultimate winners, or will traditional banks and insurers retain the upper hand?
Xinyi Han (CEO of Ant Group)
My initial take is that this should be a win-win. Let’s revisit Prof. Zhang’s case: the bankruptcy could have been avoided. The core issue was the company’s overconcentration of assets on its own balance sheet—once interest rates rose, the model collapsed, with tariffs being the final blow. Fundamentally, it relied on indirect bank financing. Had it shifted to direct capital markets financing, risks could have been dispersed. Why wasn’t this done? Because the market still ultimately judged the company’s creditworthiness instead of the solar panels’ potential revenue, the perennial challenge of asset securitization. Even now, capital markets struggle to properly assess operational capabilities and revenue prospects, still falling back on collateral like land value.
The solution today lies in RWA, bridging physical assets into digital finance. Our findings show green assets, particularly solar and new energy projects, are the most promising candidates. Their entire operations can be fully digitized via blockchain, creating immutable records that enable standardized valuation models developed by professional intermediaries. Investors can participate via digital currencies, enabling synchronous revenue sharing without funds ever touching the corporate entity, thereby isolating counterparty credit and operational risks
We find this solution theoretically sound and, more importantly, already validated through pilot transactions with our partners. This breakthrough addresses a long-standing industry challenge at scale.
As you can see, this isn’t something Ant Group could achieve alone. We’re collaborating with multiple banks and securities firms, and this model ultimately creates shared value. For banks, this transforms certain operations into intermediary services, effectively evolving them into transaction banking—a direction many financial institutions actively pursue. I believe this represents a promising path worth exploring and investing in.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
Pipit, a question on U.S.-China relations: Given the current tensions, how concerned are you?
Pipit Aneaknithi (President of Kasikornbank)
This is indeed a challenging issue. In financial services, we inherently dislike uncertainty—or ambiguity—because every operational decision we make is fundamentally prediction-dependent. We rely on data and stable forecasts to function, yet now we face unprecedented unpredictability, making major strategic decisions exceptionally difficult. However, I was heartened to hear our panelists suggest viable pathways forward. While these trade tensions may significantly impact us, with even modest predictability and foresight, our industry can navigate toward peaceful resolutions.
To address your question candidly, I too feel significant pressure—it’s genuinely difficult to predict future developments. This uncertainty weighs heavily on Thailand’s banking sector as well. Yet I’m heartened by today’s discussion, which reaffirms our potential to co-create win-win solutions through peaceful resolution. I believe financial innovation—both in services and products—can serve as a catalyst. By collaborating with traditional banking while embracing digital transformation, we can simultaneously modernize our industry and expand financial inclusion.
Green transition, digital transformation, and financial inclusion are fundamentally interconnected. From my perspective, these three shifts collectively empower industries to navigate uncertainty.
Weiguo Zhang (Former Member of IASB)
To conclude briefly, despite the current geopolitical tensions, particularly the considerable uncertainties brought about by Donald Trump’s administration, the three speakers did not lose confidence. Rather than being discouraged by challenges, they have actively explored ways to seize opportunities and mitigate risks in a complex environment. This echoes the line I quoted earlier from Shelley: “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” I remain upbeat about China, as I have often shared with my foreign friends over the past decades: when one looks to the future of China, it may seem fraught with difficulties and uncertainties; yet looking back, the nation has consistently defied expectations, achieving rapid progress and remarkable milestones.
The End
