Construction Grammar offers several assets that foster the learning and teaching of foreign languages. The constructionist approach focuses on well-entrenched form–meaning mappings of different degrees of complexity and abstraction. Thus, if learners have acquired the syntax and semantics of specific foreign constructions, they should be able to understand the semantic motivation behind the syntactic forms and infer the meaning of new instantiations. Moreover – an economical principle in the learning process – these units can be learned as part of a network of semantically related constructions. In learning L2-constructions, construction-based teaching strategies can be implemented, that is, the scaffolding strategy, structural priming and embodied construction practice. The scaffolding strategy elaborates on the semantic link between constructions of different degrees of syntactic complexity and on the family resemblance concept. Structural priming focuses on the creative repetition of similar structures with different slot-fillers. Finally, embodied practice applies to constructions referring to concrete events which can be represented with pictures or objects or can be enacted.

We introduce a novel sustainable capital instrument: the skin-in-the-game bond. With features inspired by contingent convertibles (CoCos), this bond is an alternative for the green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds available on the market. A skin-in-the-game bond is linked to the performance of a benchmark that relates to the broad concept of sustainability in at least one of its pillars, being the environment (E), society (S) or corporate governance (G). When the benchmark hits a preset trigger level, (part of) the bond’s face value is withheld and directed into a government-controlled fund by the issuer. The skin-in-the-game bond offers a higher yield to investors than a standard corporate bond, in order to compensate for the risk of losing out on (part of) the investment. Both issuer and investor have skin-in-the-game; the embedded financial penalty incentivizes the preservation of a favourable benchmark value. In this work, we elaborate on the general concept of a skin-in-the-game bond, as well as on a tailored valuation model, illustrated by two examples: the ESG and nuclear skin-in-the-game bonds.

The chapter assesses the extent of integration of sustainable finance into the MiFID II and the IDD investor protection frameworks. The chapter explains why retail investors do not always act upon their investment preferences and the role of the investment product distributor in remedying investors’ value-action gap. The chapter discusses the main changes to the MiFID II and IDD frameworks by analysing the new sustainability-related definitions, the amended product suitability assessment, the amended product governance process, and the amended conflicts of interest procedure. The analysis argues that full cross-sectional consistency will not be achieved in the EU investor protection framework as only the MiFID II and IDD frameworks have been amended while rules covering other product distributors remain the same. It also highlights the problems of inconsistency caused by sustainable finance amendments to existing legislation, including when it comes to applying the definition of sustainability preferences, which refer to concepts of the Taxonomy Regulation and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, and the lack of a complete Taxonomy covering social and governance perspectives in the amended MiFID II and IDD obligations.

The chapter explains the importance of stakeholder relations in supporting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, focussing on the essence of stakeholder engagement management in financial firms, for in their case, relational capital is of particular importance, given the importance of mutual trust between an entity and its stakeholders. We begin by explaining the concept of interest groups, linked to contract theory and corporate social responsibility. Both the micro context (corporate stakeholder theory) and the macro context (the concept of stakeholder capitalism) are pointed out. Contemporary corporate governance codes emphasise a company’s accountability to a wide range of its stakeholders, which is especially important in the case of financial firms – due to the specific nature of their activities. Therefore, different dimensions of financial institutions’ responsibilities are discussed, stressing those aspects that justify strengthening stakeholder relationship management in those firms. The chapter emphasises the process of managing relationships with stakeholders. The core part is a discussion of the key stages of stakeholder engagement management: from the identification of main interest groups, their analysis and segmentation, prioritisation of stakeholders, and selection of an engagement strategy, to monitoring and evaluation of engagement.

The question of whether ‘specialist’ securities such as use-of-proceeds green bonds should be subject to a greater level of regulation has attracted considerable attention among policymakers and market actors. Much is at stake, especially because the green bond market has seen significant growth over the years. In this chapter we consider the role that EU prospectus disclosure regulation should play in relation to instruments such as green bonds. We examine the rationale for mandatory prospectus regulation and consider the role played by different market initiatives that have hitherto filled the regulatory gap. We are critical of current practices and argue in favour of mandatory ‘green bond’ prospectus requirements.

This chapter analyses the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) by proposing that we should think about the SFDR as a layered system of sustainability-related disclosures, which combine the concepts of “single materiality” and “double materiality”. The authors offer a new perspective on popular proposals to turn the SFDR into a labelling scheme but argue that supervisors should avoid such avenues. The chapter emphasises that it is not the definition of “sustainable investment” which is relevant, but the additional disclosure requirements that apply as soon as a financial market participant deems its financial product to be in line with the definition. The SFDR encourages robust internal assessments over blind reliance on opaque ESG rating agencies and provides financial market participants with the freedom to justify what a contribution to an environmental or social objective means. This freedom sets it apart from a labeling mechanism with a clearly defined threshold of what a contribution should entail. The chapter also analyzes proposed guidelines by ESMA for regulating the names of investment funds that involve sustainable investment, and concludes that those guidelines do not create a clear labelling regime.

Chapter 22 analyzes whether and to what extent sustainability can be integrated into EU fit and proper testing for members of the management body of banks, insurers and investment companies. It concludes that (prospective) members should indeed have sufficient knowledge, skills and expertise in sustainability, both as a collective and individually. The extent to which this knowledge is required depends on the institution and the specific role and responsibilities of the director. However, every director must have basic sustainability knowledge and expertise to adequately perform his or her role. It is argued that EU supervisors, including the ECB, should use the fit and proper test, or at least engage in serious dialogue with financial institutions, to ensure that there is sufficient ESG expertise in the management body. This is well within their mandate since core prudential values such as the solidity of the institution and stability of the financial sector may be at stake. To ensure a level playing field within the EU, it is recommended that EU regulators set out more specific requirements regarding ESG expertise in Level 1 or 2 legislation. This would also provide greater legal certainty for financial institutions and (proposed) members of the management body.

Framenets and constructiCons are applied instantiations of the linguistic frameworks known as Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar, respectively, in the form of computational, semiformally structured linguistic resources. The resources have a common history, both theoretically and in design: They are built as English-language resources in the framework of the Berkeley FrameNet initiative. They enjoy the double nature of being descriptive linguistic resources as well as finding frequent use in a computational linguistic context, where they have been used both in NLP applications and as underlying knowledge bases in areas such as computer-assisted language learning. The chapter provides a bird’s-eye view on these resources: their theoretical foundations; design principles and how they are compiled; theoretical and methodological interrelations; the challenges involved in building framenets and constructiCons for new languages and for cross-linguistic application; the differences and interactions between linguistic and computational linguistic work on framenets and constructiCons; application to language pedagogy; and outstanding theoretical and methodological issues.

The introduction provides an overview of the reasons why sustainable finance is high in the regulatory agenda, in the EU and increasingly elsewhere. It shows how the EU started to follow up on the UN goals for a more sustainable development, and how it translated those goals, first into its action plans and then into regulatory measures. The case for sustainability as a tool to manage climate and environmental risks is then explained. The introduction then summarises the contents and the main results of each chapter within the collection.

There is a large body of academic literature about financial inclusion and financial exclusion in both applied and theoretical works. The causes, sizes, and consequences of both phenomena are analyzed and evaluated, which leads to the formulation of conclusions and recommendations as to how to enhance financial inclusion. This chapter surveys not only the traditional perspective of financial inclusion and exclusion but also the role of new technologies, providing innovative solutions behind the concept of digital banking inclusion. Moreover, the chapter considers new possibilities for adopting digital financial services that result from lockdowns and promotion of contactless modes of payment to reduce the risk of viruses spread through the handling of cash. With regard to the increased use of digital banking access channels, the importance of financial education in the context of ensuring cybersecurity is highlighted.

This chapter presents an overview of some of the central concepts of constructional syntax. Focusing on key insights from Berkeley Construction Grammar and Cognitive Construction Grammar, it discusses how construction entries of different types from the inventory of constructions interact with each other to license constructs. This chapter also outlines a novel methodology for discovering constructions in a corpus that allows for a systematic way of compiling construction entries that are relevant for research in Construction Grammar and constructicography.

Spoken language exhibits not only grammatical constructions but also prosodic constructions. While the latter are also form–function mappings, there are differences: Prosodic constructions involve temporal configurations of diverse prosodic features, their functions are primarily pragmatics-related and interactional, they can be present to greater or lesser degrees, and they are frequently superimposed and aligned in complex ways with other prosodic constructions and with grammatical constructions. This chapter illustrates these properties with examples from American English.

A fundamental pillar of the European Commission’s Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy, harmonized sustainability reporting is functional to giving substance to a company’s sustainability endeavors, to identifying a shared classification system for sustainable activities, to tackling greenwashing, and to helping institutional investors meet the disclosure obligations they, in turn, are imposed on by the SFDR. While institutional investors remain the main users of corporate sustainability disclosures, yet sustainability reporting facilitates interaction between investors and other stakeholders, such as NGOs, as a lever by which to enhance stakeholders’ voice and overcome the limited ability of broadly diversified institutions, especially passive fund managers, to actively monitor portfolio firms and reduce systematic portfolio risk. In order for EU sustainability reporting to deliver on its promises, two factors are crucial. First, the current fragmentation of non-financial reporting standards based on different frameworks and, particularly, on diverging notions of materiality, should be overcome. Second, an adequate balance between the narrative and quantitative dimensions of sustainability reporting should be struck in order not only to make sustainability disclosures meaningful for its users, but also to allow for mutually connecting, and achieving coordination between, financial and non-financial information.

Finance that does not take sustainability seriously is finance that does not take finance seriously. The financial risks of continued unsustainabilities bring sustainability issues into the heart of any well-founded financial decision, whatever view one might have on the role of finance and business in society. In this chapter, the relationship between finance and sustainability is explored through a broadening of the approach to understanding financial risks of unsustainability. This goes beyond the established recognition of the financial risks of climate change – and the emerging recognition of financial risks of biodiversity loss. The analysis presents new risk categories, including the risk of business model change, societal risk and global catastrophic risks. The chapter also exemplifies new categories of unsustainability that should be encompassed in such a broader and systemic approach, including ‘novel entities’ and tax evasion. The chapter concludes with brief reflections on the necessity of and the legal basis for implementing a research-based approach to risks of unsustainability in law and policy reforms and in practice.