Designing a Community of Practice for Just Transition Finance

First up, what is a community of practice? What is distinct about this model in creating sectoral change?

A Community of Practice (CoP) is a selective and structured group of practitioners who come together to learn, problem-solve, and generate practical outputs around a shared area of work.

It is selective because it needs to include the right mix of organisations set up based on defined objectives, and in our case, this means having sufficient representation of actors across the bond lifecycle, from standard setters to labour & human rights groups, from issuers to demand-side coalitions. It is structured because in a transorganisational setting where no one is set up to automatically collaborate with one another, the modes of engagement needed to be established to enable us to work together effectively and longitudinally. 

In the context of designing this CoP under the joint secretariat with the Just Transition Finance Lab, we spent significant time interviewing stakeholders and researching different models of collective learning and engagement to determine what structure would genuinely support this emerging field.

What became clear is that the just transition finance movement is highly contextual. There are significant differences between the Global North and South, as well as varying levels of institutional maturity, local practice, and stakeholder power. Supporting stakeholders effectively requires deep awareness of these dynamics - sector by sector, region by region - and an understanding that actors enter this work with very different capacities, constraints, and ambitions.

From our interviews, stakeholders consistently highlighted that they wanted a space where they could contribute in ways appropriate to their level of practice, while also receiving the type of support that would genuinely advance their work. But they also cautioned against a model that would over-generalise issues that are fundamentally local and context-specific. For participants with more advanced or technical needs, it was crucial that any shared learning quickly filtered into focused, action-oriented enquiries to maintain relevance and momentum.

These insights are ultimately why the Community of Practice model felt the most suitable. It strikes a balance – creating space for emergence, sense-making, and cross-pollination, while also driving toward tangible, implementable outputs that the industry has explicitly said it wants. Compared with a broader Community of Interest or a more reformative Community of Influence, the CoP offered the most practical pathway to generating actionable insights and solutions.

Participants also shared that they were looking for something that could create momentum - a structured cadence of work that maintains a steady drumbeat - while still being manageable alongside their day-to-day responsibilities. The CoP model meets that need: it gives the field a vehicle to move forward together, without overwhelming those who participate.

For a Community of Practice to be effective, it must be rooted in shared values - trust, openness, and collaboration. Unlike a taskforce or advisory committee, a CoP isn’t something that can be governed through rules or enforcement. It relies on shared purpose, strong relationships, and clear expectations about how participants engage.

At its core, this is a relational model. The strength of the connections between people matters just as much as the content of the discussions. This means investing in relational infrastructure from the outset – creating a space where healthy debate is encouraged, where incoherence or disagreement can be surfaced safely, and where participants feel supported to stretch their thinking. 

Equally important is the governance of the community. We needed to avoid privileging any single stakeholder group or institutional interest. Intentionality is essential: we are working in a transcontextual space where diverse perspectives, mandates, and experiences need to be integrated. The design must make it possible for those differences to coexist productively. This is why we believe that decision-making within the CoP must be participative and distributive. The aim is to strike a balance between efficiency and inclusivity, ensuring that all voices can be heard, potential objections can be worked through, and decisions will ultimately carry collective ownership and commitment. This is what enables the group not only to learn together but to act together.