Gatehouse Capital, sister company to Gatehouse Bank, has underlined its commitment to Scotland’s vibrant financial services sector ahead of the 2026 Edinburgh Finance Festival, outlining plans to build one of the UK’s leading Shariah-compliant bridging finance providers from its headquarters in Edinburgh.

Edinburgh Finance Festival 2026, is one of Scotland’s most significant gatherings of financial services leaders, policymakers, academics and innovators, organised by the Global Ethical Finance Initiative (GEFI).

Following an inaugural year that attracted more than 3,000 participants across 25 events, the Festival has quickly established itself as a forum for exploring the future role of finance in society and the economy. Gatehouse Capital joins the festival this year alongside Gatehouse Bank, a longstanding GEFI partner, reflecting a shared commitment to advancing ethical finance in the UK and a shared belief that financial services must continue to evolve, balancing commercial success with transparency, inclusion and positive economic impact.

Selecting Edinburgh, Gatehouse Capital was founded on the basis that Scotland offers a unique combination of financial expertise, regulatory excellence and international connectivity. The company believes the city provides the ideal platform from which to serve brokers, investors and customers across the UK while contributing to the continued growth of Scotland’s financial services sector.

Edinburgh has long been recognised as one of Europe’s leading financial centres, with a reputation built on trust, stewardship and innovation, underpinned by a vibrant ethical finance ecosystem that has been strengthened through over a decade of collaboration, convening and thought leadership led by GEFI. For Gatehouse Capital, those qualities align closely with the principles underpinning Shariah-compliant finance, which emphasise transparency, asset-backed investment and responsible growth.

Gatehouse Capital has set ambitious targets, aiming to become a major participant in the UK bridging sector and has established a long-term objective of reaching £500 million in annual turnover within five years. This will create up to 35 new roles while supporting the wider professional services ecosystem that makes Edinburgh such an attractive destination for financial services firms.

Commenting ahead of the Edinburgh Finance Festival, Mark Dyason, Managing Director at Gatehouse Capital, said:

“Our decision to establish Gatehouse Capital in Edinburgh was a strategic one. Scotland’s capital combines centuries of financial expertise with a forward-looking approach to innovation and investment. It is a city that understands the importance of trust, responsibility and long-term thinking, values that sit at the heart of our business.

“We have ambitious plans for growth and a clear objective to become a significant force within the UK bridging market. Achieving that ambition will require investment in people, technology and partnerships and we believe Edinburgh provides the ideal environment in which to build that future.”

The company believes Edinburgh is a natural home for a modern ethical and Shariah-compliant finance provider. Islamic finance is one of the fastest-growing segments of global financial services, with increasing demand from investors seeking transparent, ethical and asset-backed financial solutions. By locating its headquarters in Scotland, Gatehouse Capital aims to contribute to the continued diversification of the UK’s financial services landscape while strengthening Edinburgh’s position as a globally connected centre for investment, innovation and specialist finance.

The Edinburgh Finance Festival will provide an opportunity to discuss the role that innovative finance businesses can play in supporting economic growth, attracting investment and creating high-quality employment opportunities across Scotland and the wider UK.

Omar Shaikh, Managing Director of GEFI, said:

“Gatehouse Bank has been a longstanding partner of GEFI, and we are delighted to welcome Gatehouse Capital to Edinburgh, the natural home for green and sustainable finance. Their decision to establish and grow the business here reflects the city’s strength as a globally connected centre for ethical finance.

“Edinburgh’s reputation is built on people, purpose and long-term thinking— qualities that align closely with the principles of Islamic and faith-based finance. Gatehouse Bank, one of the UK’s largest Islamic banks, has been a regular participant at our Ethical Finance flagship global summit and their investment in the city is a strong vote of confidence in Scotland’s financial services sector and its future growth potential.”

Dame Susan Rice, Chair of GEFI’s Global Steering Group, said:

“Two hundred and fifty years after the publication of The Wealth of Nations, many of the questions Adam Smith grappled with remain highly relevant. How do markets create prosperity? What responsibilities accompany wealth? And what role do institutions play in maintaining trust?

This publication brings together a diverse range of perspectives to explore those questions and encourage a richer conversation about the future purpose of markets and finance. Our hope is that it contributes not only to reflection, but to practical action.”

The publication builds on GEFI’s 2021 publication, The Wealth of Nations in the 21st Century, launched during COP26 in Glasgow, and forms part of the organisation’s Radical Old Idea series exploring the relationship between finance, ethics and long-term societal wellbeing.

Barry O’Dwyer, Group CEO of Royal London, said:

“The question is no longer simply how markets can grow, but how they can continue to function effectively over time. Seen through that lens, purpose and profit are not competing objectives. The task before us is not simply to look backwards with reverence, but to look forwards with moral imagination: to ask what kind of economy we are building, whom it serves, and whether it is capable of enduring. The essays in this report examine responsible investment and stewardship not as trends or labels, but as approaches to address the real, material challenges facing the financial system.”

The publication was launched at Ethical Finance Global 2026 in Edinburgh and supported by launch events during London Climate Action Week, bringing together contributors and senior leaders to discuss how the ideas explored in the collection can be translated into practical action.

The second SDG Hive session shifted the focus from Islamic finance specifically to a broader question: what is finance ultimately for?

Opening the session, Dame Susan Rice delivered her keynote, Wealth of Nations, Health of the Planet, marking 250 years since Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. She reminded participants that Smith was not only an economist, but a moral philosopher. Markets, she argued, are not morally neutral. Without trust and conscience, they drift.

Reflecting on ESG backlash, greenwashing, and speculative cycles, Dame Susan emphasised that culture, not compliance, determines whether finance serves society.

From Moral Framing to Market Practice

The panel discussion that followed, moderated by Omar Shaikh, explored what this means in practice across Southeast Asia.

Rafe Haneef, Group CEO of MBSB, described how development-focused banking increasingly requires acting as an ecosystem builder for SMEs, not simply a capital provider. Success must be defined by resilience and long-term value creation.

Rima Dwi Permatasari, Group Head ESG at Bank Syariah Indonesia, highlighted that Islamic finance does not automatically produce inclusive outcomes. Risk-sharing models and sustainability sukuk must be deliberately structured to support real-economy resilience.

Farrakh Ashraf, Senior Investment Specialist at Aegon Asset Management (Aegon AM), offered the asset management perspective. ESG frameworks, he argued, are not simply ethical overlays but tools for assessing systemic risks, climate, governance, and social instability, that directly affect long-term portfolio resilience.

The session concluded with a clear message: shared prosperity will not emerge from capital flows alone. It requires redesigned incentives, stronger institutional culture, and a deeper alignment between finance and moral purpose.

On Thursday 5th February 2026, alongside Ethical Finance ASEAN 2026, senior practitioners, scholars and policymakers gathered at the Asian Institute of Chartered Bankers (AICB) in Kuala Lumpur for the first SDG Hive session: Unlocking Islamic Sustainable Finance

Participants were welcomed by Ashraf Gomma Ali, Group Chief Shariah and Sustainability Officer at MBSB, and Shireen Kandiah, Director of Sustainability, Marketing and Communications at AICB, setting the tone for an interactive, debate-style session focused not on theory, but on market reality.

The central question was clear: how can Islamic finance move beyond compliance-based screening toward a more holistic, impact-driven approach anchored in Maqasid al-Shariah and the principles of tayyib, purity, responsibility, and societal wellbeing?

The Maqasid Journey So Far

The opening fireside discussion, moderated by Dame Susan Rice, Chair of GEFI, explored how Malaysia’s Maqasid-aligned guidelines have begun shifting the conversation from form to purpose.

Dr Azrul Azlan Iskandar Mirza of the Securities Commission Malaysia reflected on the intent behind the guidelines: to embed Maqasid not as a marketing label, but as a framework shaping governance, product design and capital allocation.

From a practitioner’s perspective, Arshad Nuval Othman, Head of Sustainable Finance at CIMB Islamic, highlighted the operational realities of implementation. Translating Maqasid into day-to-day decision-making requires more than aspiration, it demands internal capability, board-level buy-in, measurable KPIs, and alignment with emerging sustainability frameworks, including carbon market developments across ASEAN.

Reassessing Coal in Islamic Finance: The Scientific Case

The session then turned to one of the most pressing test cases for Islamic sustainable finance: coal.

Hamizah Shamsudden, Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace Malaysia, presented the scientific underpinning of the Reassessing Coal in Islamic Finance report..

Her presentation drew on peer-reviewed medical research, IPCC and IEA climate science, and economic data from the World Bank and WHO. The argument was not framed as activism, but as evidence-based analysis.

Key findings included:

• Health impacts: Coal-related air pollution contributes to millions of premature deaths globally. A 2023 US study linked coal emissions to approximately 460,000 deaths between 1999 and 2020, with coal-based particulate pollution found to be more than twice as deadly as other sources. Globally, air pollution causes 6.7 million premature deaths annually, comparable in scale to tobacco.
• Disproportionate burden: Pregnant women, children, and low-income communities bear the heaviest impact.
• Economic costs: Pollution-related damages amount to an estimated $8.1 trillion annually, around 6% of global GDP.

The presentation closed with a stark ethical parallel: Islamic finance prohibited tobacco once its harm became clear. The question now is whether coal presents a similar moment of moral clarity.

Scholar Debate: Translating Evidence into Screening

The final segment, moderated by Omar Shaikh, Managing Director of GEFI, brought together Prof. Dr Mohamad Akram (INCEIF), Ashraf Gomma Ali (MBSB), and Umer Suleman (Wahed/UKIFC).

This was not a forum for issuing rulings, but for surfacing where consensus may be emerging, and where tensions remain.

From a juristic and Maqasid perspective, the discussion examined whether contemporary scientific evidence fundamentally alters the classification of coal. If harm is now systematic, multidimensional and preventable, does that change the threshold for permissibility?

Umer Suleman reflected on areas of convergence from the earlier scholarly workshop, particularly around acknowledging material harm. However, practical implementation raises complex questions: should stock screening remain binary, or move toward a graduated framework that distinguishes between pure-play coal exposure and transitional contexts?

Ashraf Gomma Ali offered the banking lens. As both Shariah and sustainability leader at MBSB, he emphasised the importance of translating evolving scholarly thinking into credible board guidance, product design and portfolio decisions. The challenge is not only theological consistency, but operational clarity.

Beyond Screening: A Broader Trajectory

The Unlocking Islamic Sustainable Finance session made one thing clear: the debate is no longer about whether Islamic finance should engage sustainability. It is about how deeply and how credibly.

Maqasid alignment demands more than excluding harm, it requires proactive alignment with human flourishing, environmental stewardship and long-term resilience. Coal has become a litmus test for that ambition.

As Islamic finance continues to mature across ASEAN and beyond, its credibility will increasingly rest not only on compliance with form, but on its willingness to confront systemic harm with intellectual rigour and moral consistency.

NDCs and COP21

David Pitt-Watson, former UNEP FI Co-Chair during the lead-up to COP21, reflected on the evolution of finance’s role in climate negotiations. He traced this from the early Kyoto Principles through to the landmark Paris Agreement. David highlighted how UNEP FI positioned itself as a constructive “dealmaker” ahead of COP21, pushing negotiators to be ambitious while providing clarity and tools (like green bonds and reporting frameworks) to attract investors. Bringing the conversation to the present, he underlined the critical role of the real economy and the need for credible, investment-grade policy signals.

Making NDCs Investible

Arianna Griffa, Senior Policy Manager at the IIGCC, presented the IIGCC’s report on Making NDCs Investible. Representing over 400 members with over $60 trillion in assets, the IIGCC explored whether NDCs could serve as useful tools for investors. The consensus was that while they offer valuable signals of long-term direction, challenges remain, namely around data quality, granularity, and policy consistency.

Key Findings from the IIGCC Report:

1. Granularity matters – high-level targets are insufficient. For instance, China recently became the first country to announce decarbonisation strategies for all sectors.
2. Credibility comes from coherence – public fiscal support, regulatory roadmaps, and implementation plans are key to making NDCs actionable.

The UK’s NDC was cited as the only one currently aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, according to Climate Action Tracker.

Are NDCs useful for finance?

The group wrestled with whether NDCs provide enough clarity or consistency to serve as meaningful tools for investors. Key points included:

• Drivers of decarbonisation targets were debated, with some questioning whether they stem from genuine national commitment or external pressure.
• Sovereign bonds were discussed as natural entry points for engaging with NDCs, though some felt this could shift over time.
• Despite ESG pushback in some markets, there is a growing cohort of investors committed to implementation and engagement.
• NDCs were seen as valuable inputs for scenario planning, even if not yet central to investment decision-making.

Investor-Government Engagement

There was broad agreement that constructive engagement with governments is necessary, but this should be clearly distinguished from lobbying. Partnerships were seen as essential for shaping realistic and investible transition plans.

One standout suggestion was the development of a scorecard to rank the quality and credibility of NDCs, helping investors better assess risk and opportunity.

Fiduciary Duty and Risk

Tensions were raised between fiduciary duty and climate outcomes. Some questioned whether the current framing of fiduciary responsibility allows enough space for climate-aligned investing. The discussion highlighted a need for more honest conversations about active risk-taking, especially when passive strategies are unlikely to deliver long-term value in a transitioning economy.

The example of Hungary’s green bond issuance to electrify its railway network showed how well-structured deals can align financial and environmental outcomes.

Geopolitical Headwinds

David reflected on how the diplomatic groundwork ahead of COP21, especially the US-China deal, set the stage for consensus. In contrast, today’s geopolitical uncertainty is hampering ambition. There was concern that early climate leaders like Colombia have been penalised by markets for bold transition plans, underlining the need for market stability and clear frameworks.

The Role of the Financial Sector

The session closed with reflections on what finance can do to accelerate progress:

• Collaborative engagement was deemed more effective than individual action.
• Silence is complicity, retreating from public engagement isn’t neutral, it slows progress.
• Central banks and incentives, participants called for stronger incentives, similar to the US IRA’s tax credits, to channel private capital into climate-aligned investments.

Conclusion

There was broad agreement that while NDCs are imperfect, they remain one of the few tools linking government ambition with investor decision-making. To bridge the gap, investors need:

• Clear, sector-specific policy roadmaps
• Granular and credible data
• Consistent regulatory frameworks
• Mechanisms to engage constructively with sovereigns

Perhaps most importantly, they need the courage to take active risks, aligned with values and value.

Despite the title of this, if you are expecting some scandalous confession, I am likely to disappoint.  But what this covers is my personal experience of the past 25 years in sustainable, ethical and responsible finance and my views to whether the sector is broken or still has a future.

So we start 27 years ago, a very young and naïve graduate, making my way to the city to “seek my fortune”.  I was fascinated that this one small square mile of London, was responsible for the UK’s economic prosperity and growth.  Finance intrigued and excited me.

But what about my values? These have always been part of who I am, someone who loves nature and cares about the environment. I recycled at university before recycling was a thing (people thought I was weird!).  I cared about the origins of my food and animal welfare embarrassing my mother by asking every restaurant whether their pork was free range or not. Yet, here I was excited about what many viewed as the den of inequity.

But I was fortunate to have my eureka moment. I went to work for a fund manager which ran the ethical investment advisory group for the church of England. A job that absolutely aligned values with finance – something I had no idea was even possible.

Leaving the banking trading floor for that first job in sustainable finance was a bit of a baptism of fire.  We introduced voting, in response to the Cadbury Code, engagement frameworks and well thought-out ethical investment policies. All based on fundamental research and hands on relationship building with the companies in which the Church invested.  Standards were essential to align investment funds with the Church’s beliefs within the need to balance the financial returns. That tension was a healthy one, albeit at times very strained.

It was at this time sustainable investment started taking off.  But even then, you felt you were sitting in a dusty cupboard, asking permission to come out, needing to be brave to speak about environmental issues with investment teams. Often you were made to feel like you were just a little bit crazy, a radical or “god-forbid” an actual tree hugger.

We had to convince our finance colleagues of the merits of what we were doing – even in the church fund managers in those days were wary of sustainability and just wanted a list of exclusions.  We took time to understand the very complex issues we faced, and engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders outside of corporates to build our credibility.  We also had numerous battles with companies we were invested in.

This experience taught me early on in my career that sustainability issues and ethics were complicated, that decisions had to be based on fundamental research and integrity and that corporate engagement could make a positive difference.  And to do this we had to be brave.

Now, there were not many of us in the industry in the early days.  We had to band together like a small army, with one mission and that was to improve, company governance and sustainability practices within the firms we were investing in. We all ultimately believed that this would improve long-term shareholder returns, as well as improve the lives of the stakeholders these corporates interacted with. There was no sense of competition, we weren’t being driven by bringing in flows. Principles and standards were the number one focus of this small but growing group of pioneers. It was this collaboration that led us to realise we were more powerful together. It was then that collective engagement really started taking off.

It was a fun time, it was exciting and new and together we felt braver. We were changing the way companies thought about sustainability issues. Companies were starting to recognise the value in strong business-focused sustainability practices. Competitive advantage, insuring them against scandals, protecting their reputation, building customer loyalty to name just a few.

But as the industry grew, the aims of investors started to differ.

And at the same time, the growing interest in impact investment was taking place. A real understanding that you could allocate capital in a way that achieved environmental and social outcomes as well as a financial returns.

Clients grew more interested in positive outcomes and with this the commercial interest in sustainability grew very rapidly.

This was exciting but worrying at the same time.  Just before COVID, I hit the headlines. I raised the question whether we were facing an ESG bubble. I had lived through the dot-com bubble, mortgage backed securities and other various bubbles and I was worried we were facing the same with sustainability.

Everyone had appeared to become a sustainability expert. People with little or no experience in ESG were being tasked with setting strategy and running teams.

It was clear to me that what was driving this growth was the recognition that sustainable investment products could be lucrative.

All of a sudden there was a shift to get into sustainable investment to make money rather than to get into sustainable investment because it’s the right thing to do and it will make you money.

The industry was been driving by value instead of values.

There was a rush to relabel mainstream investment products under SFDR.  The push from the commercial side was real – yet those who were not well versed in sustainability did not really understand what this actually meant.  There was so much confusion and I, like many other sustainability experts, found myself trying to explain to people that you couldn’t make sweeping claims on sustainability.  That engagement in itself could not make a fund sustainable. That there were still hard lines around some activities, such as tobacco, gambling, offensive weapons and coal.

The sector was facing an identity crisis. Once a bastion of standards and ethics, sustainability professionals were being pushed to water down these standards – all for the desire for profit – win new business, grow AUM in sustainability funds, and be bigger than others. For a few years, things got a little crazy, some might even say out of control.

And that is when the regulators starting stepping in, fines were levied and new regulation introduced, creating an initial burden on asset managers and companies as these organisations work to meet the reporting requirements emerging from this.  At the same time, a culture of fear has crept in with a number of asset managers pulling back on commitments for fear of upsetting regulators, politicians or even clients.  This yo-yo between all or nothing has left those in the industry frustrated and disillusioned.

The last few years have been exhausting. Sustainability teams, focused on research and engagement all of a sudden became product people, IT, reporting and compliance functions. A couple of years ago I gave an interview to Financial News. It was a Friday afternoon. I had spent the week speaking with regulators and internal discussions over standards and client reporting. I made a comment to the journalist, which hit the headlines “We’re on our knees at the moment.  I am exhausted, I am fed up and I feel like I have become a compliance function”. Little did I know this would go viral. Dozens of people got in touch. The number of people this resonated with was extraordinary. I had said something everyone was feeling and no-one was saying.

After losing our way, we need to come back to basics. The business case for sustainability is clear: companies cannot thrive on a planet suffering from environment crises and unmanageable social risks. The sustainability actions of leading businesses demonstrate what is possible and generate momentum, even if progress is slow. We desperately require a brave mindset change to accelerate this.  A recent FT article called this “competitive sustainability” a move to long-term resilience rather than short-term gains. And a corporate mindset shift to view sustainability as a matter of competitiveness, not responsibility. I could not agree more.

So, am I optimistic for the future? Yes, I am.

All is not lost! Over 25 years, we have definitely made progress – albeit with a few hiccups along the way and slower than we would have liked. Did we get to the point where we confused value and values? Yes – the waters got muddied, marketers jumped on the bandwagon, we promised more than we could deliver.  However, the industry is now pulling back, with the push/pull from regulation to a potentially more realistic and sustainable path.

So what are some of the key takeaways?

1. Recognise that we have made massive progress – the backlash is evidence of that but there is still much to do to support the sustainable investment landscape.
2. To be successful, we need to let practitioners get back to principles rather than compliance, reporting, product development or IT.
3. We need call on investors, companies and politicians to be brave (like we were in the early days) to be agents of change, buck the trend and think long-term.

We can make progress and we are. But how we do it and pace we set will be determined by those brave enough to take the big steps. Just remember, things that look crazy now could become the norm in the future!

As I contemplate the next stage of sustainable investment, I am hopeful that the bright and enthusiastic (and hopefully brave) next generation will carry on the good fight, as the investors, politicians and company executives of the future.  Let’s work together to make a difference, build integrity, drive good corporate behaviours because without a sustainable innovative economy, the problems we face on this planet will not be solved. And all of this should help us make sustainable investment a fun place to be again.