{"id":11870,"date":"2026-01-23T16:52:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T15:52:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?p=11870"},"modified":"2026-01-23T16:52:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T15:52:11","slug":"why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake"},"content":{"rendered":"

After a meteoric rise, ESG finance is now going through a deep crisis of credibility. The boom of 2018\u20132021 concealed conceptual inconsistencies and contradictory data, while also making unrealistic promises about returns. The backlash first emerged in the United States and was largely political, turning sustainability into a divisive issue, while poor fund performance fueled investor disillusionment, leading even to accusations of fraud. Yet climate risk remains not only real, but increasingly imminent. Abandoning sustainable finance would therefore be dangerous. Instead, it must be rebuilt on firmer foundations, with standardized measurements and without lumping all sustainability objectives into a single catch-all category. This will also bring greater transparency about inevitable gains and sacrifices. What must be preserved at all costs is the sense of urgency required by the climate transition.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Doing well by doing good: this is the seductive promise of ESG investments, those that comply with environmental, social, and corporate governance criteria. A promise so compelling that, between 2018 and 2021, assets marketed as \u201csustainable\u201d exceeded 35 trillion dollars worldwide, driven by seemingly inexhaustible investor enthusiasm and by a proliferation of regulatory initiatives\u2014from the European taxonomy for sustainable finance to proposals by the SEC, the US financial markets regulator, on climate disclosure requirements.<\/p>\n

That appetite for ESG products now seems to have run its course. The backlash began in 2022, when several Republican-led US states withdrew billions of dollars from asset managers accused of \u201cboycotting\u201d fossil fuels. Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in February of the same year made the picture even more complex: in political priorities, energy security suddenly displaced climate commitments.<\/p>\n

It is true: ESG had become a political battleground, especially in the United States. And the backlash has its own logic, because during the boom years sustainable finance had swollen beyond measure, becoming inconsistent and divisive. Yet abandoning it would be a very serious mistake. The problems it sought to address\u2014first and foremost climate risk\u2014are still very much on the table. The question, therefore, is not whether to turn back, but how to rebuild on more solid foundations.<\/p>\n

When Is a Company Sustainable?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There is no shortage of critical issues in the ESG world. A company rated \u201cexcellent\u201d in terms of sustainability by MSCI\u2014one of the leading rating agencies in the sector\u2014may instead be judged \u201cpoor\u201d by Sustainalytics, a direct competitor. These are not marginal discrepancies: this confusion reflects real uncertainty about the very meaning of sustainability.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, a tobacco company: should it receive a low ESG score because its products seriously harm health, or a high one because, in terms of physical risks related to climate change, its activities are relatively less exposed? And how should we classify an oil company that provides excellent working conditions and high safety standards, but produces millions of tons of CO\u2082 that accelerate global warming?<\/p>\n

Those who assess companies\u2019 compliance with ESG criteria can arrive at very different answers. Some reward corporate \u201cvirtue,\u201d others prioritize financial materiality. The European Union\u2019s taxonomy defines sustainability in one way, the United States in another. The result for investors is an often contradictory information landscape, and this inconsistency ends up eroding trust: if experts cannot clearly establish what is truly sustainable, why should investors be able to do so?<\/p>\n

It is easy to place all the blame on rating agencies, but the most serious problem is conceptual. ESG has attempted to condense ethical, strategic, and financial elements into a single indicator. During the boom years, when capital flowed toward anything labeled \u201csustainable,\u201d these contradictions could be brushed aside. The backlash of recent years has merely exposed them.<\/p>\n

A Crisis of Credibility<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The great appeal of ESG products rested primarily on financial arguments. Managers assured investors that sustainable investing would guarantee competitive, if not superior, returns compared with traditional alternatives. The logic seemed plausible: companies that manage environmental and social risks well avoid scandals, attract talent, and adapt more quickly to a less carbon-dependent world. In short, behaving well should go hand in hand with performing well. But this is not always the case. In fact, despite managers\u2019 reassurances, many independent academic studies show that ESG funds achieve, on average, lower returns than others.<\/p>\n

For a while, however, this did not create major problems. During the 2020\u20132021 rally in technology stocks, ESG funds\u2014heavily weighted toward high-tech shares\u2014benefited from market momentum. But when interest rates rose and energy prices surged, these portfolios suffered more than others. And once the narrative of unstoppable growth cracked, disinvestment from ESG instruments was swift and severe.<\/p>\n

Yet this outcome should not have surprised anyone. If the universe of possible investments is narrowed, returns tend to decline\u2014a basic principle of portfolio theory. Excluding fossil fuel companies, for example, meant giving up some of the best-performing stocks of 2022; similarly, avoiding defense companies prevented investors from benefiting from gains linked to rising geopolitical tensions. ESG investing implies foregoing potential profits: claiming otherwise was misleading.<\/p>\n

Paradoxically, the promise of matching or outperforming \u201ctraditional\u201d funds may have been counterproductive. Psychological research shows that extrinsic motivations weaken intrinsic ones: telling people they can profit by doing the right thing ultimately undermines their ethical motivation. Applied to investing, this means that when returns disappoint, those who chose ESG funds solely for profit prospects flee, taking capital with them precisely when it is most needed.<\/p>\n

Yet many investors would be willing to accept slightly lower returns in order to invest sustainably. Surveys regularly show that substantial minorities\u2014sometimes even majorities\u2014would forgo 1\u20132% annually to stay true to their values. There is therefore genuine demand for sustainable investments, comparable to the willingness to pay more for fair-trade coffee or renewable energy. The ESG industry\u2019s insistence on promising superior returns ultimately reveals a lack of confidence in values-based investing\u2019s ability to stand on its own.<\/p>\n

The result is a crisis of credibility. Investors who believed those promises feel betrayed, while ESG critics see weak performance as confirmation of their thesis: that sustainable finance has always been a scam. Meanwhile, genuinely sustainability-minded investors have been overshadowed by those simply looking for a \u201cfree lunch.\u201d<\/p>\n

By promising unrealistic returns, the financial industry weakened investors\u2019 motivation and damaged the credibility of sustainable finance itself. In this sense, the backlash is partly understandable.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most serious consequence is that \u201csustainability\u201d has become a political weapon. In the United States, some Republican representatives have branded sustainable investing as \u201cwoke capitalism\u201d and excluded it from several state pension funds. By grouping environmental, social, and governance issues under a single label, ESG ended up creating an unwieldy coalition\u2014and therefore an easy target.<\/p>\n

A Financial Argument<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Yet, despite its flaws, the ESG sector was born in response to a real failure: for years, the financial system ignored concrete risks linked to climate change and resource depletion. The anti-ESG backlash has not eliminated these dangers; on the contrary, it has made them even more evident.<\/p>\n

Just look at insurance companies withdrawing from areas affected by fires and floods, declining crop yields, and infrastructure designed for a climate that no longer exists and can no longer withstand current conditions. And with decarbonization underway, trillions of dollars in fossil fuel\u2013related assets risk becoming stranded, losing much of their value. Entire sectors will be forced to reinvent themselves or disappear. These are not alarmist scenarios: they are facts.<\/p>\n

The problem is that financial markets are poor at pricing long-term risks. Climate change unfolds over decades, far beyond the horizon of quarterly earnings or electoral cycles. Like all human beings, investors tend to underestimate slowly advancing threats until they suddenly erupt.<\/p>\n

And this is not a moral argument, but a financial one. Even those who are indifferent to the environment should worry about climate risk in the same way they consider geopolitical risk or technological disruption: because it affects returns. Ignoring it means betting that science is wrong, that governments will do nothing, and that impacts will remain marginal. Abandoning sustainable finance does not eliminate risks; it merely ensures that, when they arrive, they will come as a bitter surprise.<\/p>\n

The Way Forward<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The backlash against ESG does not show that sustainability is irrelevant to finance, but that the conceptual framework in which it has operated from the outset was inadequate. The challenge now is to build a better one, guided by several principles.<\/p>\n

First: disaggregation. Environmental, social, and governance factors are different elements and should be treated as such. Climate risk requires its own assessment framework, separate from labor practices or board composition. Only then will investors be able to choose which aspects to prioritize, instead of being presented with an undifferentiated product. Precision will be far more useful than today\u2019s confusion.<\/p>\n

Second: standardize measurements. The \u201csoup\u201d of ESG ratings must end. Just as accounting standards allow financial performance to be compared, clear sustainability standards must enable reliable comparisons of sustainable outcomes. A step in this direction was taken in 2021 with the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board.<\/p>\n

Third: acknowledge trade-offs. Returns may decline if a portfolio excludes entire sectors or overweights cleaner but still untested technologies. Investors deserve transparency. Many will accept lower returns to help protect the planet, but only if expectations are clearly defined. The alternative is a continuous cycle of disappointment and erosion of credibility.<\/p>\n

Finally: keep urgency high. Today\u2019s temptation is to retreat and wait. But climate change advances regardless of the learning curves of the financial sector (and politics). The transition will happen anyway: the question is whether it will be orderly or chaotic, gradual or abrupt.<\/p>\n

The Impossible Retreat<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The ESG euphoria cycle did not end with a soft landing. It ended after overpromising, measuring poorly, and unnecessarily polarizing the debate. Supporters overstated its benefits, critics exploited its weaknesses. Today, few truly defend the sector.<\/p>\n

Yet yielding to the temptation to abandon sustainable finance would be catastrophic.<\/p>\n

The economic impact of climate change is likely to surpass any other challenge financial markets will face. It will reshape geography, demography, technology, trade, and politics. Sustainable finance must be rethought from the ground up, but not shelved simply because ESG made mistakes during the boom years.<\/p>\n

The real failure would be to learn the wrong lesson. ESG stumbled because it was poorly designed and overloaded with expectations, not because sustainability is irrelevant to finance. Measurement problems can be solved, return expectations can be corrected, political obstacles can be overcome. The stakes are too high, the risks too real, and time too limited to imagine another path.<\/p>\n

The question is not whether to retreat from sustainable finance, but how to rebuild it more effectively.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hannes Wagner is Professor of Finance at Bocconi University, Fellow of the IGIER economic research institute, and member of the ECGI (European Corporate Governance Institute).<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After a meteoric rise, ESG finance is now going through a deep crisis of credibility. The boom of 2018\u20132021 concealed conceptual inconsistencies and contradictory data, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17411,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[410],"class_list":["post-11870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-categorizzato"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhy Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"After a meteoric rise, ESG finance is now going through a deep crisis of credibility. The boom of 2018\u20132021 concealed conceptual inconsistencies and contradictory data, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Hannes Wagner\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Hannes Wagner\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Hannes Wagner\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25\"},\"headline\":\"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1798,\"articleSection\":[\"Non categorizzato\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/\",\"name\":\"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/23\\\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rivista Eco\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25\",\"name\":\"Hannes Wagner\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g9b86b54220e4628bdf379c00225e5114\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Hannes Wagner\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/author\\\/hwagner\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco","og_description":"After a meteoric rise, ESG finance is now going through a deep crisis of credibility. The boom of 2018\u20132021 concealed conceptual inconsistencies and contradictory data, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/","og_site_name":"Rivista Eco","article_published_time":"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00","author":"Hannes Wagner","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Hannes Wagner","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/"},"author":{"name":"Hannes Wagner","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25"},"headline":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake","datePublished":"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/"},"wordCount":1798,"articleSection":["Non categorizzato"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/","name":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake - Rivista Eco","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-01-23T15:52:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/01\/23\/why-giving-up-on-sustainable-finance-would-be-a-mistake\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Why Giving Up on Sustainable Finance Would Be a Mistake"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/","name":"Rivista Eco","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e0077171e5c9627a3193d7262ddabb25","name":"Hannes Wagner","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g9b86b54220e4628bdf379c00225e5114","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6f618cf2f898181b5230c323b97df8f60f03792466e20e98f549387ce2196827?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Hannes Wagner"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/author\/hwagner\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17411"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11870"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11872,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11870\/revisions\/11872"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11870"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=11870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}