Quelles sont les heures d'ouverture ?

Lundi 09:00 - 18:00 Mardi 09:00 - 18:00 Mercredi 09:00 - 18:00 Jeudi 09:00 - 18:00 Vendredi 09:00 - 18:00

Kiwi Mag, 16 Rue Charlemagne, Paris (2026)

Services: orientation, information, préparation et soutenance des candidatures auprès des universités néo-zélandaises, formalités d'inscription, formalités de visa, assurance, guide logement, accueil à l'arrivée en Nouvelle-Zélande, suivi sur place.

07/09/2026

Getty Images

Investment funds increasingly promise to deliver social or environmental benefits alongside financial returns. Regulators rightly ask if these “impact investment” claims are accurate.

But we also need to ask what happens when an investment’s promised impact fails to materialise, or when pursuing it causes unintended harm.

This regulatory blind spot has practical consequences. Claimed or promised social or environmental impacts influence where people put their retirement savings. They also influence where governments, foundations and institutional investors direct capital.

The risk of greenwashing – where an investment is presented as more sustainable or socially responsible than it really is – needs to be carefully monitored.

Australia’s enforcement regime shows the importance of scrutinising these kinds of claims. Last month, a court ordered Fiducian Investment Management Services to pay A$7.3 million in penalties over a fund promoted as ethical and socially responsible.

The court found the fund had invested via other related funds that held companies earning revenue from fossil fuels. The court also found Fiducian failed to adequately monitor whether these investments were consistent with the fund’s stated objectives.

This followed earlier court-imposed penalties of $11.3 million against Mercer Superannuation and $12.9 million against Vanguard Investments Australia for misleading statements about sustainability made in their investment offerings.

New Zealand is also strengthening expectations. Financial Markets Authority guidance issued in May 2026 says investment funds’ sustainability-related claims should be “clear”, “substantiated” and “consistent”. Issuers of such funds also remain responsible when relying on third-party data, management or assurance for the claims being made.

These developments should make greenwashing more difficult. But even accurate disclosure does not guarantee a fund’s positive impact.

Five ways impact investing can go wrong

Our recent research reviewed 56 studies of impact-related risk and identified five interconnected ways impact investing can fail.

Positive impact risk: the intended benefit is not achieved – for example, an investment in a youth employment scheme may fail to deliver the expected improvement in employment outcomes.

Negative impact risk: pursuing an intended benefit causes unintended harm – for example, an ostensibly clean-energy investment producing biomass fuel from rubber trees may contaminate local water supplies through poorly managed operations, harming surrounding communities.

Impact evidence risk: claims cannot be reliably measured, attributed or verified. Reports may show different kinds of activity but do not necessarily demonstrate that people’s lives improved or ecosystems recovered because of the investment.

Impact accountability risk: poorly supported claims, disputed evaluation methods or unclear responsibilities expose investors to regulatory, legal or contractual challenges.

Impact legitimacy risk: investors lose the trust of communities, beneficiaries or the public. This can happen even without a legal breach, particularly when stakeholders believe financial returns have been prioritised over public benefit.

These risks are interrelated. Weak evidence may conceal underperformance or harm, eventually leading to regulatory action or loss of public trust.

Ironically, measures intended to show success can also create new risks.

Consider an investment programme in which payments depend on employment outcomes. Providers may focus on participants who are easiest to place in work. Reported performance improves, while those with more complex needs receive less assistance. A system designed to demonstrate impact has instead contributed to exclusion.

Good disclosure is not enough

Anti-greenwashing rules generally ask whether claims are clear, accurate and substantiated. These are essential questions.

But impact-investment governance must go further and ask whether the original assumptions remain plausible, whether harm is emerging, and whether investors can adapt when circumstances change.

Absolute certainty is impossible, but uncertainty must not justify vague promises. The stronger the impact claim, the stronger the supporting evidence, safeguards and accountability arrangements must be.

Based on our findings, we strongly recommend Australia and New Zealand introduce an impact-risk statement for funds making explicit claims. The statement should answer five questions.

What could prevent the intended impact?

Who might be harmed?

How will impact be demonstrated?

Who is accountable?

How can affected communities influence decisions or seek remedy?

This last question is especially important when considering investments that claim to benefit Indigenous communities. In Aotearoa New Zealand, products invoking Māori wellbeing, values, land or environmental guardianship should meaningfully involve Māori in defining impact and assessing risk.

The Financial Markets Authority already requires care when Māori values and te reo Māori (Māori language) are used in sustainability-related fund disclosures. Comparable principles should apply when investments claim benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia.

The impact-risk statement need not begin as a new statutory requirement. It could first be incorporated into regulatory guidance, fund certification and investment approval processes. Funds would later report whether identified risks materialised and how they were managed.

Reporting failure can strengthen trust

Impact reports predominantly showcase success. But acknowledging failed assumptions and unintended consequences could strengthen – not diminish – confidence in impact investing.

Not every shortfall indicates misconduct. What matters is whether investors identified material risks, listened to affected communities, and corrected course when problems emerged.

Greenwashing rules are key to ensuring impact investors mean what they say. Impact-risk statements will help determine if they can deliver what they promise.

The author acknowledges Claire Cui of the AUT Business School for her contribution to the research drawn on for this article.

Syrus Islam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Australia and New Zealand should introduce a mandatory impact-risk statement for funds making explicit claims about their environmental or social impacts.

05/09/2026

Lindsay Clancy and defence lawyer Kevin Reddington during her murder trial. Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

After protracted deliberations, the jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts has failed to reach a verdict and the judge has declared a mistrial.

In a case that captured attention in the United States and around the world, Clancy had admitted killing her three children before trying to end her own life in 2023. She remains in hospital until a decision is made on whether there will be a retrial.

The prosecution argued it was a deliberate and calculated murder, evidenced by her arranging for her husband to be out of the house. That would likely lead to life imprisonment (as Massachusetts is not a death penalty state).

The defence argued she suffered a postpartum psychosis at the time and so was not in control of her actions. This should mean she is not guilty because she was insane at the time, or at worst guilty of manslaughter.

Maternal mental health was a focus of the trial and much of the wider public debate surrounding the case.

There are obvious factual similarities between the Clancy case and the Christchurch trial of Lauren Dickason in 2023. She also killed her three children when her husband was absent, and then took an overdose.

She was eventually found guilty of murder and given an 18-year prison sentence. An appeal will be heard in February next year.

The prosecution had argued it was a deliberate killing amounting to murder. The defence relied on mental health evidence about a major depression and argued for a verdict of not guilty due to insanity. But the defence also had an additional line to argue: infanticide.

The separate offence of infanticide

The infanticide option is a central difference between the criminal law in Massachusetts and in New Zealand – but also a number of other places, including Australia, Canada, and England and Wales.

Infanticide laws started as a way of avoiding a conviction for murder when the death penalty was still an available outcome.

The British parliament introduced an Infanticide Act in 1922 and then replaced it in 1938. Still in force, it allows the jury to convict a woman of infanticide rather than murder or manslaughter if she kills her child, the child is less than a year old, and a medico-legal test is met.

This test refers to whether “the balance of [the mother’s] mind was disturbed” from childbirth or lactation. The judge then sentences as if the accused is convicted of manslaughter, which need not involve a prison sentence. Similar provision is made for Northern Ireland in the Infanticide Act (Northern Ireland) 1939.

Infanticide laws spread to some other parts of the English-speaking world, though not the United States. Section 233 of the Canadian Criminal Code of 1985 has similar wording to the English law, except that it covers a “newly-born” child and the maximum sentence is five years.

Examples in Australia include section 6 of the Crimes Act 1958 in Victoria. This covers a child up to two years old and also has a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

In New South Wales, section 22A of the Crimes Act 1900 states infanticide involves a victim no more than 12 months old, but the medico-legal test has updated language. It refers to “a mental health impairment […] consequent on or exacerbated by giving birth to the child”. The woman convicted of infanticide is sentenced as for manslaughter.

In some other countries, there would also be an additional line of defence called “diminished responsibility” which leads to a manslaughter conviction. This is the case in Scotland, which does not have an infanticide law.

The idea of diminished responsibility is that, short of insanity, the law should recognise that mental health difficulties might play a role in killing that should be recognised by not labelling the person as a murderer.

These laws are wider than infanticide because they are not limited to women killing children.

New Zealand’s expanded infanticide law

Clearly, legislators have various ways of drafting the relevant language. New Zealand law reveals an independent streak.

It does not have the more general defence of diminished responsibility – this was rejected when the Crimes Act 1961 was being drafted. However, it has a much broader infanticide provision.

In the first place, it extends to a child under ten and is not limited to the child whose birth led to the relevant disorder. In addition, as the maximum sentence is a relatively low three years’ imprisonment, a prison sentence is less likely.

It still rests on a disturbed balance of the mind being caused by birth, lactation or a consequent disorder. The jury has to conclude the disorder is sufficiently bad that the woman is not fully responsible.

In the Lauren Dickason trial, she was convicted of murder. The jury concluded her depression did not meet the New Zealand test for insanity. They also rejected the partial defence of infanticide.

New Zealand law has an extra nuance. It allows judges to return to medical evidence at sentencing to ask whether a life sentence would be manifestly unjust despite the conviction for murder.

The presiding judge, Justice Mander, decided it was unjust in light of the mental health factors. The result was a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment instead of life.

No one can doubt the criminal law should view with horror the deliberate killing of a child, including by a mother. At the same time, the criminal law should take into account the circumstances of the defendant, because criminal law is about moral fault, and that may vary.

Laws such as infanticide and diminished-responsibility manslaughter allow the jury to decide the level of fault.

Importantly, such laws should also be welcomed by those who prioritise accountability for a killing, even by someone who is mentally unwell. This is because they allow the jury to convict the mother of something, rather than find her not guilty.

The Lindsay Clancy trial illustrates how a jury can have difficulty when its choices are limited.

Kris Gledhill is a member of the Executive Committee of the Criminal Bar Association and is currently undertaking a criminal justice research project for the Borrin Foundation. The views expressed here are his own.

A legal defence of infanticide exists in NZ and other similar jurisdictions. But it is not an option in US courts, making the Clancy jury’s job more difficult.

02/09/2026

Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

As anticipated, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has raised the official cash rate (OCR) by 0.25 basis points to 2.75%.

This was arguably the bank’s most closely watched policy announcement of the year. Landing barely nine weeks before the November 7 election, the decision will ripple through mortgage rates, business confidence and household budgets.

But behind the headlines lies a harder truth: a large share of the inflation squeezing Kiwi households is being driven from offshore and isn’t something the OCR can influence directly.

Essentially, the OCR is a key tool for maintaining price stability. Annual inflation hit 4.1% in the year to June, up from 3.1% in March. That is well above the Reserve Bank’s 1–3% target band, designed to sustain economic growth and create jobs.

This is the fastest inflation increase in more than two years. The bank had already flagged it in May, forecasting headline inflation would peak near 4% before easing, based on global oil prices rising because of the Middle East crisis.

By July, as oil prices cooled, the bank trimmed its peak forecast to 3.9% and lifted the OCR to 2.50%, its first hike in three years. In May, the bank was projecting inflation easing to 3.3% by the September quarter, returning to the 2% by mid-2027.

These near-term forecasts remain highly uncertain, however, given the volatility of oil prices and supply chain disruptions to essentials such as fuel, food and fertilisers.

The question is therefore whether making borrowing more expensive for households and businesses is the best response to inflationary pressures coming from beyond New Zealand’s borders.

Events beyond our control

Non-tradable inflation – the prices of goods and services produced and sold domestically – will respond to a higher OCR. Borrowing becomes more expensive, dampening spending and slowing price rises.

But tradable inflation – goods and services exposed to foreign markets, such as fuel, imported food and fertiliser – is driven by exchange rate movements and global commodity prices beyond New Zealand’s ability to control.

As the graph below shows, tradable inflation rising faster than non-tradable inflation is what’s driving current trends.

Stats NZ, CC BY-NC-SA

Tradable inflation rose 4.9% over the year to June, nearly doubling from 2.5% in March. By contrast, non-tradable inflation was largely stable, shrinking only slightly from 3.5% to 3.4% during the same period.

A huge driver of the spike in tradable inflation has been petrol prices, up by 27.5%, with other vehicle fuels and lubricants up by more than 70%.

Without these big fuel price hikes, headline inflation would have been about 2.9% – inside the Reserve Bank’s target band and needing no immediate change to the OCR.

In fact, non-tradable inflation has been tracking well, largely because of a cooling housing market. And tradable inflation was also trending down until the second Trump presidency began in late 2024.

In other words, most of the current inflation problem has been imported, which has a clear impact on a small, open economy like New Zealand’s.

Continued inflationary pressure

The main shock, of course, has been the Middle East conflict precipitated by the US-Israel attack on Iran, and the subsequent disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

New Zealand imports nearly all its fuel and much of its fertiliser, including urea and phosphate used on farms, through this key sea route. Any disruption to those supply chains flows straight through to pump prices and food costs.

That risk hasn’t gone away, and now includes threats to shipping in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb strait that normally carries 12–15% of global trade. If container ships are forced to take longer routes around Africa, freight costs inevitably rise.

The resulting volatility and uncertainty will last as long as the conflict persists. But how much impact today’s OCR announcement will have remains unclear.

It might help bring non-tradable inflation down below the 3% target. But if tradable inflation climbs to 5% or more, generating greater pressure on energy and food security, the Reserve Bank won’t be able to control headline inflation quickly.

Today’s decision matters for mortgage holders and for a government seeking reelection during a cost-of-living crisis. And it is unlikely to relieve the pressure voters feel at the petrol station and the supermarket.

The OCR remains the Reserve Bank’s most effective tool against homegrown, demand-driven inflation. It can help anchor long-term expectations, so a temporary shock doesn’t turn into a lasting wage-price spiral.

But it can’t lower the price of a barrel of oil or guarantee safe passage through the Red Sea. Getting non-tradable inflation to below 3% comes with the risk of dampening economic growth in general while global uncertainty continues to drive tradable inflation.

Rahul Sen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Reserve Bank has increased the official cash rate to 2.75%. But much of the inflation affecting New Zealand wallets is imported and beyond the bank’s control.

30/08/2026

GettyImages Richard Rodriguez/Getty Images

The poet Dylan Thomas famously wrote, “old age should burn and rave at close of day” – and a high-profile cohort of professional athletes seems to be taking him literally.

Samoan-New Zealand rugby great Ma'a Nonu (44) recently fronted for South African provincial team the Sharks against his old side, the All Blacks, to plaudits from fans of both teams.

Lebron James (41) remains a force in the United States National Basketball Association, averaging 20.9 points per game and 7.2 assists in his 23rd season.

Courtney Dauwalter (41) won the gruelling 2026 Hardrock Hundred Mile Endurance Run, adding to her trove of ultra-distance successes. Japanese footballer Kazuyoshi Miura (59) continues to inspire in his 42nd professional season.

A relative junior, Argentina’s legendary Lionel Messi played in this year’s FIFA World Cup final aged 39. Portuguese superstar Christiano Ronaldo was 41 at the tournament – twice the age of world football’s emerging stars.

Of course, these are exceptions to the rule. They are genetically gifted, highly trained, arguably fortunate to have avoided career-limiting injuries, and have access to world-class physiotherapists, nutritionists and coaches.

Indeed, athletes over 40 remain outliers in professional sport. Many spend fewer than five years at the top, often experiencing injury as they reluctantly transition out.

But that is not to say we can’t learn from these legends. Importantly, they share with the rest of us a common underlying physiology and the capacity to adapt significantly to training.

They demonstrate the process of normal ageing does not have to be associated with major losses in fitness or strength.

Ageing doesn’t mean decline and disengagement

Around the developed world, population levels of inactivity in middle and later life are high, approaching 40% in many regions.

For those who do remain active, health is a major motivation – with good reason. The leading causes of death, heart disease and stroke, are strongly influenced by modifiable lifestyle factors, including inactivity.

Dementia also shares vascular risks with other leading killers, suggesting a dual role for exercise in sustaining physical and cognitive health.

Inactivity reduces quality of life because of its adverse impact on metabolism, frailty, muscle loss, and depression.

Encouragingly, however, inactivity is not a symptom of age-related declines in fitness, it is a root cause.

The human body retains a remarkable capacity to adapt as we age. Research suggests older adults can make major improvements in cardio-respiratory fitness and strength, with meaningful adaptations continuing beyond 70 years of age.

You’re never too old to use it

Age-related change is often treated as a one-way decline. In reality, regular training can preserve function and, in many cases, significantly improve it.

This remains true even for people who begin exercise later in life. Age simply changes the starting point. The ability to respond to appropriate training stimulus is still there.

Ma'a Nonu (44) with All Black Jordie Barrett (29).
Steve Haag Sports/Gallo Images/Getty

We may not all dunk like Lebron, bound over rocks like Courtney or attack like Nonu. But older athletes provide striking examples of what remains possible on the other side of the proverbial hill.

Consider the sub-15-second 100-metre sprint world record of over-80 men’s champion Kenton Brown from the US, or the sub-seven-minute mile of over-75 women’s world record holder Sarah Roberts from the United Kingdom.

New Zealand’s Chunli Li won the women’s table tennis gold at the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games aged 40. Following nearly a decade of retirement, she returned to compete at the 2014 Glasgow games aged 52.

Again, these examples are exceptional. But they remind us the ceiling for older bodies is much higher than we might assume.

No need for extremes

Evidence suggests the number of middle-aged and older adults taking part in serious sport and recreational endeavours is increasing, particularly in endurance events

For most people over 40, though, the goal is not an elite career, but to maintain fitness, strength, and to preserve the independence that makes life worth living.

That could mean completing a local park run, hiking a trail with family, returning to social football, playing with grandchildren or simply carrying groceries without pain or falling.

Aerobic exercise, resistance training and regular movement can all produce meaningful benefits. The most useful programme is usually not the most extreme, it’s the one that can be sustained and built on.

People who have underlying health conditions should seek appropriate medical advice before beginning a new exercise programme.

But the alternative also carries risks. As Swedish exercise physiologist Per Olaf Astrand would have put it, we might be equally well advised to seek a doctor’s opinion before committing to prolonged inactivity.

Next time you are watching Ma'a Nonu, LeBron James, Courteney Dauwalter or another veteran athlete and wondering how they’re still doing it, remember not to compare their performance and yours.

The better comparison is between what your body can do today and what you are capable of tomorrow. To return to Dylan Thomas, never squander an opportunity to “rage against the dying of the light”.

Richard Keith Wright is affiliated with Sporting Memories Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hoani Smith and Mike Annear do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Elite athletes share with the rest of us a common underlying physiology and the capacity to adapt significantly to training. It’s never too late to start.

26/08/2026

Alistair Craig/Getty Images

Two major reports released in recent weeks help illustrate the scale of New Zealand’s climate adaptation challenge – and some of the biggest barriers to tackling it.

The Climate Change Commission has found the country’s adaptation efforts are still not keeping pace with growing climate risks, with progress uneven and some areas slipping further behind.

It cited the potential for working more with nature to reduce those risks, but found this was being hampered by a lack of action, supportive policy and funding.

Meanwhile, an analysis from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlights a parallel obstacle: that information needed to make good environmental decisions is often fragmented, inaccessible or difficult to combine.

In our warming world, both reports reflect the need for a more strategic approach that nature-based solutions can help provide. Rather than relying solely on engineered defences, these solutions use natural systems to help manage climate impacts.

Protecting a community from flooding, for example, might involve restoring an upstream wetland, giving a river more room to move or strategically revegetating parts of a catchment – potentially reducing the need for ever-larger stopbanks.

But knowing which of these approaches will work – and where – depends on having the right information, along with the right system to support it.

Turning information into action

For all their promise, nature-based solutions won’t work equally well everywhere.

A wetland might reduce flooding in one part of a catchment but make little difference elsewhere. Similarly, re-vegetating an erosion-prone slope may deliver far greater benefits than planting already stable farmland.

Nor does every restoration project necessarily qualify as a nature-based solution.

Such interventions need to address a defined problem, work at an appropriate ecological scale and produce measurable benefits once implemented. International standards also require these projects to be practical, well governed and monitored over time to ensure they are working.

In recent research, we argued that strategic native re-vegetation needs to work at three levels: national priorities, ecological processes across landscapes, and decisions made on individual farms and other whenua (land).

The landscape, such as a river catchment, is where these ecological processes come together, while individual farms and properties are where action typically happens.

A federated environmental data system proposed by the parliamentary commissioner could provide an important foundation for this kind of strategic thinking. But better-organised data alone won’t be enough.

What’s missing is what we call a “landscape intelligence” system. This would bring together information about ecosystems, hazards, land use and communities, alongside the tools needed to turn that information into practical decisions.

New Zealand already has many working examples to show both the potential of using better information for climate adaptation – and its limitations. Our own work in Doubtless Bay, Te Tai Tokerau, is one of them.

The catchment faces a range of climate-related risks, alongside declining freshwater and coastal habitats. Through the Department of Conservation’s Ngā Awa programme, restoration ecologist Adam Forbes and I worked with hapū and other community members to explore how revegetation could support climate adaptation.

We combined local knowledge with spatial data to identify potential nature-based solutions and to map environmental vulnerabilities across the catchment. This showed where problems such as erosion, poor water quality and flooding overlap – and where revegetation or wetland restoration could deliver several benefits at once.

But maps can only take us so far. They can’t tell us whether a landowner can afford the recommended work, how restoration costs should be shared among those who benefit, or whether nature-based solutions, engineering or a combination of the two would work best.

Making those decisions requires more than good environmental information. It also requires modelling and economic analysis, Te Tiriti-informed governance and credible ways of financing the work.

The cost of waiting

The costs of climate change are already being felt by communities across New Zealand. Yet 97% of government spending on natural hazards since 2010 has gone towards response and recovery, compared with just 3% for risk reduction and resilience.

The longer New Zealand delays investing in climate adaptation, the greater those costs are likely to become. All the while, catchment groups, hapū, landowners and volunteers are developing local plans, gathering environmental information and putting nature-based solutions and restoration projects into practice.

Much of this work is being done with limited support, with no clear pathway for turning local priorities into sustained public investment.

That is not a durable national adaptation strategy. Communities cannot be expected to build long-term responses to climate change around volunteer labour, fragmented information and temporary grants.

New approaches to nature finance, such as those being developed by the digital platform Toha Network, could help share the costs of nature-based solutions across the public and private sectors.

When carefully designed and put in the right places, these solutions can reduce risks from flooding, erosion and water scarcity, while delivering wider ecological and social benefits.

New Zealand already has capable scientists and communities ready to act. What it lacks is a national system that makes effective nature-based solutions easier to identify, fund, deliver and evaluate.

Bringing these pieces together will be crucial if “working with nature” is to move from an attractive policy aspiration to a practical part of adapting to climate change.

Bradley Case has received research funding from the Department of Conservation.

For nature-based climate adaptation, better data is only one part of the full system required to determine where to act, who decides and how action will be funded.

Adresse

16 Rue Charlemagne
Paris
75004

Heures d'ouverture

Lundi	09:00 - 18:00
Mardi	09:00 - 18:00
Mercredi	09:00 - 18:00
Jeudi	09:00 - 18:00
Vendredi	09:00 - 18:00

Site Web

http://www.kiwimag.com/

Notifications

Soyez le premier à savoir et laissez-nous vous envoyer un courriel lorsque Kiwi Mag publie des nouvelles et des promotions. Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas utilisée à d'autres fins, et vous pouvez vous désabonner à tout moment.

Contacter L'école

Envoyer un message à Kiwi Mag:

Kiwi Mag