Frequently asked questions

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Institutional questions about participation, procurement, adoption, economics, legal responsibilities, operations, public claims, and next steps.

Contents

Questions by topic

Part I. Understanding the institutional proposition

What is Global Commons-compliant banking, and why is the Commission asking institutions to participate?

Global Commons-compliant banking is a proposed framework for using existing banking and payment systems to help finance and govern shared systems that cross national borders, such as the atmosphere, oceans, climate, biodiversity, the global water cycle, and certain human-made commons.

Participating financial institutions would offer certified products, contribute a portion of selected transaction-related revenue, and invite customers into Global Commons Commission consultations and future democratic processes.

Institutions matter because they can create demand and supply at scale. Banks, fintechs, payment processors, and investment-service providers can implement the financial mechanism. Corporations and grantmakers can request compliant services through procurement and RFPs. NGOs, associations, employers, and other networks can educate their communities and invite voluntary consumer adoption.

The current system is an early-stage, voluntary initiative rather than a generally accepted banking standard or legal mandate.

Which types of institutions can participate, and what roles can they play?

The GCC invites participation from financial service providers, corporations, NGOs and other civil-society organizations, scientific and academic institutions, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, philanthropies, and governments. The intended roles differ.

Financial providers can develop certified products and contribution mechanisms; corporations can use certified accounts or request them from vendors; NGOs and membership organizations can promote adoption; researchers can inform evidence-based policy; and governments can collaborate while retaining their national and local authority.

Participation is not one-size-fits-all. An institution should select a defined pathway and scope, identify the legal entity making the commitment, and avoid implying that an entire corporate group, product portfolio, supply chain, or membership body is covered when only a pilot, account, or affiliate is participating.

What is the difference between signing the Call to Action, becoming a Provisional Member, becoming a Charter Member, and entering a civil-society partnership?

These are separate pathways. A Call to Action signatory publicly supports the initiative’s stated objectives. A Provisional corporate member agrees, according to the Certification process, to use one or more Global Commons Certified financial-service accounts. A Provisional financial-service member agrees to provide contributing products or services, invite customers to participate, and, to the extent possible, respond to GCC policy recommendations.

A Charter Member makes a broader commitment covering all financial products and adopts corporate bylaw or charter language. A civil-society funding partner is an NGO or similar organization operating under a separate agreement to promote sign-ups and potentially receive funding or revenue share.

The website outlines this high-level map, but the operative agreements have the details. The linked Certification Agreement, Charter bylaw texts, and Civil Society Funding Partnership Agreement should be reviewed directly by the institution and counsel before any commitment is described as binding, certified, exclusive, or revenue-generating.

Details are still forthcoming on eligibility, approval authority, term, renewal, public listing, logo rights, reporting, withdrawal, suspension, and the relationship among signatory, member, certified participant, etc.

What does ‘Global Commons Certified’ currently mean, and who awards and monitors the certification?

Financial institutions and corporations may apply as Provisional or Charter Members, and approved institutions may describe themselves as Global Commons Certified with the relevant membership level. The GCC operates as the certifier and policy coordinator. Core commitments include use or provision of certified services, contribution of transaction-related funds, customer invitations, and eventual response to policy recommendations.

Details are forthcoming about future certification standards, product registers, assessment methods, auditor qualifications, surveillance schedules, corrective-action processes, renewal cycles, and appeals procedures. Therefore, institutional copy should not compare the certification with mature accredited standards or imply independent verification unless those controls actually exist and are disclosed.

Does institutional participation endorse a new jurisdiction, and what obligations does signing create?

The Call to Action asks signatories to support legal recognition of the global commons and voluntary financial mechanisms intended to advance that vision. It should be recognized that the Global Commons Commission initiative is experimental and participation remains voluntary for consumers, providers, and states until it becomes an industry standard or is mandated by national law. Signing the Call to Action is a separate process from obtaining certification or implementing a financial product.

Details are forthcoming about terms covering authorized signers, publication and logo consent, amendment notices, withdrawal, renewal, recordkeeping, governing law, and the distinction between advocacy support and certification obligations.

Part II. Corporate procurement and RFPs

How can a corporation, foundation, or NGO incorporate Global Commons requirements into a banking RFP?

Any institution that wants to promote global commons-compliant banking, can issue and RFP asking for such services from the financial industry. Some guidance is offered here. A practical RFP can ask bidders to identify any GCC certification, specify exact legal entities, products, countries, and services covered, and describe how contributions, customer participation, reporting, data protection, and governance commitments would work.

The buyer can make certification a scored preference, a condition of award, or a contractual milestone, depending on market availability and procurement law. Mandatory requirements should be separated from aspirational or future capabilities so bids remain comparable.

The RFP should preserve ordinary financial requirements: licensing, safety and soundness, pricing, service levels, cybersecurity, sanctions and anti-money-laundering controls, deposit or asset protection, implementation capacity, complaints, and exit planning.

Here are sample templates of RFPs for small companies, and mullti-national corporations.

Must an institution move all of its banking relationships, or can it begin with one account, product, or pilot?

The certification framework allows a phased start. A Provisional corporate member may use one or more Global Commons Certified financial-service accounts. A Provisional financial institution may begin by offering qualifying products or services. Charter Membership is the broader pathway: Charter Members commit to operate all financial products with Global Commons Certification and update corporate bylaws and corresponding bank charters.

A pilot should be precisely bounded – for example, one operating account, card portfolio, acquiring relationship, custody mandate, geography, employee group, or member campaign.

Which financial services can an institutional RFP or certification cover?

The public framework is broader than consumer bank cards. The Fee Policy addresses issuing banks, merchant acquirers, card networks, gateways and payment processors. It also offers guidance for clearing, settlement, exchange trading, custody, investment-banking advisory and underwriting, and private-banking or wealth-management transactions. The Certification page refers generally to financial products and services, while corporate Provisional Members may use one or more certified accounts.

This creates a potential pathway for deposit accounts, payments, merchant acquiring, treasury and foreign exchange, custody, investment services, and wealth management. However, no public product taxonomy or register shows which services are currently certifiable, available, or approved in each jurisdiction. An RFP must therefore state the requested scope and ask the GCC and bidder to confirm eligibility in writing.

In the future we will publish a certification taxonomy and live register showing approved providers and products by legal entity, service, jurisdiction, certification level, effective date, expiration date, and any limitations or exceptions.

What should RFP bidders disclose so that institutional proposals can be compared and verified?

No standard GCC compliance bidding template is yet available at this time. At a minimum, bidding institutions should provide details about legal incorporation, product capabilities, geography, and regulatory concerns; GCC certification level and dates; full pricing; proposed contribution rates; treatment of refunds, reversals, chargebacks, foreign exchange, and taxes; reporting and audit rights; customer-participation duties; data-controller and processor roles; implementation plan; and exit terms.

Bidders should distinguish existing capabilities from future commitments, and attach evidence rather than rely on general marketing statements. The buying institutions should retain the right to verify certification status, reconcile reported contributions, review material changes, and require correction if public claims exceed the certified scope.

In the future we will publish a GCC bidder disclosure form, an evidence checklist, standard definitions, calculation examples, a comparable pricing template, a certification verification method, and minimum audit and reporting rights.

What can an institution do if no certified financial provider is yet available in its country or service category?

Institutions that seek GCC compliant financial services are encouraged to ask prospective providers to pursue Provisional Membership with the GCC, and to develop a limited pilot. A contract could make certification or an agreed implementation plan a future milestone.

Until certification is granted, the institution should describe the activity as exploration, or a pilot under development, not as certified banking. It should also avoid weakening ordinary liquidity, diversification, fiduciary, regulatory, or service requirements merely to secure an impact label.

In the future, we will publish rules about applicant and transitional certification status, and target review times. We will also outline acceptable interim certification evidence, and provide a process for institutions to invite new banks or fintechs into certification.

Part III. NGOs, associations, employers, and member adoption

How can an NGO, association, employer, university, religious community, or other network invite people to adopt Global Commons cards?

The GCC assigns civil society a role in raising awareness and promoting voluntary adoption of Global Commons-compliant financial services. The Sign On page also links to a Civil Society Funding Partnership Agreement for NGOs seeking funding, or revenue share, connected to sign-ups.

In practice, a partner could educate its community, provide an approved referral link or campaign code, host informational sessions, and direct interested people to the regulated provider’s application process.

Promotion is voluntary and separate the institution’s mission relationship to the GCC. No NGO or employer should imply that membership, employment, services, grants, spiritual standing, academic participation, or other benefits depend on opening an account, unless a fully disclosed program expressly provides otherwise.

In the future, we will publish partner onboarding kits covering eligibility, approved referral methods, campaign attribution, training, required disclosures, prohibited practices, accessibility, languages, complaints, and rules for employers, schools, religious bodies, and organizations serving vulnerable populations.

What should an institution tell members, employees, donors, or supporters when promoting a card?

Campaign materials should explain who issues and operates the financial product; that enrollment is voluntary and subject to the provider’s eligibility, identity, and compliance checks; how contributions are funded and calculated; which organization may receive referral revenue; what impact claims are supported; and where the consumer can obtain official terms, support, and complaint handling.

Materials should separate current product facts from the longer-term GCC vision. For example, the GCC currently recommends no fee variability across merchant categories during the startup period. A campaign should not say that a live card already charges polluters more, guarantees lower consumer costs, or produces verified environmental outcomes unless the specific product and evidence support those claims.

In the future, we will create partner-approved marketing templates, a claims substantiation file, mandatory disclaimers, brand rules, translations, accessibility standards, training and approval workflows, and a process for withdrawing outdated campaign materials.

Can a civil-society organization receive funding or revenue share for card sign-ups?

NGOs supporting the global commons and seeking funding or revenue share for sign-ups may review the Civil Society Funding Partnership Agreement. Compensated partnerships are possible. At this time there is no universal payment rate or guarantee that every sign-up, application, approved account, activated card, or transaction will generate revenue for the referring organization.

In the future, partnership agreements will detail eligibility, attribution, payment triggers, timing, minimums, reversals, fraud, taxes, restricted-fund treatment, use of proceeds, reporting, audit, termination, and whether the arrangement must be disclosed to prospective applicants.

Who owns the relationship and personal data when an institution refers people to a financial provider?

The current GCC privacy policy covers contact details submitted to the GCC website. Contacts may be used for mission-related communications. The policy does not yet define lead ownership, consent language, referral tracking, cross-border transfers, security incidents, or whether the referring institution receives application or account-status data.

We believe that the safest launch design is data minimization: partner institutions supply an approved link or code, while the regulated financial service provider collects identity and banking data directly. The partner should receive only the minimum aggregated or consented attribution information needed for reporting and payment, and should never collect passwords, government identification, account credentials, or know-your-customer documents unless its legally approved role expressly requires it.

How will branding, referrals, complaints, and responsible marketing be controlled?

No complete public brand, affiliate-marketing, or complaint-management standard is available at this time. Before institutions recruit consumers, the GCC, financial provider, and referral partner will assign responsibility for approving materials, training spokespeople, monitoring social media and influencers, recording consent, preventing spam, disclosing compensation, and supporting accessibility and languages.

Partner agreements will address use of names and logos, trademark scope, prohibited claims, sub-affiliates, incentives, vulnerable audiences, record retention, and regulator inquiries.

Part IV. Economics and impact

How are Global Commons contributions calculated, and who pays them?

In our Fee Policy, we publish recommended percentages for several participants in payments and institutional finance. These recommendations are generally expressed as a percentage of transaction value, except custody, which is expressed annually on assets under custody. Participating financial institutions retain discretion to set fees according to their legal and commercial environments and are expected to pass part of first-mover customer-acquisition savings to the Global Commons Fund.

Contracts with certified financial service providers will detail covered transactions, rates, the calculation base, exclusions, currency conversion, tax treatment, refunds and chargebacks, payment timing, recipients, and audit trails. With this information partner institutions will be able to reliably calculate cost and impact.

Are GCC fee recommendations mandatory, and do they already vary by merchant or sustainability performance?

Our Fee Policy describes fees as recommendations. Partners have discretion to set fees within their legal and commercial constraints. During our startup period, no fee variability is recommended across Merchant Category Codes or sustainability-disclosure frameworks. Variable, risk-adjusted pricing is a longer-term policy direction, not a current universal operating feature.

A signed Certification Agreement may name specific contractual obligations for a participating institution.

Where does the money go, and can an institution designate a cause, country, or local charity?

Decisions are relegated to two bodies: the Global Commons Commission develops policy and governance guidance, while the Global Commons Fund collects philanthropic resources and distributes grants in line with that guidance. The Commission is organized around five working groups and their respective constituencies: Indigenous Peoples, civil society, science / academia, the private sector (including financial service providers), and governments.

The exact grant-decision body, voting rules, delegation of authority, local-country role, conflict-of-interest process, and cardholder influence over allocations have not been decided. After achieving a key threshold of success from transaction fee revenue, the Global Commons Commission will host a convention to design a “Charter for the Global Commons” to make these decisions. Until that time, all of these efforts are considered to be preliminary and experimental.

These details are outlined in the Call to Action of the Global Commons Commission.

The Global Commons Fund and Commission are managed by partner organizations, and are fiscally sponsored by the Giving Back Fund in the United States, the Sincronicity Institute in Brazil and through other partners in other countries.

To help shape the initial philanthropic strategy of the Global Commons Fund, as a proof of concept, several members of Global Governance Philanthropy Network, the Amazonia Philanthropy Network, and the Amazon Investor Coalition have pooled their funds to support the Amazon forest. Here is an initial $10 million announcement, and the first 2024-2025 biennial report.

How are recipient organizations evaluated, and how do you prevent fraud, conflicts of interest, or misuse of funds?

The detailed grant due-diligence and integrity protocols that have been followed, to date, are available upon request.

Before funds are distributed, program applicants are evaluated for integrity through rigorous processes that are proportionate to grant size and risk, including legal status, beneficial ownership and leadership, sanctions and anti-money-laundering screening where applicable, conflicts of interest, financial controls, safeguarding, references, project budgets, disbursement conditions, and results reporting.

Will you publish independently verifiable reports showing money collected, administrative costs, grants made, and results achieved?

Yes.

Here is an initial $10 million announcement, and the first 2024-2025 biennial report on a grant distribution of more than $1.5 million.

Beyond work in the Amazon, no other reporting schedule, independent-assurance standard, or card-program audit commitment has yet been published. In the future, we will publish gross contributions, net receipts, operating costs, grants and recipients, related-party transactions, country allocations, outcomes, and uncommitted balances.

We will offer transparency where independent audit or assurance has not yet been completed.

Part V. Legal, operational, reputational, and next steps

What legal, regulatory, fiduciary, and tax due diligence should an institution complete?

No universal GCC due-diligence checklist is yet available, and requirements will differ by country, institution, service, and campaign.

A review should cover the legal identity and authority of every party; banking, payment, investment, and charity status; procurement and fiduciary duties; contribution and referral-payment characterization; tax, accounting, sanctions, anti-bribery, anti-money-laundering, and fundraising rules; consumer-financial marketing; privacy and cross-border data; cybersecurity; competition; lobbying or political-activity implications; intellectual property; insurance; and dispute resolution.

Partner institutions must also confirm that GCC certification does not substitute for regulatory authorization, deposit insurance, custody protection, investment suitability, vendor risk management, or legally required sustainability disclosures. Local counsel and the responsible regulated provider should approve the final structure and external claims.

In the future, we will publish jurisdiction-specific due-diligence packs and responsibility matrices for corporate buyers, financial providers, nonprofits, grantmakers, employers, and membership organizations, with suggested licenses, approvals, disclosures, and counsel sign-offs.

What operational and technical work is required, and how long should implementation take?

No standard implementation timeline or service model is yet published. The work can range from a light-touch RFP preference or referral campaign to substantial banking, payments, accounting, and data integration.

Pilot implementations should define scope and success measures; vendor and legal review processes; certification, financial, contribution, data, and marketing terms; transaction eligibility and reconciliation; referral attribution and consent; recommended staff training; and test customer communications.

Timing depends on whether an already-approved product exists, whether a regulated financial application or card program must be built, the countries involved, procurement requirements, data integration, and brand approval. Partnership agreements should include written work plans, dependencies, acceptance tests, launch criteria, and recommendations for a realistic contingency period.

How will complaints, non-compliance, and program exit be handled?

Our enforcement and exit polices are still in development. Institutional agreements will define many of these questions, including who receives certification as well as governance, privacy, marketing, and regulated-financial complaints. Additional policies will cover response times; conflicts; corrective-action plans; appeals; and more.

Exit terms will address advance notice, outstanding transactions and contributions, customer account continuity, removal of certification marks, and other concerns.

What public claims can a participating institution safely make today?

An institution can accurately describe a completed action and its scope: for example, that it signed the Call to Action, entered a civil-society partnership, applied for certification, became a Provisional or Charter Member, launched a named certified product, or issued an RFP that includes GCC criteria – but only when the statement is true, authorized, current, and limited to the relevant legal entity, product, geography, and dates.

Institutions should not claim that all of their banking is certified when only one account is covered; that certification satisfies legal climate, nature, social, or financial obligations; or that impact is independently verified without assurance. Applications and discussions should not be described as certification.

What is the practical next step for an institution that wants to sign on, seek certification, issue an RFP, or run a pilot?

First choose the pathway and scope: public Call to Action support; Provisional corporate use of one or more certified accounts; Provisional financial-provider certification; Charter Membership; a civil-society referral partnership; or an exploratory RFP.

The GCC Sign On page accepts organizational information, and the Contact page lists contact@gccommission.org.