Controversy remains over the climate consistency of finance flows despite its centrality in the Paris Agreement (Article 2.1(c)). Two main interpretations dispute the goal’s reach, threatening its transformational potential. If left unresolved, the controversy may also mask trade-offs, allowing for unintentional harm to countries already vulnerable to climate change. Here we build on four methods to show that Art. 2.1(c) comprises a new meaning of ‘finance’ under the United Nations negotiations. In contrast to climate finance provision to developing countries (Art. 9), the climate consistency of finance flows represents a purpose that relies on support and action to transform the global financial system. Implementation of Art. 2.1(c) requires engagement by governments and non-state actors, including the financial sector. While solutions for Art. 2.1(c) will need to be adequate for countries’ contexts, accounting of trade-offs should ensure some level of convergence towards a global, timely and equitable progress towards climate consistency of finance flows.