GLOBAL COOLING — The world’s biggest financial firms are beginning to show how far is too far when it comes to aligning corporate policies to fight climate change. Wall Street had already begun retrenching after a period in which its leaders seemed willing to address the roles their firms play in global warming, highlighted by BlackRock Chair and CEO Larry Fink's 2020 declaration that climate risk is investment risk. Financial giants set net-zero targets and many joined U.N.-backed groups designed to get investors and financial institutions to push themselves and the companies they invest in to do more on climate. But that was then. Just last week, JP Morgan’s asset management division and State Street announced they would withdraw from Climate Action 100+, the largest investor-led climate initiative. And BlackRock has shifted its membership from the top corporate level to an international unit, citing “legal considerations” in the U.S., according to a note from the company. It turns out that Climate Action’s Phase 2 strategy was a bridge too far for the firms. While up until now Climate Action participants have pushed companies to develop net-zero commitments and improve disclosure, signatories are being asked starting in June to actually start implementing climate transition plans, cut emissions across their supply chains and deliver on targets. While the moves are a symbolic blow for climate activists, it’s not clear whether the departing firms are dimming their own ambitions or addressing concerns around their legal ability to execute on climate pledges in coordination with their competitors and in alignment with their business obligation to serve the best interests of their clients. Plus, BlackRock and State Street remain members of the Net-Zero Asset Managers initiative, they each said in statements, and JP Morgan continues to be part of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. “I am extremely disappointed at what they’ve done,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), co-chair of the Congressional Sustainable Investment Caucus, said in an interview. “And at the same time, it doesn't really matter.” The departures from Climate Action 100+ highlight the huge challenges for constructing an effective mechanism to get big financial players aligned in the fight against global warming. No U.S. insurer has joined the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance. And the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero was forced to dial back its requirement in 2022 that its members, which include JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, phase out all unabated fossil fuels. Still, if part of the reason Wall Street got into clean energy, green start-ups and climate transition firms in the first place was for the boatloads of money that could be made, why walk away from a global warming-fighting group now? The shifting political winds are glaring. Wall Street has come under intense scrutiny from the right over its consideration of climate risk and other environmental, social and governance factors in business decisions. It’s been large firms’ involvement in Climate Action 100+ in particular that’s fueled allegations of anti-trust violations and some sort of industry-wide collusive boycott against the fossil fuel industry. Republicans have zeroed in on Climate Action in congressional letters to BlackRock from Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan and in an ESG probe by GOP attorneys general. Of course, none of the big firms are boycotting fossil fuels — the fact that they’re not is in itself the reason for much of the pushback from green groups. But the mad dash for the Climate Action exit signs is still chalked up to a win for the anti-ESG forces that have raised legal questions. “We should take a victory lap because of what we've been able to achieve without legislation,” Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee gunning for the committee’s chairmanship and a leading anti-ESG lawmaker in Congress, told our Eleanor Mueller about the GOP-led pressure campaign against financial firms’ climate efforts. For longtime environmentalist Bill McKibben, the move shows that the companies are “amoral at best.” “Can you think of any other explanation?” McKibben, who co-founded the fossil fuel divestment organization 350.org, said of the role anti-ESG politics played in the Climate Action moves. “It’s a demonstration that they were absolutely shameless and had no intention of doing much in the first place.”
|
No comments:
Post a Comment