Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

JP Morgan and State Street back out of largest climate investor group

Some $14 trillion of assets have up and left Climate Action 100+. Key corporate members JP Morgan and State Street have announced their resignation from the global investment group while BlackRock has significantly limited its involvement. Sigh.

Climate adaptation costs could reportedly climb to $340 billion by 2030. Yet, a duo of financial behemoths worth a combined $14 trillion deem this a great time to jump ship from coordinated international efforts to thwart climate change.

JP Morgan and State Street recently confirmed that they would be quitting the Climate Action 100+, a bloc of over 700 investment outfits which aims to drive carbon emissions out of the corporate world and achieve net zero transitions by 2050.

Despite an uptick in 60 on-boarded companies this past quarter, the exit of these two major players is cause for concern given the suspicious timing of their decision. The cynic in me also believes there could be more blows to come.

Last June, the CA100+ detailed its plans for ‘phase two’, which involved demanding that signatory laggards engage with policymakers and accelerate their plans to achieve net zero businesses before the deadline of the Paris Agreement.

Since this announcement, US-based asset managers have been under increasing pressure from Republican Politicians who continue to pull funds from pro-ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) initiatives.

JP Morgan was one of 53 US financial firms to be warned that its participation in ESG groups is a significant conflict of interest with some of its investors and their goals. If proven in court, this could be deemed illegal under anti-trust law.

The pushback has banks and firms weighing up the benefits of gaining ecological credibility, over the risk of getting dragged into a bureaucratic mess and potential lawsuits.

Understandably, many are less keen to advertise their climate friendly policies online – the CA100+ publicly lists its investors on its website – and some are looking to disassociate from pro-ESG groups entirely to save their bacon.

State Street has cited the CA100+ ‘phase two’ requirements as being incompatible with its ‘independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.’ Sceptics, however, suggest that no such requirements can be found within the phase two manifesto.

In the case of JP Morgan, the corporation claimed it decided to focus on its in-house climate risk engagement framework and couldn’t justify partaking in both enterprises at once.

Compared to the CA100+ in terms of influence and effectiveness, however, this individualistic approach ‘risks fragmenting efforts and diluting the collective impact needed for meaningful environmental change,’ asserts Per-Otto Wold, CEO of Zerolytics.

Lastly, BlackRock has seen fit to divert its CA100+ participation to BlackRock International, its far smaller global arm. The divestment from all three means that the planet’s leading climate coalition no longer has the support of the world’s top five money managers.

As continued pressure is applied on pro-ESG companies to back down, we’ll see which are genuinely committed to their ecological pledges and which have priorities elsewhere.

Accessibility