Systemic banks: black boxes on green issues
Less talk and more action needed around climate disclosures linked to carbon emissions
In recent years, global systemically important banks (G-Sibs) have done much to underscore their green values – often facing greenwashing allegations – but fell short of properly disclosing the climate impact of their portfolios.
Announcing the latest sustainability report in 2020, Goldman Sachs’ chief executive officer David Solomon said sustainability was not an offshoot of the bank’s business, “it is our business”.
Bank of America’s vice-chair Anne Finucane echoed the sentiment earlier this year, arguing it was critical to “leverage all parts of our business – beyond our direct operations – in order to accelerate the transition to a net-zero global economy”.
However, many systemic banks have so far focused on the risks climate change might pose to their business, without focusing on how they are financing the problem themselves.
The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures gives banks and other financial institutions an out from this behaviour, by encouraging them to disclose their own financed emissions.
Established by the Financial Stability Board in 2017, the TCFD aims to improve firms’ climate disclosures, including their greenhouse gas emissions, which need to hit net-zero by 2050 if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Twenty-nine out of the 30 G-Sibs have already signed the TCFD. Unfortunately, 17 of them are yet to publish their financed emissions, Risk Quantum analysis found.
By their own admission, while banks’ commitment to disclose those metrics may be there, the lack of data availability and a multitude of different methodologies make the task harder than it already is.
“As we begin this path towards reliable and comparable disclosures, private and public sector entities are recognising the significant data challenges that exist,” Erik Soderberg, head of Deutsche Bank’s regulatory affairs in the Americas, wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission in July.
As one interim solution to the data collection problem, and to address the fact many clients do not yet measure their own emissions, Standard Chartered supplemented its financed emissions disclosures and targets with estimates of client emissions based on statistical regression analysis at sector level.
But, as the clock keeps ticking, this is far from being enough. First, banks should standardise the unit of choice for their financed emission disclosures. Second, they should extend them to cover not just relative emissions metrics – which make like-for-like comparisons all but impossible – but absolute emissions too.
Only at that point will banks align their disclosures and be held accountable for their contributions to climate change. Until then, the accusations of greenwashing will continue.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
SpaceX gives CME’s single-stock futures a much-needed boost
New contracts could take off as IPO bolt-on to S&P 500 contracts
Bank vs non-bank: FX’s two-tier reality
CME and LSEG data show banks provide sticky and broad liquidity, while non-banks cling tightly to the price
Have regulators gone soft on enforcement? (And should we care?)
US agencies are scaling back punishments for technical rule breaches, raising concerns that small but crucial risks may be ignored
Beyond FX HedgePool: what’s next for all-to-all?
Proponents see bright future for trading model, but obstacles to take-up remain
Basel’s CVA upgrade: persuasive in the US, less so in Europe
Ban on credit risk models could encourage US banks to adopt more sophisticated CVA method
Is alt data betting on prediction markets?
While offering a rich source of new data, legal uncertainties remain
The SaaSpocalypse shows private markets need risk models
Investors have little idea how bad the losses in private credit are going to be
Private credit disclosures leave more questions than answers
Muddled metrics and scattergun reporting hinder comparison of US lenders