Dhe chief executives of the major financial groups seem to have eaten chalk: they have long been committed to climate protection. But no matter how big the marketing wheel is that banks and fund companies are turning with sustainable investments, there is a lack of implementation. This is indicated by a study published on Monday by the non-governmental organization ShareAction, which is committed to responsible financial investments and to which other prominent initiatives such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Amnesty International and Oxfam belong.
There are significant differences between the leading institutes and the laggards in every relevant category for climate and environmental protection, said Xavier Lerin, banking specialist and one of the study authors. ShareAction, a not-for-profit organization, researched Europe’s leading banks in eight areas, including climate targets, transparency about emissions, exclusions from certain sectors such as coal and oil, and protecting biodiversity.
20 of the 25 major European banks examined had committed themselves to reducing the CO2 emissions from their portfolios to net zero by 2050 at the latest. But only a few have already taken concrete measures to achieve this goal. The ShareAction study highlights UK banks Lloyds and NatWest, as well as the Scandinavian Nordea Group, which have pledged to halve the emissions they fund by 2030 to ensure they are on the road to their net-zero 2050 target to be.
Eight of the 25 banks examined had set intermediate targets for the sectors that are particularly dependent on CO2 emissions. But only Barclays, Crédit Agricole and NatWest would use instruments that would tell them that their goals are already reducing emissions.
German banks are lagging behind
The study reports little positive on the German institutes Deutsche Bank, DZ Bank and Commerzbank. So far, they have not taken any concrete steps to halve the emissions they have financed by 2030 and, as announced, to be climate-neutral by 2050. None of the three German institutes have set an end date for the financing of coal production and electricity generation. They would have no goals to end the financing of new fossil energy projects, although according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) no new fossil energy projects should be developed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
According to the study, the banks only restrict certain forms of unconventional fuel extraction. Since biomass emits even more carbon dioxide when burned than coal, banks should reconsider their financing of the biomass sector, urges ShareAction in the report.
The study also goes to court when it comes to the remuneration of top employees: Although individual components are linked to certain sustainable key figures, these key figures have little relevance for the general effects of the bank’s business policy on climate change.
.