BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-03-28 13:43:00
French bank Société Générale withdraws from Rio Grande LNG
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
2023-02-24 13:46:14
Pego power station conversion plans halted
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Banks and steel
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › BankTrack news ›
BankTrack News

48 civil society organizations and networks express “profound concern” that TNFD will assist greenwashing

2022-10-13
By: BankTrack & Forests & Finance Coalition
Contact:

Hannah Greep, Banks & Nature Campaign Lead, BankTrack

Logos of signatory organisations. Photo: Various
2022-10-13
By: BankTrack & Forests & Finance Coalition
Contact:

Hannah Greep, Banks & Nature Campaign Lead, BankTrack

Today, 48 civil society organizations and networks - whose members include over 220 organizations on six continents - have publicly written to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to express their “profound concern” with its work. The open letter is the latest in a series of escalating efforts by CSOs to raise the alarm on TNFD’s work and its potential to facilitate corporate greenwashing. It is timed to coincide with TNFD representatives speaking on various panels at the International Union of Conservation of Nation Leaders Forum this week. 

The taskforce is composed of 34 global corporations and is developing a framework for how businesses should self-report on their nature-related risks. While it is a voluntary initiative, already the Co-Chair of TNFD has called for it to be made mandatory. In June TNFD released the second of its four planned drafts, with the third due in November. The letter comes at a time of increasing international focus on the need to stem the trillions of dollars in financing that are driving the nature crisis and the human rights abuses that often underpin it. 

The letter raises various concerns. This includes that TNFD’s proposal wouldn’t require a business to report on: its impacts, such as risks or harms to nature and people, complaints about its environmental practices or lobbying against new environmental laws, or even disclose where it operates, sources from or finances. The letter also calls out TNFD’s secretive decision-making processes and that it is failing to value the expertise of rights holders.  

Further background on TNFD and a collation of resources about civil society concerns can be found here. 

“The potential for TNFD to facilitate greenwashing is very real. Under its proposed approach, a company can claim to be a champion of biodiversity while secretly lobbying to undermine laws that would protect nature and hold corporations to account.” - Merel van der Mark, coordinator of the Forests & Finance Coalition

"The world needs a hard-edged biodiversity disclosure regime that will facilitate the movement of money away from destructive activities. We don’t need a bookclub for industry lobbyists to greenwash capital’s complicity in the biodiversity crisis. So many of the participants and stakeholders that have leapt upon the TNFD have been the very same industry groups and companies who have actively campaigned against environmental and First Nations rights in Australia for the last 50 years. To see their participation in the TNFD without any consequent indication that they are changing or willing to change their approach is ringing alarm bells for us. We are looking for something better than this.” - Tim Beshara, Manager of Policy and Strategy, Wilderness Society (Australia)

“Rainforest Action Network and others have supplied an array of evidence, case studies and supporting materials to TNFD outlining the serious flaws in its approach, and various options to mitigate its worst impacts. Core to this has to be prioritizing the expertise of those with lived experience of the nature crisis and those most affected by its devastation. Yet it has failed to act. For an initiative that claims to be ‘science-based’ it doesn’t appear particularly interested in acting on the evidence.” - Shona Hawkes, Adviser, Rainforest Action Network

“Investors and central banks should also be wary. Under TNFD’s proposal, investors won’t have access to essential information to gauge whether their money is helping, or harming, biodiversity and the people who protect it. What possible benefit can there be for keeping people in the dark about such basic facts as whether a company is facing complaints about its role in environmental abuse?” - Karen Vermeer, Finance Working Group Coordinator, the Environmental Paper Network

“If you ask a roomful of global corporations if they’d like to report on their environmental and human rights abuses the answer is hardly likely to be an enthusiastic ‘yes’. Let’s be clear, TNFD’s substandard recommendations aren’t based on evidence, but the level of ambition of its taskforce members.” - Veronica Oakeshott, Forest Team lead, Global Witness

The letter is also available in French, Portuguese and Spanish. 

Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Banks and steel Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted