Banks| Policies| Dodgy Deals| Campaigns
About us| Blog| Publications| Successes| Contact us| Donate
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
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-01-23 00:00:00
Berta Cáceres: new rules for banks could help stop defender killings
2023-01-16 00:00:00
In the balance: Why European due diligence legislation must cover financial services
2022-12-08 00:00:00
Exposed: Western banks funding Qatar’s carbon bombs
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
2022-10-13 15:56:39
More major banks and insurers refuse to support EACOP
2022-09-16 10:38:48
European Parliament passes emergency resolution against human rights violations & environmental threats linked to EACOP
2022-06-27 09:49:16
Crédit Agricole takes first step to phase out from the oil and gas sector
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
Browse
Home
Banks
Policies
Dodgy Deals
Campaigns
About
About BankTrack
Donate
Contact BankTrack
Publications
Victories
Follow Us
News
BankTrack blog
Facebook
Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Instagram
Affiliate Websites
Fossil Banks No Thanks
StopEACOP
Forests & Finance
Banks & Biodiversity
Drop JBS
Bank of Coal
Don't Buy into Occupation
Home › News
In the Shadow: Who is opposing the taxonomy for polluting activities?
Start

By: Change Finance & Reclaim Finance
2020-12-04

Contact:

Paul Schreiber, Campaigner, paul@reclaimfinance.org

Lucie Pinson, Director, lucie@reclaimfinance.org, +33 6 79 54 37 15


Share this page:

In the Shadows report on lobbying of financial and economic institutions on an EU taxonomy for polluting activities. Photo: Reclaim Finance & Change Finance
Go to:
Start

Reclaim Finance and Change Finance today published a report on the lobbying of financial and economic institutions on an EU taxonomy for polluting activities. The briefing analyzes the 648 responses to the consultation on the renewed EU sustainable finance strategy, to provide a clear picture of who are the opponents to a taxonomy for polluting activities, and how they could manage to push the EU Commission to bury this critical piece of legislation. It calls on the EU Commission to prioritize a taxonomy for polluting activities and on financial institutions to end all anti-climate lobbying.

As the work on the EU sustainable taxonomy is reaching its end, the EU Commission will decide whether its taxonomy for “green” activities will be completed by a taxonomy for “polluting” activities. In partnership with Change Finance, Reclaim Finance analyzed the responses to the consultation on the EU sustainable finance strategy to investigate who opposes or supports this taxonomy. The briefing, entitled In the Shadow: Who is opposing the taxonomy for polluting activities?, shows that out of 648 respondents, 203 explicitly supported a taxonomy for polluting activities, while 169 opposed it. Financial institutions are the larger block opposing a taxonomy for polluting activities, with 74 institutions making up 45% of its opponents. Though the financial sector is divided, many influential global financial institutions and several professional federations or associations lead the charge against a taxonomy for polluting activities.

“Several financial institutions that are members of prestigious climate-initiatives – such as BNP Paribas, Société Générale or HSBC – are lobbying against a taxonomy for polluting activities. They can count on their federations’ support, like the three major French financial federations the AFG, the FBF, and the FFA. Financial institutions that did not explicitly express themselves on this taxonomy let their federation do the dirty work for them, and those that came in support of the taxonomy become strangely misaligned with their representative body”, explains Paul Schreiber, who conducted the research for Reclaim Finance.

The second-biggest opponents to this taxonomy are fossil fuel companies, like RWE, Eni, or Engie, and their interest groups, like Eurogas, FuelsEurope, IOGP, as well as more mainstream economic organizations, like the French MEDEF, the German Industry Association, or the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise. While none of the four arguments used by financial institutions to oppose a taxonomy for polluting activities directly refer to the fossil fuel industry, their opposition will mainly benefit to high-emitting companies.

“The whole high-carbon economy sticks together to block a taxonomy for polluting activities. It‘s no wonder why the second-biggest opponents to this taxonomy are the fossil fuel companies and their interest groups but it’s much more worrying coming from the financial industry. The sustainable finance framework developed by the EU would not be complete without a taxonomy for polluting activities. By opposing it, financial institutions turn a blind eye to the need to phase-out fossil fuels and choose their vested interests over the protection of the climate”, concludes Lucie Pinson, Director of Reclaim Finance and 2020 Goldman Prize Recipient.

The briefing calls on the EU Commission to support and prioritize a taxonomy for polluting activities, on financial players to break away from professional federations, associations or interest groups that engage in anti-climate lobbying, and, on climate initiatives to ban their members from conducting in anti-climate lobbying.

Link to the complete report.

Link to Reuters’ investigation based on the report.

Notes:
 1. For comprehensive information on the EU sustainable Taxonomy, see Change Finance’s article and SOMO’s factsheet;
 2. A detailed list of opponents and supporters of a taxonomy for polluting activities is available in the report’s annex;
 3. Authors choose to replace the term “brown taxonomy” – often used by financial institutions and in the EU consultation documents – with “a taxonomy for polluting activities". The use of “brown” to talk about high-GHG and/or polluting activities that are incompatible with the ecological transition perpetuates a racist vocabulary in finance. This taxonomy is also sometimes called “unsustainable” or “significantly harmful”.

Browse
Home
Banks
Policies
Dodgy Deals
Campaigns
About
About BankTrack
Donate
Contact BankTrack
Publications
Victories
Follow Us
News
BankTrack blog
Facebook
Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Twitter Fossil Banks No Thanks Instagram
Affiliate Websites
Fossil Banks No Thanks
StopEACOP
Forests & Finance
Banks & Biodiversity
Drop JBS
Bank of Coal
Don't Buy into Occupation
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands

Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
©2016 BankTrack                Webdesign by BankTrack and EASYmind
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