On the occasion of the Moral Money Summit Europe conference, organized on May 18 and 19 by the FinancialTimes, one of the leaders of the HSBC group launched into a presentation which he titled “Why investors should not worry about climate risk”. Stuart Kirk, global head of responsible investing in HSBC’s asset management division, accused central bankers and politicians of overstating the impact of climate change. “What does it matter if Miami is 20 feet under water in a hundred years?did he declare. Amsterdam has been under water for ages, and it’s a very nice place. We will adapt. »
In the process, the boss of the banking giant, Noel Quinn, said in a post posted on the LinkedIn network, “disagree at all” with these remarks. “Our ambition is to be the leading bank leading the transition to carbon neutrality”, he assured. Stuart Kirk has been suspended.
The episode caused deep unease. “The fact that this comes from the Global Head of Responsible Investment is chilling”, reacted Veronica Oakeshott, a spokesperson for the NGO Global Witness. While financial institutions play a key role in the fight against climate change, since without them coal, oil and gas projects cannot be financed, most continue to move slowly. , when they do not backtrack.
Lack of ambition
BlackRock had thus raised hopes, by announcing, in January 2020, that climate risk would now upset its investment policy. However, in February 2022, the world’s leading asset manager sent some friendly messages to the oil and gas industries of Texas (southern United States), where new legislation requires the state comptroller to draw up a list of financial companies that boycott fossil fuel companies.
Pinned companies could then be denied access to state pension funds. Also, in a letter to Texas officials, quoted by Reuters, BlackRock said that as a large, long-term investor in fossil fuel companies, it wanted “to see these companies succeed and prosper”. A few weeks later, on May 10, BlackRock announced that it was going, in this season of general meetings, to reduce its support for the resolutions carried by “proclimate” shareholders, in particular because of the war in Ukraine.
You have 55.31% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.