Latest news with #Climate-AlignedFinanceAct
Canada Standard
22-05-2025
- Business
- Canada Standard
Canada Pension Plan Abandons Net-Zero Commitment
The national pension plan that safeguards the retirement savings of 22 million Canadians has become the latest major financial institution to walk from its net-zero climate commitments, and appears to be laying the blame on anti-greenwashing provisions that were added to the federal Competition Act last year. "Achieving net zero by 2050 remains a widely adopted goal and critical ambition for many countries, companies, and international organizations," the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) says [pdf] in its annual report released yesterday. But the report falls short of reaffirming the net-zero commitment the fund announced in 2022, while steadfastly refusing to abandon its fossil fuel investments. Instead, CPPIB simply states that "the fulfillment of commitments made by governments, technological progress, fulfillment of corporate targets, changes in consumer and corporate behaviours, and development of global reporting standards and carbon markets will determine the pace of the transition to net zero." In the FAQ section of its Approach to Sustainability web page, CPPIB explains that "recent legal developments in Canada have introduced new considerations around how net-zero commitments are interpreted," resulting in "increasing pressure to adopt standardized emissions metrics and interim targets, many of which don't reflect the complexity of a global investment portfolio like ours." Those "rigid milestones could lead to investment decisions that are misaligned with our investment strategy," CPPIB adds. "To avoid that risk-and to remain focused on delivering results, not managing legal uncertainty-we have made a considered decision to no longer maintain a net-zero by 2050 commitment." The FAQ material appears on a page where Chief Sustainability Officer Richard Manley declares that "companies that effectively anticipate and manage material sustainability-related factors are better positioned to be more profitable and resilient over the long term." A CPPIB spokesperson did not reply to an email requesting further detail on the announcement. The news from CPPIB echoes the Royal Bank of Canada's late April decision to abandon its $500-billion sustainable finance pledge and stop public disclosures on its updated climate strategy, citing the new anti-greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. At the time, legal and climate policy experts said the new rules shouldn't be a problem for companies that were telling the truth about their climate performance-or that were working in good faith to meet their commitments, even if they ultimately fell short. "Walking away from a climate commitment when asked to prove its credibility raises serious concerns about the integrity of that commitment in the first place," Sen. Rosa Galvez (ISG-Quebec), who worked to introduce and pass a Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) in the last Parliament, said at the time. "Moreover, by abandoning its claims, RBC has demonstrated that the provisions of the Competition Act that intend to address greenwashing are in fact serving their purpose." In a media release Wednesday, Toronto-based Shift Action for Pension Wealth and Planet Health said CPPIB's investment and asset management decisions "have been misaligned with a credible net-zero strategy ever since it first made this commitment in 2022," continuing to invest in fossil fuel expansion "in violation of credible science-based commitments and prudent due diligence" against climate risk. "Net-zero commitments are not optional," Shift Action wrote. "They have become essential tools to manage risk and maximize long-term financial returns for pension funds. Climate impacts are already reducing global GDP growth, threatening the stability of financial markets and disrupting lives and livelihoods in Canada and around the world," and pointing to a future where "pension funds like CPPIB are unlikely to generate the stable, future returns necessary to pay out their long-term obligations." Canadians under 40 who are now in the work force "won't be eligible to receive their CPP benefits until after 2050," the release adds. "What kind of a world are Canadians expected to retire into? How would CPPIB be able to sustain benefits in a world of climate breakdown?" Source: The Energy Mix
National Observer
12-05-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Canada needs climate-aligned finance rules now
The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) has quietly dropped its $500-billion sustainable finance target, citing recent amendments to Canada's Competition Act. These provisions require companies to substantiate their environmental claims to avoid greenwashing — hardly a controversial demand in an age of climate risk. And it's worth considering that the Competition Act has a long history of protecting consumers by ensuring an organization does not make false claims about their business or products. Rather than stand by its commitments, RBC walked away. This move raises a stark question: were these targets genuine and were they ever meant to be taken seriously? RBC's decision is not just disappointing — it's revealing. It exposes the fragile foundation of voluntary sustainability pledges that lack legal force and independent verification. And it underscores, with uncomfortable clarity, why Canada needs to move swiftly to adopt legislation like the proposed Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) — a bill I introduced in the last Parliamentary session to ensure that financial institutions align their activities with Canada's climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. What RBC's retreat tells us Let's be clear: the provisions of the Competition Act do not ban environmental claims. They simply demand that companies provide evidence. If RBC cannot — or will not — defend its own sustainability goals under this basic standard of consumer protection, it should alarm regulators, investors and Canadians alike. This development comes on the heels of all major Canadian banks withdrawing from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) earlier this year. The pattern is undeniable: when voluntary measures encounter even modest scrutiny, they crumble. And when opportunity presents itself, as was the case with the fallout from US President Donald Trump's re-election, our financial institutions waste no time in abandoning their sustainable finance commitments. The fact is RBC released its 150-page Sustainability Report during a moment of national political distraction and geopolitical uncertainty. And the report only mentions the 'retirement' of RBC's sustainable finance target in passing. This has only reinforced calls for greater accountability and transparency in the financial sector. RBC has walked away from its sustainable finance targets. Were these targets genuine and were they ever meant to be taken seriously? Voluntary isn't working Sustainable finance advocates and investors have long warned that voluntary commitments are no substitute for legal obligation. RBC's unwillingness, or inability, to provide evidence for its environmental claims, and the parade of banks leaving the NZBA, are clear proof we need more than voluntary pledges. No bank should be allowed to brand itself as sustainable, while continuing to finance fossil fuel expansion, without facing regulatory consequences. Leading worldwide economists have said it: climate risk is financial risk. Investors know this. Capital is available for companies ready to decarbonize and modernize, but they require credible, comparable climate disclosures. Without legislation, we risk leaving investors — and the broader public — vulnerable to misleading claims. Lack of ambition in sustainability and disclosure a concerning trend Pausing work on climate and ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) disclosure rules, as the Canadian Securities Administrators recently did, sends the wrong signal to global markets and our allies. It's strategically unwise to align with deregulatory trends in the US when Canada should be showing leadership in transparency and sustainability. The approach of the current US administration, which is increasingly hostile to ESG standards, is not only out of step with global expectations, but also increases financial risk. Following the same trajectory could expose Canada to financial instability. Most economic indicators suggest that the US is on the brink of a potential recession — driven in part by its failure to adequately manage systemic risks, including climate-related ones. In many parts of the world, climate-related risks are already materializing. Weakening disclosure rules at a time when climate risk is accelerating only increases financial uncertainty, discourages long-term investment, and undermines our competitiveness and resilience. Climate risk is no longer theoretical The materialization of climate risk is weakening our economy, our communities, and our long-term competitiveness and Canada is already paying a high price for climate inaction. In 2024 alone, extreme weather events, including wildfires, hailstorms, deep freeze and floods, cost Canadians a record $8.5 billion in insured damages. And these are just the insured costs; the true economic toll, from lost productivity, damaged infrastructure, health impacts and displacement is significantly higher. T/he Canadian Climate Institute estimates that by 2025, climate change will cost the Canadian economy $25 billion annually — roughly equivalent to 50 per cent of projected GDP growth. These figures are no longer warnings. They are a balance-sheet of realities. What climate-aligned finance legislation must do To be effective and fit for purpose, climate-aligned finance legislation must: Require financial institutions to align their portfolios with Canada's climate targets. Mandate disclosures on how they are managing climate-related financial risk. Prevent misleading environmental claims by rooting climate finance in science and law. Ensure central banks and regulators consider climate risk as part of financial stability. Had a framework, such as the one I proposed in CAFA, already been in place, RBC would not be able to quietly step back from its climate promises without consequence. While other jurisdictions like the European Union are already addressing this challenge by implementing a comprehensive sustainable finance taxonomy, mandatory ESG disclosures, and due diligence rules that apply to financial institutions and companies alike, Canada continues to lag. These jurisdictions understand that finance is not neutral in the climate crisis — it is either complicit in deepening it or actively contributing to solutions. A turning point for Canada's financial credibility With the recent election of Prime Minister Mark Carney, a globally respected figure in sustainable finance, Canada has a golden opportunity to lead. But leadership will require more than speeches. It demands a robust legislative backbone. We cannot build a resilient, low-carbon economy while tolerating greenwashing and regulatory arbitrage. We need a financial system that supports, not hinders, the transition. That means enshrining transparency, consistency and climate responsibility into law. We have the tools. The Climate-Aligned Finance Act stands at the ready for diligent and swift passage through the legislative process. Elbows up for a resilient and prosperous Canadian economy. Independent Sen. Rosa Galvez chaired the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources in the 42 Parliament and currently serves on the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, which oversaw the federal economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
29-04-2025
- Business
Opinion: Bankers send mixed message on net zero
By Gina Pappano The 2025 bank annual general meeting (AGM) season is over. As a bank shareholder and executive director of InvestNow, I presented shareholder proposals to the Big Five Canadian banks. This was my third time doing so. In 2023, I asked them to commit to the Canadian oil and gas sector and rethink 'net zero by 2050.' In 2024, I asked them to study and report on the costs of adhering to net zero by 2050. In both instances, they refused. This year our formal ask of the banks was to quit both the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). These are two interrelated, UN-sponsored and, until recently, Mark Carney-led organizations that advocate phasing out the oil and gas industry to achieve net-zero emissions targets. They do this primarily by pressuring financial institutions to cut funding for oil and gas companies and projects. In effect, these organizations' goal is to eliminate one of Canada's most productive and prosperity-generating sectors. Of course, the end of Canadian oil and gas would be bad for bank shareholders and customers, as well as the Canadian economy writ large. It's a goal informed by ideology rather than the interest of the banks themselves or the shareholders to whom they have a fiduciary duty. Which is why, we argued, our banks should not continue down this net-zero path. Now, an odd thing happened this year. The banks announced they were leaving the two net-zero alliances before the AGMs even began. (We clearly under-asked!) Even so, they let us present our proposals, and I'm glad they did. It allowed me both to applaud them for leaving organizations that undermined their business but also to point out that this was just a first step. It's also necessary to leave behind the ideological madness of net zero. Attending the AGMs also gave me a chance to look in on the activist groups, like Investors for Paris Compliance, SHARE, MÉDAC, and For Our Kids, which all presented their own shareholder proposals or asked questions that were ideologically driven and decidedly opposed to oil and gas exploration and production in Canada. At the AGMs of BMO, TD, and RBC, things became personal. Activists named and attacked four directors on the bank boards (three of the four were female, I couldn't help but notice). Why? Entirely because they also sit on the boards of oil and gas and pipeline companies, which the activists claimed constituted a conflict of interest. They called these directors 'fossil-fuel compromised.' This was unprecedented and frankly, worrying. The activists are now targeting duly appointed and approved board members only because of their experience, past or present, in oil and gas. It all brought to mind the controversial Bill S-243 — the 'Climate-Aligned Finance Act' — which would forbid financial institutions from having board members with any kind of connection to oil and gas, even owning stock in companies that work on pipelines, while also requiring companies to have designated board members ideologically committed to the destruction of the oil and gas industry. (It's worth noting that Mark Carney testified before the Senate in favour of the bill last year.) At times the remarks of the bank CEOs themselves gave hope they were done with being pushed around by the activists and ideologues and were ready to change their tune on oil and gas. The phrase, 'Canada can and must feed and fuel the growing world' came up at two different AGMs, among other encouraging statements, such as 'the world wants what Canada can provide in great abundance. Canada can be a leader in sectors like energy, agriculture, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing and technology.' 'Canada needs a growth-first agenda.' 'Canada has an unprecedented opportunity to build a better and more prosperous future.' All of which is true. But any hope that common sense is being restored in banking faded when, during question-and-answer sessions, these same CEOs trotted out tired old phrases about their commitment to 'net zero, decarbonization, and the energy transition.' There was thus a huge disconnect between the prepared remarks with which they opened and their answers to questions. Which path they'll take moving forward is not clear. Do they support unleashing Canada's economic potential and building a prosperity-driven economy for all, or do they side with the activists in supporting a rapid phaseout of the backbone of our economy? Bjorn Lomborg: Net zero's cost-benefit ratio is crazy high Bjorn Lomborg: Don't double-down on net zero again Despite this year's success we at InvestNow clearly still have a lot of work to do. Now more than ever, our financial institutions need to be reminded to whom they are responsible. Hint: The answer is not our environmentalist activist class. It's their shareholders, first and foremost, and ultimately to Canada. Rest assured, we won't let them forget it. Gina Pappano is executive director of InvestNow. Sign in to access your portfolio
