Cracks in the Alliance: Shifting Momentum and Withdrawals from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance
The Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM) has announced a suspension of its activities, signaling growing uncertainty within the investment industry regarding net-zero commitments. This move comes in the wake of BlackRock's exit from the alliance and reflects a broader trend of financial firms reassessing their involvement in climate organizations.
The NZBA, launched in 2021 with much fanfare, aimed to unite the global banking sector behind the ambitious goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Yet, just a few years later, the alliance faces significant headwinds, with several high-profile members withdrawing and raising questions about its future and effectiveness.
Initial Promise and Growing Momentum
The NZBA, convened by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), initially attracted significant support. Banks representing over 40% of global banking assets joined the alliance, committing to align their lending and investment portfolios with the Paris Agreement goals. This collective action signaled a potential turning point in the fight against climate change, with the financial sector playing a crucial role in driving the transition to a low-carbon economy. Pressure on American companies over net-zero policies is expected to increase under Trump, who has called climate change “one of the greatest scams of all time” and has pledged to “drill, baby, drill” for oil.
Emerging Challenges and Shifting Tides
However, the initial enthusiasm has been tempered by several challenges. In November, a group of Republican-led US states sued BlackRock and fellow American asset managers Vanguard and State Street over allegations they had broken antitrust laws by using their shareholdings in coal companies to pressure them to cut production of the fossil fuel. The lawsuit cited the investment companies’ participation in NZAM, which seeks to mobilise fund management groups into tackling climate change and has more than 325 signatories.
Increased Scrutiny and Political Pressure: The NZBA and its members have faced growing scrutiny from various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, and the public. Some critics argue that the alliance's commitments are not ambitious enough or lack enforceability. In certain jurisdictions, particularly in the US, there's been political backlash against ESG initiatives, with accusations of "woke capitalism" and concerns about potential impacts on energy security.
Concerns about Legal Risks: Some banks have expressed concerns about potential legal risks associated with their participation in the NZBA. Lawsuits alleging antitrust violations and breaches of fiduciary duty have been filed against some financial institutions involved in climate initiatives. This has created uncertainty and potentially discouraged some banks from remaining in the alliance.
Differing Approaches to Transition: There's no one-size-fits-all approach to achieving net-zero emissions, and different banks have varying strategies and timelines. This can lead to disagreements and difficulties in coordinating collective action within the alliance.
Lack of Clear Standards and Metrics: While the NZBA provides a general framework, there's a lack of standardized metrics and reporting requirements for measuring progress towards net-zero goals. This can make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the alliance and hold members accountable.
Notable Withdrawals
These challenges have contributed to a series of high-profile withdrawals from the NZBA, including:
JPMorgan Chase: In late 2024, JPMorgan Chase, the largest US bank, withdrew from the NZBA, citing a focus on "pragmatic solutions" and "energy security." This departure, following the re-election of climate-skeptic Donald Trump, signaled a potential shift in the US banking sector's approach to climate action.
Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley: These major US banks also withdrew from the NZBA in late 2024 and early 2025, citing various reasons, including concerns about legal risks and a desire to pursue their own internal strategies for achieving net-zero goals.
Other Institutions: Several other banks and financial institutions have also left the NZBA, including GLS Bank (a German ethical bank) which cited concerns about the continued financing of fossil fuel projects by some members.
Impact and Implications
The withdrawal of these prominent members has undoubtedly dealt a blow to the NZBA and raised questions about its future. Some observers see these departures as a setback for the climate movement and a sign that the financial sector is not fully committed to addressing climate change. Others argue that these withdrawals are a reflection of the complexities and challenges of transitioning to a net-zero economy and that individual banks may be better positioned to pursue their own strategies.
The Path Forward
Despite these challenges, the momentum behind the net-zero transition remains strong. Many banks and financial institutions remain committed to achieving net-zero emissions, and new initiatives and alliances are emerging.
The NZBA and other similar initiatives can still play a valuable role in driving climate action, but they need to adapt and evolve to address the concerns of their members and ensure their long-term effectiveness. This may involve:
Strengthening accountability and transparency: Developing clear standards, metrics, and reporting requirements for measuring progress towards net-zero goals.
**Addressing legal and regulatory
Your RAO Global chats aren’t used to improve our models. Gemini can make mistakes, including about people, so double-check it. Your privacy & Gemini
