Last year, Texas lawmakers passed a bill that, on paper, would block the state’s agencies from investing public money with financial companies, like BlackRock, if they were to “boycott energy companies.” Focusing solely on cutting down on the supply of oil and gas, and not reducing the demand for fossil fuels, would simply drive up energy prices and encourage more of a backlash against green-energy efforts, he argued.īlackRock has also faced pressure from the opposite end of the climate spectrum. “Divesting from entire sectors - or simply passing carbon-intensive assets from public markets to private markets - will not get the world to net zero,” he wrote. (He has said in the past that the firm cannot rid many of its mainstream funds of holdings in companies that are part of major stock indexes.) Fink defended his more gradual approach, including a refusal to force BlackRock to divest holdings in fossil-fuel companies. Fink’s approach: BlackRock’s Big Problem, a collection of nonprofits and other advocates, accuses the firm of failing to exclude major polluters from its investment funds, even in E.S.G.-focused products. Environmental groups have called out what they see as shortcomings in Mr. Fink and BlackRock are not pushing companies hard enough to go green. And the duty to attract that capital in a responsible and sustainable way lies with you.”īut some critics say Mr. But access to capital is not a right,” he wrote. “Capital markets have allowed companies and countries to flourish. Business leaders who do not adapt to the new reality, he suggested, risk being overtaken by younger and more innovative rivals in step with the times. was not a fad but a permanent feature of the corporate world. “We focus on sustainability not because we’re environmentalists, but because we are capitalists and fiduciaries to our clients,” Mr. Reducing a company’s carbon footprint, for example, makes the business more resilient in the long term, which is in investors’ interests. Fink’s belief that a focus on environmental, social and corporate governance issues - E.S.G., for short - does not conflict with making money. Much of this year’s letter was devoted to Mr. “Make no mistake, the fair pursuit of profit is still what animates markets and long-term profitability is the measure by which markets will ultimately determine your company’s success,” he wrote. Fink urged chief executives to continue embracing their moral responsibility as the pandemic reshapes society and business, and as consumers and workers demand more from companies.īut in perhaps the most telling sentence, he said that what drove his push for companies to have purpose was creating profits. Within weeks of his telling leaders in 2020 that climate change would become a “defining factor” in how BlackRock assessed their companies, many blue-chip businesses announced plans to become carbon-neutral or carbon-negative. Fink began urging chief executives four years ago to consider how they contributed to society, his words carried weight. Fink a huge amount of influence: If a public company that BlackRock has invested in ignores his calls, his firm could seek to oust its directors or, among its actively managed funds, sell its shares. On Friday, BlackRock said it managed more than $10 trillion in assets, across an array of index funds, pension plans and other investment products, cementing the firm’s position as the world’s largest asset manager. Fink’s annual letter is widely followed, and this year’s 3,300-word edition is sure to be read in boardrooms and beyond.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |