JPMorgan, BlackRock and SSGA Exit Climate Action 100⚷ Investor Group for Different Reasons

New York, United States United States of America
JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced their exit from the Climate Action 100⚷ investor group.
JPMorgan explained that it would exit because of its expansion of in-house sustainability team and establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years, while BlackRock withdrew U.S business from Climate Action 100⚷ due to concerns about potential anti-ESG backlash.
State Street said that the alliance's phase 2 commitments conflicted with their independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.
JPMorgan, BlackRock and SSGA Exit Climate Action 100⚷ Investor Group for Different Reasons

JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced their exit from the Climate Action 100⚷ investor group. JPMorgan explained that it would exit because of its expansion of in-house sustainability team and establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years, while BlackRock withdrew U.S business from Climate Action 100⚷ due to concerns about potential anti-ESG backlash. State Street said that the alliance's phase 2 commitments conflicted with their independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

96%

Doubts
  • It's not clear if JPMorgan, BlackRock and SSGA have any doubts about the accuracy of their own article.

Sources

65%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

More Wall Street Firms Are Flip-Flopping on Climate. Here’s Why.

The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. David Gelles Monday, 19 February 2024 10:05
  • Unique Points
    • JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced their exit from the Climate Action 100+ investor group.
    • BlackRock withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock's smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals.
    • State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100+'s phase 2 commitments conflicted with the firm's independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Wall Street firms are flip-flopping on climate change when in fact they have been retreating from their earlier environmental pledges for months. Secondly, the author presents a one-sided view of the issue by only mentioning Republican attacks and not providing any counterarguments or perspectives. Lastly, the article uses sensationalist language such as 'woke capitalism' to create an emotional response in readers without providing evidence.
    • The author claims that Wall Street firms are flip-flopping on climate change when in fact they have been retreating from their earlier environmental pledges for months. For example, the article mentions BlackRock scaling back its involvement in Climate Action 100‫ and Bank of America reneging on a commitment to stop financing new coal mines.
    • The author presents a one-sided view of the issue by only mentioning Republican attacks and not providing any counterarguments or perspectives. For example, the article does not provide any information about environmental groups or other stakeholders who may have different opinions on climate change.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains several examples of appeals to authority and inflammatory rhetoric. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction by stating that Wall Street has flip-flopped on its climate pledges.
    • > JPMorgan, State Street and Pimco all pulled out of Climate Action 100‫
    • BlackRock scaled back its involvement in the group
    • < Republican politicians called on other firms to follow suit>
  • Bias (85%)
    The article discusses how Wall Street firms are retreating from their earlier environmental pledges. The author mentions that the financial giants were already trimming their climate pledges amid Republican attacks and concerns about legal risks. Additionally, several major firms retreated from a global climate coalition in recent days.
    • Bank of America reneged on a commitment to stop financing new coal mines, coal-burning power plants and Arctic drilling projects
      • BlackRock scaled back its involvement in the group
        • JPMorgan, State Street and Pimco all pulled out of Climate Action 100‫
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          David Gelles has conflicts of interest on the topics Wall Street and BlackRock. He is a member of Climate Action 100B which includes BlackRock as one of its members.
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
            David Gelles has conflicts of interest on the topics Wall Street and climate change. He is a reporter for The New York Times which receives funding from BlackRock, one of the companies mentioned in the article.

            76%

            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

            JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock drop out of massive UN climate alliance in stunning move

            Fox Business Network Thomas Catenacci Tuesday, 20 February 2024 04:47
            • Unique Points
              • JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced their exit from the Climate Action 100⚷ investor group.
              • BlackRock withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100⚷, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock's smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals.
              • State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100⚷'s phase 2 commitments conflicted with the firm's independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.
            • Accuracy
              • JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced their exit from the Climate Action 100+ investor group.
              • BlackRock withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock's smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals.
            • Deception (80%)
              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the decision of JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock to quit or scale back their involvement in Climate Action 100‫ as a positive move towards freedom and the American economy. However, this statement is misleading because these companies are not leaving due to concerns about legal issues or government policymaking but rather because they have built up their own sustainability capabilities and no longer need to participate in such initiatives. Secondly, the article presents BlackRock's decision as a shift towards international involvement in Climate Action 100‫, when in reality it is simply a move away from U.S.-based business due to concerns about legal issues and potential conflicts with its own investing policies. Lastly, the article quotes Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase as saying that his company has built up a team of 40 dedicated sustainable investing professionals, which implies that they are actively engaged in sustainability efforts when in fact their decision to quit Climate Action 100‫ suggests otherwise.
              • The article quotes Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase as saying that his company has built up a team of 40 dedicated sustainable investing professionals, which implies that they are actively engaged in sustainability efforts. However, their decision to quit Climate Action 100‫ suggests otherwise.
              • BlackRock's decision to shift involvement in Climate Action 100‫ away from U.S.-based business due to concerns about legal issues and potential conflicts with its own investing policies is presented as a positive move, when it is actually simply a way of avoiding the scrutiny that comes with being involved in such initiatives.
              • The article presents JPMorgan Chase's decision to quit Climate Action 100‫ as a positive move towards freedom and the American economy, when in reality it is simply because they have built up their own sustainability capabilities.
            • Fallacies (80%)
              The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the decision by JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock to exit or scale back involvement in Climate Action 100 as if it is their only option when there are other ways they could engage with the initiative, such as advocating for more sustainable practices within their own organizations.
              • JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) on Thursday announced that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements.
            • Bias (85%)
              The author Thomas Catenacci demonstrates a bias against the Climate Action 100+ alliance by portraying it as an organization that has gone too far in its climate initiatives and expresses concern about potential legal issues. The article also implies that consumer advocates and Republican states are putting pressure on financial institutions to abandon their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities.
              • BlackRock, meanwhile, withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock’s smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals
                • Climate Action 100+ has drawn the ire of Republican states and lawmakers who have argued their activities may infringe on government policymaking.
                  • Climate Action 100+ was formally established in December 2017 at the U.N. as a way of aligning the world’s largest private sector financiers of greenhouse gas producers.
                    • JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) announced that they are quitting or substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements
                      • The group which is overseen by a nongovernmental steering committee comprised of ESG activists calls for members to engage companies on improving climate change governance, curbing carbon emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosure policies. Its actions have largely taken aim at investments benefiting the oil and gas industry, while boosting green energy investment strategies.
                        • The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities.
                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                          Thomas Catenacci has a financial tie to BlackRock as he is an employee of Fox Business. He also has personal relationships with Larry Fink and Jamie Dimon who are the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock respectively.
                          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                            Thomas Catenacci has conflicts of interest on the topics of JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock as he is an author for Fox Business. He also has a personal relationship with Larry Fink who is CEO of BlackRock.

                            66%

                            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                            What's Greenhushing? JPMorgan's Climate Group Exit Brings New Term to Light

                            Bloomberg News Now Alastair Marsh Tuesday, 20 February 2024 04:48
                            • Unique Points
                              • Greenhushing is a term used to describe the practice of downplaying or hiding negative information about environmental issues.
                              • JPMorgan's asset-management arm said it was leaving Climate Action 100+, which has led investors to question if this means money managers are growing fearful of anti-ESG backlash.
                            • Accuracy
                              • BlackRock scaled back its involvement in the group
                              • State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100+'s phase 2 commitments conflicted with the firm's independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.
                            • Deception (30%)
                              The article is deceptive in that it uses the term 'greenhushing' to imply a negative connotation when there is no clear definition or evidence of this practice. The author also implies that JPMorgan's exit from Climate Action 100+ means money managers are growing fearful of anti-ESG backlash, which may not be the case.
                              • The article uses the term 'greenhushing' to imply a negative connotation when there is no clear definition or evidence of this practice.
                            • Fallacies (85%)
                              The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing former US President Donald Trump as a source. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential backlash against ESG investing as 'greenhushing'. Additionally, there is no clear distinction between greenwashing and greenhushing in the article.
                              • Former US President Donald Trump speaks during a
                            • Bias (85%)
                              The author demonstrates bias in this article by using a term 'greenhushing' that is not widely recognized or accepted in the media. He also implies that JPMorgan's exit from Climate Action 100B was motivated by fear of anti-ESG backlash, which may be unfounded and exaggerated. The author does not provide any evidence for his claims and relies on anecdotal sources such as former US President Donald Trump. He also uses deceptive language to suggest that ESG investing is under threat from Republican candidates in the US, without acknowledging the diversity of opinions within the party or among voters. The author's bias may influence his readers to adopt a negative view of JPMorgan and other money managers who are concerned about environmental issues.
                              • Greenhushing: Was it greenhushing or greenwashing?
                                • Have a confidential tip for our reporters? Get in Touch Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal Bloomberg Terminal LEARN MORE
                                  • JPMorgan’s Climate Group Exit Sparks ‘Greenhushing’ Debate
                                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                    Alastair Marsh has a conflict of interest on the topics Green and ESG Investing as JPMorgan is one of the largest investors in fossil fuels. He also has a personal relationship with former US President Donald Trump who was critical of climate change.
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                      Alastair Marsh has a conflict of interest on the topics Green and ESG Investing as he is reporting on JPMorgan's exit from Climate Group and their stance on Anti-ESG backlash. He also has a personal relationship with former US President Donald Trump who is mentioned in the article.
                                      • JPMorgan, which was one of the founding members of Climate Action 100+, announced it would leave the group after disagreements over its approach to climate change.