警惕漂綠陷阱

香港地球之友綠色金融顧問

ESG、可持續性和其他相關術語現在無處不在。幾年前,它們還是行話,對我們許多亞洲人來說仍然很陌生。我們很高興聽到更多人談論可持續發展並做好事,讓我們的後代生活更有意義、更有希望。但與此同時,我們必須意識到,許多公司正試圖利用我們的宗旨讓我們相信他們的行為或活動是環保和可持續的。實際上,存在許多漂綠陷阱——當公司誇大其環境聲明和承諾時。

你、我和許多其他人顯然在追求渴望更環保、更可持續的產品和服務。根據全球戰略諮詢公司 Simon-Kucher & Partners 的《2021 年全球可持續發展報告》,85% 的人表示他們在過去五年中已將消費行為轉向更可持續的方向。此外,60% 的消費者認為可持續性是一個重要的購買因素,34% 的受訪者願意為可持續產品或服務支付更高價錢。綠色和環保商機正在推動公司開發更多綠色、可持續的產品,但同時驅使其中一些公司為其品牌和產品漂綠。

氣候變化是環境可持續性問題的前沿和中心。由於來自投資者的壓力,許多上市公司已承諾實現淨零,並宣布了減少排放或減少對環境的負面影響的長期目標。然而,魔鬼存在於一些承諾和目標的細節中。如果公司缺乏對其淨零排放軌跡的解釋和報告,或者將大部分減排工作留到 2040 年代,他們應該受到客戶、投資者和監管機構的質疑。嚴重依賴未經證實的技術或碳信用的發展無助於環境,不應鼓勵。漂綠問題需要解決。

上個月,淨零資產所有者聯盟(Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance)更新了其目標設定協議,其中包括禁止碳去除(carbon removal)以實現中期排放目標。我確實認為,從長遠來看,一些碳去除技術將能夠商業化,成為具有成本效益、可擴展的解決方案。擁有充足資源的公司當然應該以不同的方式幫助加速這些技術的發展。但就目前和不久的將來,公司應該更多地關注減少自身排放並與供應商和客戶合作減少排放。

越來越多的消費者選擇有益於環境的品牌、商品和服務。由於消費者需求的轉變,許多公司正在開發不含或較少使用塑料和其他化石燃料材料的產品,使用沒有或較少化學品和藥物的模擬自然技術種植農作物和養殖動物,並利用可再生能源。毫無疑問,我們正在看到更多對環境更友好的產品和服務。但隨著漂綠策略變得越來越複雜,我們需要仔細審查與環境相關的聲明,尤其是那些出現在服裝、食品和其他消費品的營銷和標籤中的聲明。應特別注意“環保”、“純天然”、“不含化學物質”、“天然產品”和“無毒”等詞語以及與綠色和可持續相關的意象。這些文字和意象可能含糊不清、無關緊要或具有誤導性。我的建議是仔細閱讀綠色或可持續相關標籤的細節,看清商品和服務(包括投資產品)表象的背後。

2023 年初,非牟利組織 Planet Tracker 發布了一份報告,研究了漂綠問題並強調了六種類型的漂綠行為 – greencrowding, greenlighting, greenshifting, greenlabelling, greenrinishing 和greenhushing。該報告很好地總結了公司用來漂綠的策略和伎倆。如果你有興趣了解漂綠案例,非政府組織 Truth in Advertising 提供了一份被指控沒有如宣傳中那樣環保的公司名單。

漂綠是一個很難在短期內解決的問題。我們很高興看到更多監管機構提出新的或改進的措施來審查綠色和可持續的聲明並懲罰不當行為。我們作為個人也是重要的影響者。對人類和地球負責的公司、品牌和產品需要我們的支持。當我們對一家公司或產品有疑問時應進行研究(互聯網上有大量有用信息可供參考)。最後,我們對那些故意漂綠的公司和產品應避之則吉。

Beware of the greenwashing trap

Green Finance Advisor of Friends of the Earth (HK)

ESG, sustainability and other associated terms are now in everywhere. A few years back they were jargons that are very still new to many of us in Asia. We are glad to hear more people talking about sustainability and taking positive actions to make our life more meaningful and more hopeful for the generations after us. But at the same time, we have to be aware that many companies are trying to leverage on our purpose to make us believe that their behaviors or activities are environmental-friendly and sustainable. In reality, there are many greenwashing traps – when companies exaggerate their environmental claims and commitments.

There is a clear desire from you, me and many other people for greener, more sustainable products and services. According to the Global Sustainability Report 2021 by global strategy consultant Simon-Kucher & Partners[1], 85% of people indicated that they have shifted their consumption behavior towards being more sustainable in the past five years.  Sustainability was rated as an important purchase factor for 60% of consumers and 34% of those surveyed would be willing to pay more for sustainable products or services. The business opportunities are driving companies to develop more green, sustainable products but at the same time incentivize some of these companies to greenwash their brands and products.

Climate change is front and center of environmental sustainability issues. Due to pressure from investors, many public companies have made pledges toward net zero and declared long-term targets to cut emissions or reduce negative impact to the environment. However, devil is in the details for some of these pledges and targets. Companies should be challenged by customers, investors and regulators if they lack explanation and reporting about their net-zero trajectories or leave most of their emission reduction works towards 2040s. The heavy reliance on the development of unproven technologies or carbon credits are not going to help the environment and should not be encouraged. Greenwashing issues need to be addressed.

Last month, the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance have updated its Target-Setting protocol which includes the ban of carbon removal to achieve intermediary emission targets.[2] I do think that some carbon removal technologies will be able to commercialize, becoming cost- effective, scalable solutions in the longer run. Companies with sufficient resource should certainly contribute to help accelerate the development of these technologies in different ways. But for now and in the near future companies should focus a lot more on reducing their own emissions and working with their suppliers and customers to reduce their emissions.

More consumers are choosing brands, goods and services that are working for the good of our environment. Because of the shift in what consumers want, many companies are developing goods with no or less plastics and other materials made from fossil fuels, growing plants and animals using techniques that emulate nature with no or less chemicals and medicines, and sourcing their power and energy from renewables. Without any doubt, we are seeing more products and services which are more friendly to our environment. But with greenwashing tactics getting more sophisticated, we need to scrutinize environmental-related claims, in particular those appear in the marketing and labelling of clothes, foods and other consumer goods. Special attention should be paid to words such as “eco-friendly”, “all natural”, “chemical-free”, “natural products” and “non-toxic” and imagery that is associated with green and sustainable. These words and imagery could be vague, irrelevant or misleading. My advice is to read into the details of green or sustainable related labels and look behind the imagery for the goods and services, including investment products.

In early 2023, a non-profit organization Planet Tracker published a report that examined the greenwashing issues and highlighted six types of greenwashing – greencrowding, greenlighting, greenshifting, greenlabelling, greenrinishing and greenhushing. The report provided a good summary of the strategies and tactics companies are using to greenwash.[3] If you are interested to know about greenwashing cases, NGO Truth in Advertising provided a list of companies that have been accused of not being as environmentally friendly as advertised.[4]

Greenwashing is an issue that is hard to be resolved anytime soon. We are glad to see more regulators coming up with new or refined measures to scrutinize green and sustainable claims and to penalize the wrongdoings. We as individuals are also important influencers. Companies, brands and products that are responsible to the people and our planet need our support. When we are in doubt of a company or a product, do our research – the internet has plenty information. At the end, we should avoid those companies and products that are intentionally greenwashing.


[1] Global Sustainability Study 2021, Simon Kucher & Partners, October 2021

[2] Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance raises expectations for members’ real economy impact with updated Protocol, 31 January 2023

[3] “Greenwashing growing increasingly sophisticated”, said Planet Tracker, 10 Janurary 2023

[4] Companies Accused of Greenwashing, Truth in Advertising, 26 October 2022

Energy Transition – Carbon Market (Solar Energy | Core Climate)

Mostafa Monira Firdouse, Green Finance Advisor of Friends of the Earth (HK)

The price of solar energy has been dropping past few years. In contrary, energy crisis is increasingly becoming the main topic more than a year in the world. In my view, both demand and supply situation are working hand in-hand, playing a catalytic role towards to ENERGY TRANSITION (my passion!).

However, we should remember that the ‘INVESTOR’S INTEREST’ is the key element to make this RE evolution as a successful drive.

Following an unprecedented energy crisis last year due to the reduction, the European Union is expected to diversify away from fossil fuels at a faster pace. The region is estimated to add a record-breaking 41.4GW of solar power in 2022, 47% more than the previous year, and another 53.6GW in 2023 to bring total solar capacity to 262GW, which represents over 280 organizations across the entire solar sector on the continent. The reduction in solar panel prices by Chinese manufacturers is expected to stimulate demand globally, particularly in Europe.

Perfect time to refocus on Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM)

As more businesses and individuals begin to invest in solar power, production rates have increased, resulting in lower prices. Furthermore, as more countries become aware of the economic and environmental benefits of solar energy, they have begun to offer incentives, such as tax credits and subsidies, to encourage the adoption of solar energy. This has led to more people and businesses investing in solar energy, further driving the prices down. VCM nears 500 million credits traded in 2021,  quadrupled to nearly $2B.

The demand for carbon credits is expected to increase exponentially, especially driven by the surge of corporate climate pledges that will boost activities in the voluntary market. As of November 2022, over one-third of the world’s largest publicly traded companies have announced net-zero targets. These companies are set to use carbon credits they purchase to offset emissions that are hard to completely abate, alongside actions to decarbonize their emission activities. The voluntary market has already topped $1 billion in 2021, and the global demand for voluntary credits is forecasted to increase by a factor of fifteen by 2030, reaching1.5 to 2 gigatons per year.

Challenges

Carbon credits market is a dynamic, complex system and so the pressure is high when it comes to its governance. But governing carbon markets can be tricky. Setting an appropriate carbon price for renewable energy is an important step to encouraging investment and adoption of renewable energy technologies. The higher the price, the more expensive it is to emit these gases, and the more incentive people have to switch to renewable energy sources. Its success will depend on how well market integration and governance will be implemented by initiatives such as the Taskforce or the VCMI. Even more importantly, VCM’s triumph is reliant on the credibility of each and every one of its participants: standards, offset project proponents, traders.

Core Climate

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEX) celebrated the first four weeks of trading on Core Climate, Hong Kong’s new international carbon marketplace. Since Core Climate launched on 28 October 2022, it has generated significant momentum for voluntary carbon trading in the region. The platform recorded more than 40 trades in less than a month between 28 October and 24 November 2022, representing a total volume of around 400,000 tonnes of carbon credits.

Leveraging Hong Kong’s status as a champion of international standards, a facilitator to channel global capital into the Mainland and an international financial center, looking forward to seeing a stable and mature regulatory system to capture impact of energy transition. Developing Hong Kong into a regional carbon trading center.

References:

https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/press-release/2022/20220330e3a1.pdf

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/11/04/Chasing-the-Sun-and-Catching-the-Wind-Energy-Transition-and-Electricity-Prices-in-Europe-525079

修理 ESG——應只談碳排放量?

【ESG分析師洞見分享】Kyle Chung, CESGA

近年愈來愈多企業大談 ESG,希望與環境和社會責任沾上邊;投資基金也愛談論之,號稱能為投資者帶來更高回報。惟與此同時,有關爭議不絕,質疑 ESG 為商業和金融炒作,有名無實。有意見認為,要修理 ESG,最好是拆夥,只談「E」—— 碳排放(emissions)。

ESG 熱潮背後有兩個主要驅動力。投資行業通過宣傳自己重視環境和社會,藉此吸引年輕客戶儲蓄。研究表明,年輕人喜歡通過投資來表達對環境和社會的關注和喜好,而有鑑於他們仍需累積幾十年的退休金,他們的儲蓄也將比長者更容易受氣候變化的長期風險影響。其次,是銷售 ESG 投資產品有助增加資產管理公司的收入。

即使 ESG 即使理念良好,卻存在缺陷。「經濟學人」的一則專題曾總結 ESG 存在以下三大問題:

  • 欠缺清晰、一致的目標。ESG 的目標花多眼亂,混為一談,未能連貫指導投資者和公司,使他們無法作有利社會的必要取捨。
  • ESG 回報並非直截了當,支持者聲稱良好的行為對公司和投資者來說更有利可圖,然而美德和財務業績之間的關聯仍存疑問。
  • 衡量方法和準則不一,結果出入很大 —— 研究顯示,來自不同供應商的 ESG 評級,相關性約為 0.61。相比之下,主流信用評級相關性高達 0.99。[1]

該專題由此提出,應該分拆 ESG,甚至廢棄 ESG 一詞,最好只關注代表環境的 E(Environmental)。但即使這也不夠精確,因為環境包括多方面,如生物多樣性、水資源短缺等,而至今最嚴重的危害是碳排放——因此,「E 」甚至不應代表環境因素,而應僅代表排放量。目前投資者和監管機構已在推動披露碳排放量的普遍標準。披露若有標準可循,就愈容易評估哪些公司是碳排放的罪魁禍首,同時得悉哪些公司在減少排放方面有下功夫。基金經理和銀行應該能夠更詳細追蹤,其投資組合的碳足跡及減排軌跡。

當前的 ESG 披露確以氣候披露為重要主題。美國證券交易委員會(SEC)去年亦發佈草擬規則,計劃強制公司披露當前和未來業務的氣候相關風險,例如惡劣天氣對其財務報表中每個項目的威脅。SEC 提議,企業須匯報其溫室氣體排放量,大公司須審計這些披露資訊。SEC 的提議還要求企業在年度報告中,公開其直接排放和從其購買的能源中產生的排放數據,即「範圍 1」和「範圍 2」溫室氣體排放。如 SEC 落實披露碳排放的要求,將成為全球規範碳排放審計的領頭指標。碳排放也將繼續作為ESG披露和措施的重心。

[1] Berg, Florian and Kölbel, Julian and Rigobon, Roberto, Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings (August 15, 2019). Forthcoming Review of Finance, Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3438533

*原文刊登於CUP媒體。本文章更新於2023年2月8日 。

February 2023 Events on Green Finance/ 2023年2月綠色金融活動一覽

Check out the above calendar for the fantastic green finance events for Feb-Mar 2023! Interested to join and know more about the events? Browse the links below for details.

以上一圖看清2023年2-3月精彩的綠色金融活動!如欲參加及了解活動詳情,歡迎瀏覽以下網址:

[1] HKGFA Transition Training Series – Introduction to Setting Science-Based Targets for Private Equity Firms

[2] New Green Shoots 2023 – Closing the gap in financing the Global Biodiversity Framework

[3] CESGA Scholarship Programme 22/23

[4] Beyond ESG with key sustainability trends in 2023 – Session 2

[5] 2023 ESG & Climate Trends to Watch – The APAC View

[6] Scaling up Sustainable Finance in Asia

[7] 4th UN South Asia Forum on Business and Human Rights