Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance

In 2016, the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance estimated the market for sustainable investments to have reached 22.89 trillion USD of assets under management. While financial institutions have embraced the idea of sustainable finance as a business opportunity, they have arguably done little, bu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sustainability
Main Authors: Michael Urban, Dariusz Wójcik
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
id ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/11/6/1745/
record_format openpolar
spelling ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/11/6/1745/ 2023-08-20T04:04:48+02:00 Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance Michael Urban Dariusz Wójcik agris 2019-03-22 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745 EN eng Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Sustainability in Geographic Science https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061745 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sustainability; Volume 11; Issue 6; Pages: 1745 sustainable finance primary markets investment banking Text 2019 ftmdpi https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745 2023-07-31T22:08:15Z In 2016, the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance estimated the market for sustainable investments to have reached 22.89 trillion USD of assets under management. While financial institutions have embraced the idea of sustainable finance as a business opportunity, they have arguably done little, but to piggy-back on investors’ demand. Today, it is not unusual for a single firm to retail fossil free investment funds and concomitantly offer commercial loans towards fracking, coal, and Arctic drilling. This paradox is underpinned by a major gap in the way sustainability has permeated primary and secondary markets which, we argue, calls for a serious rethinking of the sustainability transition in finance. This article proposes two contributions in this direction. First, we develop an original conceptualisation of finance as a socio-technical system to discuss the dynamics that both hinder and promote a transition from mainstream to sustainable finance. Second, we propose to study how investment banks integrate sustainability in their underwriting services. To do so, we filter through close to half a million of debt and equity underwriting deals (2005–2017) using the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway’s list of 153 excluded companies. Our results suggest that investment banks do not shy away from underwriting companies that have been flagged for major environmental, social, and governance misconduct, neither do they restrain from underwriting companies providing contentious products, such as tobacco, coal, and nuclear weapons. Moving forward, we suggest ways to address this problem and call for further research on the responsibility and agency of finance and advanced business services firms in sustainability transitions. Text Arctic MDPI Open Access Publishing Arctic Sustainability 11 6 1745
institution Open Polar
collection MDPI Open Access Publishing
op_collection_id ftmdpi
language English
topic sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
spellingShingle sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
Michael Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
topic_facet sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
description In 2016, the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance estimated the market for sustainable investments to have reached 22.89 trillion USD of assets under management. While financial institutions have embraced the idea of sustainable finance as a business opportunity, they have arguably done little, but to piggy-back on investors’ demand. Today, it is not unusual for a single firm to retail fossil free investment funds and concomitantly offer commercial loans towards fracking, coal, and Arctic drilling. This paradox is underpinned by a major gap in the way sustainability has permeated primary and secondary markets which, we argue, calls for a serious rethinking of the sustainability transition in finance. This article proposes two contributions in this direction. First, we develop an original conceptualisation of finance as a socio-technical system to discuss the dynamics that both hinder and promote a transition from mainstream to sustainable finance. Second, we propose to study how investment banks integrate sustainability in their underwriting services. To do so, we filter through close to half a million of debt and equity underwriting deals (2005–2017) using the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway’s list of 153 excluded companies. Our results suggest that investment banks do not shy away from underwriting companies that have been flagged for major environmental, social, and governance misconduct, neither do they restrain from underwriting companies providing contentious products, such as tobacco, coal, and nuclear weapons. Moving forward, we suggest ways to address this problem and call for further research on the responsibility and agency of finance and advanced business services firms in sustainability transitions.
format Text
author Michael Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
author_facet Michael Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
author_sort Michael Urban
title Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
title_short Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
title_full Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
title_fullStr Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
title_full_unstemmed Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
title_sort dirty banking: probing the gap in sustainable finance
publisher Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
publishDate 2019
url https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
op_coverage agris
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
genre_facet Arctic
op_source Sustainability; Volume 11; Issue 6; Pages: 1745
op_relation Sustainability in Geographic Science
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
op_rights https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 11
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1745
_version_ 1774715209674391552