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 A. Urban, Dariusz Wójcik
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
https://doaj.org/article/0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab
id fttriple:oai:gotriple.eu:oai:doaj.org/article:0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab
record_format openpolar
spelling fttriple:oai:gotriple.eu:oai:doaj.org/article:0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab 2023-05-15T15:10:32+02:00 Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance Michael A. Urban Dariusz Wójcik 2019-03-01 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745 https://doaj.org/article/0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab en eng MDPI AG 2071-1050 doi:10.3390/su11061745 https://doaj.org/article/0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab undefined Sustainability, Vol 11, Iss 6, p 1745 (2019) sustainable finance primary markets investment banking envir manag Journal Article https://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/resource_types/c_6501/ 2019 fttriple https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745 2023-01-22T18:19:11Z 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 market 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Unknown Arctic Sustainability 11 6 1745
institution Open Polar
collection Unknown
op_collection_id fttriple
language English
topic sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
envir
manag
spellingShingle sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
envir
manag
Michael A. Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
Dirty Banking: Probing the Gap in Sustainable Finance
topic_facet sustainable finance
primary markets
investment banking
envir
manag
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 market 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 Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Michael A. Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
author_facet Michael A. Urban
Dariusz Wójcik
author_sort Michael A. 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 MDPI AG
publishDate 2019
url https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
https://doaj.org/article/0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
genre_facet Arctic
op_source Sustainability, Vol 11, Iss 6, p 1745 (2019)
op_relation 2071-1050
doi:10.3390/su11061745
https://doaj.org/article/0cb72b07bcea4e0ca73685cb70ebe3ab
op_rights undefined
op_doi https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061745
container_title Sustainability
container_volume 11
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1745
_version_ 1766341543363346432