When will banks like ANZ realize that pushing climate change evangelism in order for prospective customers to qualify for loans might be far better served if these groups operated from a position of squeaky clean ethics to begin with?
What is the true global warming impact of a farmer with 100 farting cows who needs to upgrade his tractor to more efficiently operate? Will he be penalized for not erecting a solar park first?
There is little more infuriating than being lectured to by organizations that have a long history of sketchy behaviour.
While banks should be free to run their business as they see fit within the realms of the law, what purpose does this nonsense serve? Since when did ANZ become the axe on climate change? Just like the clowns at ASIC whose own research proved that corporations found less need to make statements about the climate impact on their businesses. So upset is the regulator that it wants to impose a reporting structure anyway! Will 3 extra pot plants in the foyer qualify as climate abatement in an annual filing?
What next? Will small businesses fail to qualify for ANZ loans if they don’t have the right mix of identities or apportion a certain amount of philanthropic donations to approved activist organizations like BLM?
Will ANZ demand that businesses declare how many suppliers in the minority community are mandated? We all know how well that went with PG&E in California.
There has to be a massive opportunity for a financial institution to grow a pair and fill a need. With fewer players, they might find it much more margin accretive and satisfying for shareholder returns.