August, 16 2022, 02:01pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Patrick Davis, Public Citizen, pdavis@citizen.org
Gabby Brown, Sierra Club, gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Carter Dougherty, Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, carter@ourfinancialsecurity.
Joe Rivano Barros, Action Center on Race and the Economy, joe@theworkeragency.com
SEC Takes on Mutual Fund 'Greenwashing' with New Transparency Rules
WASHINGTON
As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) closes a comment period on two proposed rules that would create a standard framework for funds classified as environmental, social, and governance (ESG), advocacy groups today called on the agency to adopt stricter standards for the fastest-growing investment asset sector in the world.
"Retail investors shouldn't have to waste their energy, time, and resources to find out whether the funds they are invested in are truly committed to workers' rights, climate resilience, or racial equity," said Natalia Renta, senior policy counsel for corporate governance and power at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. "Wall Street should honor investors' choices and goals, not use them as a tool to fleece their own clients."
Action Center on Race and the Economy (ACRE), Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Public Citizen, and the Sierra Club individually encouraged the SEC to keep or add a variety of provisions in the final rules--including preventing funds from using certain naming conventions unless that label reflects a major focus of the investment strategy. They also urged the SEC to stop corporate greenwashing of funds that invest in fossil fuels but tout ESG, and ensure funds either disclose their financed greenhouse gas emissions or state in their prospectus why they do not have that information.
"Many financial institutions use the current ESG framework to paint themselves as climate-friendly and collect money hand over fist from investors. Yet, they continue to invest billions in fossil fuels, showcasing how their actions fail to live up to their public commitments," said Jessye Waxman, senior campaign representative in the Sierra Club's Fossil-Free Finance campaign. "In the marketplace, measurement and disclosure drive transparency. Without key safeguards in place from the SEC, financial institutions will continue to mislead investors and greenwash their image."
The advocacy groups also collectively submitted comments on behalf of over 19,000 individuals and over 90 supporting organizations asking the SEC to better protect everyday investors.
"Maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets requires that investors have access to the data they need to make informed choices," said Rachel Curley, democracy advocate at Public Citizen. "Since the Great Depression, the SEC's role has been to ensure abuses and frauds are kept to a minimum. As ESG funds have exploded in popularity, the market is ripe for fraudsters looking to cash in on investors who want to follow their values. These new ESG rules from the SEC are simply the Commission doing its job."
Many of the groups' comments focused on the need for the SEC to better protect everyday investors and people managing their retirement funds and recognize the impacts to communities if these issues were to go unaddressed.
"The current state of ESG investing is broken, allowing for the farcical scenario in which a literal private prison company is counted as a 'responsible' ESG investment by the biggest asset manager in the world," said Cecilia Behgam, senior research analyst for climate and environmental justice at Action Center on Race and the Economy. "Our current rules mean companies that make surveillance technologies, manufacture chemicals that pollute our air and water, or imprison thousands of people across the country can be included in ESG funds by the Vanguards and BlackRocks of the world. It's deeply concerning for impacted communities and investors. Clearly, the SEC must strengthen these rules."
Among the recommendations from each group, there is a broad consensus for ESG policies that include the following:
- Funds should not be allowed to use a name like "ESG," "Sustainable," or "Green" unless the label genuinely reflects a major focus of their investment strategy, and those funds should describe how they define those terms and their strategies, including how they engage with companies to improve their sustainability and what impacts they seek to achieve;
- Environmentally-focused funds should disclose the full set of financed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including Scopes 1, 2, and 3, without taking into account carbon offsets or credits;
- ESG funds that do not have a strategy around GHG emissions should state so affirmatively in their prospectus;
- ESG funds must strengthen disclosure of climate impacts caused by extractive and polluting industries in BIPOC and frontline communities;
- Disclosure by ESG funds that invest in corporations with direct lines of business that rely on the prison system or policing of low-income and BIPOC communities must be strengthened;
- Proxy voting disclosures should be made within a framework acknowledging that voting proxies in investors' best interest is part of the duty advisers owe their clients;
- Derivatives should be calculated in a way that does not result in discrepancies between how the derivative and its underlying asset equivalent exposure are treated;
- Investment advisers and companies must disclose how ESG screening tools are applied and assessed.
The full list of recommendations can be found in each organization's comment letter linked below.
"This regulation is a critical step to stop Wall Street fund managers from using misleading names like 'ESG,' 'green,' or 'socially responsible' to market products that are bad for the climate, workers, and communities," said Alex Martin, senior climate finance policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. "Right now, most 'green' funds are not even Paris Agreement-aligned, and the worst offenders are loaded with fossil fuels. Without these rules, Wall Street will continue to get away with duping investors who want products that align with their needs and values."
RESOURCES
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular