Goldman Sachs Withdraws from Climate Action 100+ Amid Rising Political Scrutiny

114

Goldman Sachs’ fund division has announced its departure from the investor engagement group Climate Action 100+, a move reflecting broader trends among financial services firms facing political backlash in the United States. The decision comes as part of a wider exodus of major financial players from global climate-focused coalitions due to increasing scrutiny from Republican lawmakers and concerns over potential antitrust violations.

In recent months, U.S. members of international climate advocacy groups have faced mounting pressure. Some Republican leaders have criticized these organizations for allegedly pushing companies to adopt stringent climate policies that could be seen as anticompetitive. This scrutiny has intensified since late July, when a prominent Republican congressional leader demanded explanations from over 130 investors regarding their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives.

A Goldman Sachs spokesperson confirmed the firm’s exit from Climate Action 100+, stating that the fund division would now focus on engaging with companies independently. “We have invested in enhancing our capabilities to meet the sustainable investing needs of our clients and remain committed to leveraging our global reach,” the spokesperson explained.

Goldman Sachs’ withdrawal is part of a larger trend. In the past few weeks, several investment companies have also announced their departure from Climate Action 100+. These include Aristotle Credit and Aristotle Pacific Capital on July 31, TCW Group on August 1, and Vert Asset Management, Mellon Investment Corp, and Water Asset Management on August 2. Additionally, other significant players such as Invesco, JPMorgan’s fund division, and State Street Global Advisors have exited earlier this year.

The Climate Action 100+ coalition has not yet responded to Goldman Sachs’ departure. However, a representative for CA100+ commented earlier this week, defending the organization’s operations. “The way Climate Action 100+ functions is clearly outlined on our website and in documents provided to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee,” the spokesman said. “The recent letters to Climate Action 100+ investors appear to be an effort to discourage investors from addressing climate risks and opportunities. Investors are independent fiduciaries, responsible for their investment and voting decisions.”

Goldman Sachs’ decision to leave Climate Action 100+ underscores the growing tension between financial institutions’ sustainability initiatives and political pressures in the United States. As the debate over climate-related investment practices continues, it remains to be seen how these developments will impact the broader ESG landscape and investor engagement strategies moving forward.