Divestment Dilemma

View more insights in Podcasts - Finance Podcasts

View more figures from Faculti

No related posts found.

A growing trend in corporate finance, as a result of pressure from activists, regulators, and governments, is the divestment of polluting assets.

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 2, 2025

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

In the Faculty Finance Podcast, hosts Lily and David discuss the trend of corporate divestment from polluting assets and its implications for environmental sustainability. While divestment appears beneficial, they argue that it often merely shifts pollution rather than reducing it, as these assets are often sold to companies with less environmental scrutiny, thus continuing the pollution under new ownership. This video practice can lead to "greenwashing," where companies present a misleadingly eco-friendly image without making significant environmental changes.

They emphasize the need for consumers to critically evaluate corporate environmental claims and understand what happens to divested assets. The discussion highlights the importance of actual emissions reductions over mere ownership changes and suggests that investment in cleaner technologies or outright closure of polluting operations is necessary for substantial change. The hosts encourage consumers to remain informed, support genuinely sustainable companies, and advocate for policies focused on real environmental progress. Overall, the podcast calls for more engagement and critical thinking regarding corporate claims and environmental actions.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Misleading Divestment Practices**: While corporate divestment from polluting assets may seem beneficial for the environment, it often results in a mere shift of ownership rather than a significant reduction in pollution levels. The original companies can claim environmental progress while the pollution continues under new ownership, sometimes by firms with less scrutiny.

2. **Greenwashing Concerns**: The rise in divestment trends has raised concerns about "greenwashing," where companies create an illusion of environmental responsibility without making substantial changes. This tactic can mislead consumers about the true environmental impact of corporate actions.

3. **Need for Deeper Investigation**: Consumers are encouraged to look beyond the headlines of corporate claims and investigate what happens to divested assets, emphasizing the need for critical engagement with corporate environmental practices rather than passive acceptance of companies' claims.

4. **Focus on Genuine Solutions**: True environmental progress requires focusing on actual emissions reductions and sustainable practices, rather than simply divesting from polluting assets. This includes investing in cleaner technologies and potentially shutting down highly polluting operations.

5. **Role of Policy and Individual Action**: Effective policy is essential for driving meaningful environmental progress, and consumers can influence this by supporting genuine efforts and advocating for regulations that promote real emissions reductions. Individual actions, such as staying informed and making conscious purchasing decisions, contribute to broader environmental goals.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video of the Faculty Finance Podcast discussing corporate divestment and its implications for environmental sustainability:

1. **"On the surface, companies selling off their most polluting assets seems like a win for the environment, but when we dig deeper, the reality is far less rosy."**

2. **"These divestments don't significantly reduce overall pollution levels. Instead, what's happening is more of a shift in ownership rather than a reduction in pollution."**

3. **"It's like a game of hot potato, but with pollution."**

4. **"Often companies that face less environmental scrutiny or pressure... the original company can claim they've improved their environmental standing while pollution levels may remain unchanged."**

5. **"Greenwashing... That's when companies try to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are."**

6. **"If the environmental benefits are minimal or non-existent, it raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of these efforts."**

7. **"It requires a level of engagement and critical thinking that can be daunting for many people."**

8. **"We need to focus more on actually reducing emissions rather than just shifting ownership."**

9. **"These more meaningful changes often require significant investment and can impact a company's bottom line in the short term."**

10. **"We can also use our power as consumers to support companies that are making genuine efforts to reduce their environmental impact."**

11. **"We need regulations that incentivize real environmental progress, not just cosmetic changes."**

12. **"Every small action counts, whether it's reducing our own carbon footprint, supporting truly sustainable businesses, or advocating for better policies, we all have a role to play."**

These quotes encapsulate the main arguments and themes discussed in the podcast, from the challenges of true environmental accountability to the importance of consumer awareness and systemic change.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:04.735 --> 00:00:06.905
Welcome to the Faculty Finance Podcast,

2
00:00:07.395 --> 00:00:09.425
where we break down finance, research

3
00:00:09.565 --> 00:00:11.145
and discuss key topics.

4
00:00:12.085 --> 00:00:16.665
I'm Lily Corporate divestment of polluting assets, a key

5
00:00:16.665 --> 00:00:18.425
to environmental sustainability.

6
00:00:18.935 --> 00:00:22.065
Well, not quite today, we're discussing

7
00:00:22.065 --> 00:00:25.305
how this trend may actually be masking the real issues in

8
00:00:25.305 --> 00:00:26.905
our fight against climate change.

9
00:00:27.785 --> 00:00:32.195
Hmm. That's an intriguing perspective, and I am David.

10
00:00:33.505 --> 00:00:37.315
So Lily, what's led you to that conclusion?

11
00:00:38.025 --> 00:00:39.975
Well, it's a complex issue

12
00:00:39.975 --> 00:00:42.535
that's been gaining traction since 2015.

13
00:00:43.315 --> 00:00:46.335
On the surface, companies selling off their most polluting

14
00:00:46.335 --> 00:00:48.735
assets seems like a win for the environment,

15
00:00:49.395 --> 00:00:52.775
but when we dig deeper, the reality is far less rosy.

16
00:00:53.235 --> 00:00:54.455
So you're saying these divestments

17
00:00:54.455 --> 00:00:55.575
aren't as effective as they appear?

18
00:00:56.435 --> 00:00:59.885
Exactly. The research we've looked at suggests

19
00:00:59.885 --> 00:01:02.405
that these divestments don't significantly reduce

20
00:01:02.475 --> 00:01:03.685
overall pollution levels.

21
00:01:04.435 --> 00:01:06.005
Instead, what's happening is more

22
00:01:06.005 --> 00:01:08.085
of a shift in ownership rather than

23
00:01:08.085 --> 00:01:09.245
a reduction in emissions.

24
00:01:09.595 --> 00:01:12.005
It's like a game of hot potato, but with pollution.

25
00:01:13.055 --> 00:01:14.555
Oh, that's an interesting analogy.

26
00:01:15.455 --> 00:01:18.355
So what actually happens to these assets after they're sold?

27
00:01:19.335 --> 00:01:20.905
Well, that's the crux of the issue.

28
00:01:21.925 --> 00:01:25.795
These assets, whether they're coal plants, oil fields,

29
00:01:26.215 --> 00:01:28.195
or other pollution, heavy operations

30
00:01:28.785 --> 00:01:30.515
typically continue to function.

31
00:01:31.195 --> 00:01:32.965
They're just under new ownership.

32
00:01:33.295 --> 00:01:36.005
Often companies that face less environmental scrutiny

33
00:01:36.145 --> 00:01:39.645
or pressure, so while the original company can claim they've

34
00:01:39.645 --> 00:01:42.365
reduced their carbon footprint, the actual amount

35
00:01:42.365 --> 00:01:44.685
of pollution being produced hasn't changed.

36
00:01:45.715 --> 00:01:48.455
That's not what I expected.

37
00:01:49.975 --> 00:01:52.955
It sounds like it could even be counterproductive if these

38
00:01:52.955 --> 00:01:54.395
assets end up with companies

39
00:01:54.395 --> 00:01:56.315
that are less mentally conscious.

40
00:01:57.175 --> 00:01:58.595
You've hit the nail on the head

41
00:02:00.075 --> 00:02:01.855
and it brings us to an important term

42
00:02:01.855 --> 00:02:03.135
that's been gaining traction.

43
00:02:04.115 --> 00:02:08.315
Greenwashing Google Trends shows an eightfold increase in

44
00:02:08.515 --> 00:02:11.075
searches for greenwashing since 2004,

45
00:02:11.525 --> 00:02:14.035
which really highlights growing public awareness

46
00:02:14.455 --> 00:02:17.435
and skepticism about corporate environmental claims.

47
00:02:19.155 --> 00:02:22.005
Greenwashing. That's when companies try

48
00:02:22.005 --> 00:02:24.325
to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are.

49
00:02:24.695 --> 00:02:25.695
Right,

50
00:02:26.245 --> 00:02:27.245
Exactly.

51
00:02:27.445 --> 00:02:29.295
It's like painting a rusty car green

52
00:02:29.315 --> 00:02:30.575
and calling it eco-friendly.

53
00:02:31.355 --> 00:02:34.215
And this divestment trend might be walking a fine line

54
00:02:34.215 --> 00:02:37.775
between genuine environmental action and greenwashing.

55
00:02:38.555 --> 00:02:42.055
On one hand, companies are improving their ESG ratings.

56
00:02:42.515 --> 00:02:44.735
That's environmental, social, and governance.

57
00:02:45.065 --> 00:02:48.535
These ratings can affect stock prices, attract investors,

58
00:02:49.075 --> 00:02:50.655
and help with regulatory compliance.

59
00:02:51.275 --> 00:02:52.295
But on the other hand,

60
00:02:52.715 --> 00:02:54.895
if the environmental benefits are minimal

61
00:02:55.035 --> 00:02:58.535
or non-existent, it raises questions about the sincerity

62
00:02:58.595 --> 00:03:00.365
and effectiveness of these efforts.

63
00:03:01.525 --> 00:03:04.485
Hmm. I can see how this could be frustrating for consumers

64
00:03:04.485 --> 00:03:06.365
who are trying to support environmentally

65
00:03:06.395 --> 00:03:07.525
responsible companies.

66
00:03:08.225 --> 00:03:09.685
How are we supposed to know what's real

67
00:03:09.745 --> 00:03:10.845
and what's just for show?

68
00:03:11.545 --> 00:03:13.245
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

69
00:03:13.915 --> 00:03:17.635
It's becoming increasingly important for consumers to look

70
00:03:17.755 --> 00:03:19.795
beyond the headlines and dig deeper into

71
00:03:19.795 --> 00:03:21.635
what companies are actually doing.

72
00:03:22.295 --> 00:03:24.715
For example, instead of just celebrating a company's

73
00:03:24.715 --> 00:03:27.195
divestment of polluting assets, we might want

74
00:03:27.195 --> 00:03:28.715
to ask questions about what happens

75
00:03:28.735 --> 00:03:30.395
to those assets after they're sold.

76
00:03:31.065 --> 00:03:35.585
That makes sense. But it sounds like it puts a lot

77
00:03:35.585 --> 00:03:39.015
of responsibility on the consumer to do their own research.

78
00:03:40.005 --> 00:03:41.625
You are right. It does,

79
00:03:42.535 --> 00:03:44.435
and that's part of the challenge we're facing.

80
00:03:45.065 --> 00:03:46.995
Environmental issues are complex

81
00:03:47.455 --> 00:03:49.955
and simple solutions like just get rid

82
00:03:49.955 --> 00:03:52.395
of the polluting assets often don't address

83
00:03:52.415 --> 00:03:53.475
the root of the problem.

84
00:03:54.215 --> 00:03:56.075
It requires a level of engagement

85
00:03:56.135 --> 00:03:59.155
and critical thinking that can be daunting for many people.

86
00:04:00.025 --> 00:04:02.405
It reminds me of other well-intentioned environmental

87
00:04:02.405 --> 00:04:04.565
efforts that have had unintended consequences,

88
00:04:05.635 --> 00:04:08.925
like when some places banned plastic bags only

89
00:04:08.925 --> 00:04:10.765
to see people switch to thicker plastic bags

90
00:04:11.435 --> 00:04:15.605
that were technically reusable but often weren't reused.

91
00:04:16.725 --> 00:04:18.145
That's a perfect parallel.

92
00:04:18.605 --> 00:04:21.545
It highlights how complex these environmental issues can be.

93
00:04:22.005 --> 00:04:23.305
We want simple solutions,

94
00:04:23.645 --> 00:04:26.185
but the reality is often much more nuanced,

95
00:04:26.605 --> 00:04:29.305
and it's not just about individual consumer choices either.

96
00:04:29.415 --> 00:04:31.105
There's a bigger picture to consider.

97
00:04:31.695 --> 00:04:34.135
What do you mean by that? Well,

98
00:04:34.135 --> 00:04:35.655
think about the companies that are buying

99
00:04:35.655 --> 00:04:36.895
these divested assets.

100
00:04:37.705 --> 00:04:39.735
Often they're firms that face less

101
00:04:39.735 --> 00:04:41.455
environmental pressure or scrutiny.

102
00:04:42.275 --> 00:04:44.415
So not only does the pollution continue,

103
00:04:44.755 --> 00:04:46.895
but it might now be happening under the radar

104
00:04:47.405 --> 00:04:50.375
with less public awareness or pressure for improvement.

105
00:04:50.795 --> 00:04:52.055
That's a concerning thought.

106
00:04:53.355 --> 00:04:55.135
So what should we be pushing for instead?

107
00:04:56.065 --> 00:04:58.785
If divestment isn't the answer, what is?

108
00:04:59.785 --> 00:05:00.925
That's the key question.

109
00:05:01.595 --> 00:05:04.325
From what we've learned, it seems like we need

110
00:05:04.325 --> 00:05:07.645
to focus more on actually reducing emissions rather than

111
00:05:07.645 --> 00:05:08.685
just shifting ownership.

112
00:05:09.365 --> 00:05:11.935
This could mean investing in cleaner technologies,

113
00:05:12.365 --> 00:05:15.495
finding ways to operate these assets more sustainably,

114
00:05:15.995 --> 00:05:19.215
or in some cases actually shutting down the most polluting

115
00:05:19.215 --> 00:05:21.575
operations rather than selling them off.

116
00:05:22.225 --> 00:05:23.975
Those sound like more substantial changes,

117
00:05:24.995 --> 00:05:27.525
but I imagine they're also more difficult

118
00:05:27.525 --> 00:05:30.165
and expensive for companies to implement.

119
00:05:31.485 --> 00:05:32.545
You are absolutely right,

120
00:05:33.205 --> 00:05:34.505
and that's part of the challenge.

121
00:05:35.115 --> 00:05:38.265
These more meaningful changes often require significant

122
00:05:38.265 --> 00:05:41.105
investment and can impact a company's bottom

123
00:05:41.135 --> 00:05:42.225
line in the short term.

124
00:05:43.005 --> 00:05:45.265
But if we're serious about addressing climate change

125
00:05:45.265 --> 00:05:47.185
and reducing pollution, these are the kinds

126
00:05:47.185 --> 00:05:48.545
of actions we need to see.

127
00:05:49.365 --> 00:05:51.335
It's a bit overwhelming when you think about it.

128
00:05:52.235 --> 00:05:54.575
How do we as individuals make a difference in the face

129
00:05:54.575 --> 00:05:56.255
of such complex global issues?

130
00:05:57.285 --> 00:05:58.585
It can feel overwhelming,

131
00:05:59.165 --> 00:06:01.545
but I think there are still things we can do.

132
00:06:02.305 --> 00:06:04.695
First and foremost, staying informed

133
00:06:04.835 --> 00:06:06.655
and asking questions is crucial.

134
00:06:07.405 --> 00:06:10.255
When we hear about a company making environmental claims,

135
00:06:10.595 --> 00:06:13.215
we can dig deeper to understand what's really happening.

136
00:06:13.635 --> 00:06:17.615
We can also use our power as consumers to support companies

137
00:06:17.615 --> 00:06:19.015
that are making genuine efforts

138
00:06:19.075 --> 00:06:21.055
to reduce their environmental impact.

139
00:06:21.805 --> 00:06:26.145
That makes sense. And I suppose we can also advocate for

140
00:06:27.495 --> 00:06:29.775
policies that focus on actual emissions reductions

141
00:06:30.385 --> 00:06:35.005
rather than just divestment or other surface level changes.

142
00:06:36.405 --> 00:06:39.615
Exactly. Policy plays a huge role in this.

143
00:06:40.315 --> 00:06:43.695
We need regulations that incentivize real environmental

144
00:06:44.215 --> 00:06:46.255
progress, not just cosmetic changes.

145
00:06:46.955 --> 00:06:49.775
And as citizens, we can push our representatives

146
00:06:49.775 --> 00:06:51.495
to support these kinds of policies.

147
00:06:52.245 --> 00:06:54.535
Well, this discussion has certainly

148
00:06:54.535 --> 00:06:55.575
given me a lot to think about.

149
00:06:56.275 --> 00:06:57.655
Has this research changed

150
00:06:58.355 --> 00:07:01.255
how you personally approach environmental issues?

151
00:07:02.395 --> 00:07:05.455
It definitely has. I think I've become more skeptical

152
00:07:05.515 --> 00:07:07.095
of flashy environmental claims

153
00:07:07.435 --> 00:07:09.815
and more interested in the nitty gritty details of

154
00:07:09.815 --> 00:07:11.255
what companies are actually doing.

155
00:07:12.395 --> 00:07:15.135
I'm also trying to be more mindful of the complexity

156
00:07:15.135 --> 00:07:16.935
of these issues and resist the urge

157
00:07:16.995 --> 00:07:19.455
to accept simple solutions at face value.

158
00:07:20.075 --> 00:07:22.775
That's a good approach. I think I'll be doing more

159
00:07:22.775 --> 00:07:25.415
of my own research too, especially when it comes

160
00:07:25.415 --> 00:07:27.015
to companies I support with my purchases.

161
00:07:27.675 --> 00:07:28.735
That's great to hear,

162
00:07:29.435 --> 00:07:31.255
and I hope our listeners will do the same.

163
00:07:32.125 --> 00:07:34.455
It's easy to feel overwhelmed by these issues,

164
00:07:34.875 --> 00:07:35.935
but being informed

165
00:07:36.035 --> 00:07:38.695
and asking questions is a great place to start.

166
00:07:39.235 --> 00:07:41.815
And remember, every small action counts,

167
00:07:42.165 --> 00:07:44.535
whether it's reducing our own carbon footprint,

168
00:07:44.745 --> 00:07:46.735
supporting truly sustainable businesses,

169
00:07:46.955 --> 00:07:48.935
or advocating for better policies,

170
00:07:49.235 --> 00:07:50.495
we all have a role to play.

171
00:07:51.205 --> 00:07:55.135
Well said. I think that's a perfect note to end on, a call

172
00:07:55.135 --> 00:07:57.015
to action for our listeners to stay informed

173
00:07:57.075 --> 00:07:58.375
and engaged on these issues.

174
00:07:59.815 --> 00:08:02.735
Absolutely. And remember, things aren't always

175
00:08:02.835 --> 00:08:03.855
as green as they seem.

176
00:08:04.365 --> 00:08:06.215
Keep questioning, keep learning,

177
00:08:06.635 --> 00:08:08.815
and we'll see you next time on Cully.

178
00:08:09.425 --> 00:08:11.015
Until then, stay curious

179
00:08:11.595 --> 00:08:13.815
and keep making a difference however you can.

180
00:08:14.645 --> 00:08:16.705
And don't forget to look beyond the surface when it comes

181
00:08:16.705 --> 00:08:18.025
to corporate environmental claims.

Unpacking the Illusion of Corporate Divestment

00:00:04 - Welcome to the Faculty Finance Podcast, where we break down finance, research and discuss key topics. I'm Lily Corporate divestment of polluting assets, a key to environmental sustainability. Well, not quite today, we're discussing how this trend may actually be masking the real issues in our fight against climate change. Hmm. That's an intriguing perspective, and I am David. So Lily, what's led you to that conclusion?

00:00:39 - that's been gaining traction since 2015. On the surface, companies selling off their most polluting assets seems like a win for the environment, but when we dig deeper, the reality is far less rosy. So you're saying these divestments aren't as effective as they appear? Exactly. The research we've looked at suggests that these divestments don't significantly reduce overall pollution levels. Instead, what's happening is more of a shift in ownership rather than

00:01:09 - It's like a game of hot potato, but with pollution. that's an interesting analogy. So what actually happens to these assets after they're sold? Well, that's the crux of the issue. These assets, whether they're coal plants, oil fields, or other pollution, heavy operations typically continue to function. They're just under new ownership. Often companies that face less environmental scrutiny or pressure, so while the original company can claim they've

Unpacking Greenwashing in Corporate Sustainability

00:01:42 - of pollution being produced hasn't changed. That's not what I expected. It sounds like it could even be counterproductive if these assets end up with companies that are less mentally conscious. You've hit the nail on the head and it brings us to an important term that's been gaining traction. Greenwashing Google Trends shows an eightfold increase in searches for greenwashing since 2004,

00:02:14 - and skepticism about corporate environmental claims. Greenwashing. That's when companies try to appear more eco-friendly than they actually are. Right, Exactly. It's like painting a rusty car green and calling it eco-friendly. And this divestment trend might be walking a fine line between genuine environmental action and greenwashing. On one hand, companies are improving their ESG ratings.

00:02:45 - These ratings can affect stock prices, attract investors, and help with regulatory compliance. But on the other hand, if the environmental benefits are minimal or non-existent, it raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of these efforts. Hmm. I can see how this could be frustrating for consumers who are trying to support environmentally responsible companies. How are we supposed to know what's real and what's just for show? That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Unpacking Corporate Divestment: The Need for Consumer Awareness

00:03:17 - beyond the headlines and dig deeper into what companies are actually doing. For example, instead of just celebrating a company's divestment of polluting assets, we might want to ask questions about what happens to those assets after they're sold. That makes sense. But it sounds like it puts a lot of responsibility on the consumer to do their own research. You are right. It does, and that's part of the challenge we're facing.

00:03:47 - and simple solutions like just get rid of the polluting assets often don't address the root of the problem. It requires a level of engagement and critical thinking that can be daunting for many people. It reminds me of other well-intentioned environmental efforts that have had unintended consequences, like when some places banned plastic bags only to see people switch to thicker plastic bags that were technically reusable but often weren't reused.

00:04:18 - It highlights how complex these environmental issues can be. We want simple solutions, but the reality is often much more nuanced, and it's not just about individual consumer choices either. There's a bigger picture to consider. What do you mean by that? Well, think about the companies that are buying these divested assets. Often they're firms that face less environmental pressure or scrutiny. So not only does the pollution continue, but it might now be happening under the radar

Beyond Divestment: Prioritizing Real Emissions Reduction

00:04:50 - That's a concerning thought. So what should we be pushing for instead? If divestment isn't the answer, what is? That's the key question. From what we've learned, it seems like we need to focus more on actually reducing emissions rather than just shifting ownership. This could mean investing in cleaner technologies, finding ways to operate these assets more sustainably, or in some cases actually shutting down the most polluting

00:05:22 - Those sound like more substantial changes, but I imagine they're also more difficult and expensive for companies to implement. You are absolutely right, and that's part of the challenge. These more meaningful changes often require significant investment and can impact a company's bottom line in the short term. But if we're serious about addressing climate change and reducing pollution, these are the kinds of actions we need to see.

00:05:52 - How do we as individuals make a difference in the face of such complex global issues? It can feel overwhelming, but I think there are still things we can do. First and foremost, staying informed and asking questions is crucial. When we hear about a company making environmental claims, we can dig deeper to understand what's really happening. We can also use our power as consumers to support companies that are making genuine efforts to reduce their environmental impact.

Environmental Accountability: Moving Beyond Surface Solutions

00:06:27 - policies that focus on actual emissions reductions rather than just divestment or other surface level changes. Exactly. Policy plays a huge role in this. We need regulations that incentivize real environmental progress, not just cosmetic changes. And as citizens, we can push our representatives to support these kinds of policies.

00:06:54 - given me a lot to think about. Has this research changed how you personally approach environmental issues? It definitely has. I think I've become more skeptical of flashy environmental claims and more interested in the nitty gritty details of what companies are actually doing. I'm also trying to be more mindful of the complexity of these issues and resist the urge to accept simple solutions at face value. That's a good approach. I think I'll be doing more

00:07:25 - to companies I support with my purchases. That's great to hear, and I hope our listeners will do the same. It's easy to feel overwhelmed by these issues, but being informed and asking questions is a great place to start. And remember, every small action counts, whether it's reducing our own carbon footprint, supporting truly sustainable businesses, or advocating for better policies, we all have a role to play. Well said. I think that's a perfect note to end on, a call

Beyond the Surface: Questioning Corporate Environmental Claims

00:08:16 - and engaged on these issues. Absolutely. And remember, things aren't always as green as they seem. Keep questioning, keep learning, and we'll see you next time on Cully. Until then, stay curious and keep making a difference however you can. And don't forget to look beyond the surface when it comes to corporate environmental claims.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts