ESG Activist Larry Fink Takes Heat From Right and Left

The BlackRock CEO is either too radical or too namby-pamby, critics say.



BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has managed to attract enormous numbers of new customers to his asset management company, the world’s largest ($10 trillion). But his climate advocacy is turning out to be downright divisive.

Fink, in his latest letter to fellow corporate chiefs, stressed that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is not so much about idealism as about making money. Companies that don’t plan for a carbon-free future are risking being left behind, he contended.

“Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics,” Fink wrote. “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’” To not follow ESG will be disastrous eventually, he warned, adding, “We focus on sustainability not because we’re environmentalists, but because we are capitalists and fiduciaries to our clients.” 

Last spring, BlackRock won widespread notice by backing three dissident directors seeking election to ExxonMobil’s board who wanted to fight the oil giant’s reluctance to move into renewable energy.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

But now he is facing pushback from both left and right, with liberals condemning him as all talk and little action, while conservatives paint his convictions as anti-growth.

West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore, a Republican, announced that he would block the state from using BlackRock for banking transactions, as the firm’s net-zero goal would harm his state’s coal industry—and also because the money manager was investing in Chinese companies, which Moore complained cost the state jobs.

“Any company that thinks Communist China is a better investment than WV energy or American capitalism clearly does not have the best intentions for WV,” he wrote in a tweet.

Texas state legislators last year passed a bill to ban state agencies from investing public money with companies such as BlackRock that “boycott energy companies,” even though Fink retains stakes in such businesses.

Meanwhile, on the left, the sentiment is that Fink is either a hypocrite or favors half-measures. “In his letter, Larry Fink is trying to be everything to everyone and that isn’t true leadership,” said Casey Harrell, senior strategist at the Sunrise Project, an environmental nonprofit based in Australia, in remarks to Bloomberg.

And Ben Cushing, fossil-free finance campaign manager at the Sierra Club, told the news service that said Fink is full of “hot air” and his annual letter is filled with “vague rhetoric.” Plus, he went on, BlackRock continues to hold stock in fossil fuel companies—witness its involvement with the Exxon proxy fight, which required it to be a shareholder.

Although Fink didn’t respond to a call for comment, he has styled owning oil stock as a means to effect change. “Keep in mind, if a foundation or an insurance company or a pension fund says, ‘I’m not going to own any hydrocarbons,’ well, somebody else is, so you’re not changing the world,” Fink  told a forum last year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Fink has demanded that companies report their climate risks publicly, in addition to their impact on workers and communities. In defense of his capitalist-oriented ESG stances, he told the Wall Street Journal that Johnson & Johnson’s example in both world wars was a net positive for the US and its people.

“You can call them opportunists by providing Band-Aids and gauzes and all that stuff to the military, but they were there during the crisis and stood there,” he said.

Related Stories:

Larry Fink Says We Need to Work With, Not Against Hydrocarbon Companies. But Can We Trust Them Given Their History?

News From Davos: Larry Fink Tries Rallying Fellow CEOs to Combat Climate Change

The Exxon Vote: Pension Supporters Stay Onboard to Advance Change

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Delphi Pension Termination Case

The lack of action by the high court ends more than 12 years of litigation after the General Motors unit’s pension plan was terminated.



The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of former Delphi Corp. workers who sued when their pension was terminated by their company and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) during General Motors’ 2009 bankruptcy. The move upholds a ruling by the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals and ends more than 12 years of litigation over the matter.

Approximately 20,000 non-union retirees of the former General Motors Corp. parts unit who were affected by the pension cuts had asked the justices to overturn PBGC’s decision to terminate the plan.

“To say we are disappointed would be a terrible understatement,” Chuck Cunningham, legal liaison to the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association, told the Detroit News. “We held out some high hopes for this. We’ll never know why they didn’t take it, but we’ll always feel pretty bad about it. It’s pretty tough news to take for so many of our members.”

Auto parts producer Delphi filed for bankruptcy in October 2005, and General Motors, the former owner of Delphi, filed for bankruptcy in 2009. That year, an association of retired Delphi salaried employees sued PBGC after it took over the workers’ pension, reduced their benefits, and terminated the plan. The plaintiffs claimed that some plan participants lost as much as 70% of their vested benefits with the PBGC takeover.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

The lawsuit centered on whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) required PBGC to get a judicial decree before terminating the pension plan, which the Delphi retirees had argued the agency was required to do. However, PBGC argued that the law allows for an alternative for terminating a distressed pension plan with an agreement between PBGC and the plan’s administrator.  

The three-judge 6th Circuit agreed with PBGC in 2020, ruling that a provision in the law allows for the closing of distressed pension plans through such an agreement without court approval.

In November, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel led a coalition of seven state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court arguing that the due process rights of the former Delphi Corp. employees were violated when the corporation’s bankruptcy led to the pension plan’s termination.

“For many of the affected employees, their careers were spent entrusting Delphi to deliver on its pension plan,” Nessel said. “Losing vested benefits—through no fault of their own nor with any say in the matter—violated the rights of these employees. Our filing seeks to rectify that grave error.”

The brief said that “the 6th Circuit’s broad holding has dire implications within that circuit, as well as anywhere else where the same is adopted.”

Related Stories:

Supreme Court to Hear ERISA Excessive Fee Case

Teamsters Pension Asks Supreme Court to Reverse PE Firm Withdrawal Ruling

US Supreme Court Declines to Review Cranston Pension Case

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

«