In a recent article published by the Financial Times, the controversial columnist Stuart Kirk questions the commitment of the financial sector to sustainability and ESG. More precisely, he points out the – perceived – hypocrisy as banks and asset managers withdraw from previously firm environmental pledges.
Kirk argues that “under Donald Trump the financial sector has performed one of its most hypocritical acts of apostasy ever. It no longer seems to believe in sustainability.”
Last week, I already mentioned how major companies — including HSBC — are already backing away from their 2025 climate goals. In this article, I’ll take a closer look at what Stuart Kirk has to say about the financial sector’s fading climate ambitions. And for good reason: Kirk knows the industry inside out.
He’s a financial professional and journalist who currently writes investment-focused columns for the Financial Times. Before that, he led the Lex column, one of the FT’s most influential financial commentaries.
Kirk’s career spans more than 20 years in banking, asset management, and consulting. He held senior roles such as Global Head of Responsible Investments at HSBC Asset Management, Global Head of Research and Insights at HSBC Global Asset Management, and Global Head of Multi-Asset and Thematic Research at Deutsche Bank. He also led the Research Institute at DWS Group and worked as a management consultant at Oliver Wyman.
In May 2022, Kirk made headlines for a speech at the FT Moral Money conference, where he criticized how the financial sector handles climate risk. The backlash led to his suspension and eventual resignation from HSBC Asset Management.
Kirk holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Cambridge. He’s known for his blunt, sometimes provocative takes on financial markets and investment strategy.
Signs of a Shifting Faith in the Financial Sector
Major U.S. banks – including Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America – have pulled out of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). In January 2025, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM) also went dark after BlackRock walked away. The trigger? Mounting pressure from U.S. regulators.
These exits mark a clear shift. The ESG gold rush is losing steam, and the financial world is quietly backing off its once-loud climate pledges.
| Organization | Action | Date | Reason Cited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America | Exited NZBA | December 2024 – January 2025 | Regulatory and political pressure |
| BlackRock | Exited NZAM | Late 2024 | Legal inquiries from U.S. states |
| NZAM | Suspended activities | January 2025 | Response to member exits |
Kirk notes that sustainable fund inflows reached “$645bn globally in 2021,” but fell to “$36bn out of $1.5tn overall” in 2024. Morningstar data indicates that 2024 actually saw outflows of $19.6 billion, suggesting an even sharper decline. Europe remains a hub for green investing, while the U.S. faces outflows amid political backlash, possibly tied to Trump’s influence.
Questioning the Original Commitment of the Financial Sector
Kirk critiques the sector’s initial enthusiasm: “Net zero targets or ESG were never sold to us as shareholder friendly, profit-maximising opportunities… they were marketed from the beginning as essential beliefs.” He questions if it was “all a lie,” noting how quickly banks abandoned these “core values” when demand waned. “If they never believed in sustainability in the first place, we’ve all been taken on a ride,” he warns, hinting at trust issues and potential mis-selling claims.
New Approach Needed in the Financial Sector
Kirk sees a path forward: “The current backlash is an opportunity – to shed the misguided practices, improve the good bits, while preaching the message that finance is a force for good.” He advocates engagement over divestment: “Mindlessly cutting finance to coal, oil or gas companies makes no sense. Better to engage, help them transition, and spur the economic growth needed to invest in renewables.” He notes that “80 per cent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels,” urging a pragmatic approach.
Global Energy Reliance and Investment:
| Energy Source | Global Share (2023) | Renewable Investment (2024) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fossil Fuels | 80% | $50B (transition funding) | Coal, oil, gas dominate energy supply |
| Renewables | 13% | $300B (global total) | Growing but still a minority |
| Nuclear/Other | 7% | $20B | Stable but limited contribution |
Renewable investment data from IEA Renewables 2024 report.
Rethinking Divestment and ESG
Kirk challenges divestment’s effectiveness: “Buying or selling shares in a secondary market in itself makes no difference to anything… To influence a company you need to own its shares to vote.” He emphasizes focusing on primary markets – venture capital, private equity – where actual money is given or withdrawn. On ESG, he remains supportive but calls for clarity and ask for one score per company, no argument.
Divestment vs. Engagement Strategies:
| Strategy | Assets Committed | Key Example | Impact Debate | ESG Adoption Rate (2024) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Divestment | $40.5 trillion (2023) | NYC: $4B divested (2021) | Symbolic, but emissions unchanged | 45% of funds |
| Engagement | Not quantified | CalSTRS prefers engagement | Direct influence, slower results | 60% of funds |
ESG adoption rate from Morningstar’s Global ESG Flows 2024.
The Debate is Ongoing
The debate over financing sustainability persists. Divestment advocates argue that withdrawing investments from fossil fuels diminishes their legitimacy, while engagement proponents, like Kirk, believe that working with these companies can drive meaningful change from within.
Political shifts, especially in the U.S., add complexity, with banks citing legal pressures for their retreats. Kirk emphasizes the necessity of trust: “Without trust sustainable finance has no chance. That means being realistic, honest and pragmatic.”
Whether financiers truly believe in sustainability – or ever did – remains an open question, but Kirk insists they must now demonstrate their commitment.
