2023全球银行业可持续基准.pdf

1A global benchmark for sustainable banking 2023June 20232OVERVIEWTable of contentsCHAPTER 1Foreword:Peter-Jan van de Venn,VP Global Digital Banking,MobiquityCHAPTER 2Literature Review:Adi Gaskell,Forbes ContributorCHAPTER 3Infographic of main findingsCHAPTER 4Summary of the researchCHAPTER 5MethodologyCONTACTGet in touch347192224CHAPTER 6How Mobiquity can help233CHAPTER 1ForewordPeter-Jan van de Venn,VP Global Digital Banking,MobiquityWelcome to the third edition of our“Global Benchmark for Sustainable Banking Report”that further explores the sentiment of banking executives another year on,to compare and contrast sustainable attitudes and behaviours across the global banking community.This years report shows that sustainability/ESG is forced somewhat down the agenda due to the present economic climate.Where last years report showed that banks had made significant progress in elevating their sustainability strategies,our research shows that the previous work is now being slowed down.The macroeconomic headwinds have forced banks to focus on activities that will deliver clear,immediate returns.From board level to front-line teams,banks have been concentrating on keeping their bottom lines healthy,forcing sustainability to take a back seat.Whilst its understandable that banks are feeling under pressure,theres a risk being too much focused on their short term challenges will lead to them missing out on the long-term benefits that sustainability brings.From the research we see that digital technology can also be used to support ESG and transparency in the banking sector and 2 in 5(40%)C-suites surveyed said technology can do this by implementing digital tools and platforms to collect,analyse,and report ESG data and metrics in a standardised and consistent manner.They also said technology can be used to support this by developing blockchain-based solutions to improve transparency and traceability in supply chains,particularly for industries with high ESG risks.The top 3 of emerging technologies and digital tooling C-suites surveyed said their bank is currently engaging with in 2023:1.Cyber security technologies 2.Machine Learning(MI)and Artificial Intelligence(AI)3.ChatGPTIncorporating digital technologies to promote sustainability is crucial for ensuring the long-term viability of businesses within the evolving banking landscape.The bank of the future must not only strive to deliver a customer-centric digital banking experience that seamlessly integrates physical and digital channels but also position itself as a facilitator of digital lifestyles,driven by an active ESG culture to attract and retain a loyal customer base.Being at the forefront of ESG practices will provide a competitive advantage,as the upcoming generations are increasingly drawn to brands that serve a clear purpose.To secure a financially sustainable future,banks must proactively embrace this purpose-driven approach from the earliest possible stage.4When John Kerry,the U.S.Special Envoy for Climate,recently explained that the world was“way off track”to maintaining the pledge to keep the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius that is widely accepted as needed to keep climate change under control.Kerry explained that to keep that aspiration alive will require reductions of emissions of up to 45%by 2030,but rather than pursuing that path,society is instead heading toward a rise of between 2.5 and 3 degrees.While sectors like manufacturing continue to dominate in terms of energy consumption,the finance industry can nonetheless play a crucial role in curbing emissions.The lackluster progress comes despite data from KPMG showing that nearly 80%of companies globally are currently reporting some kind of sustainability metrics,with this rising to practically all companies in countries like the UK.This apparent dichotomy is partly explained by a recent report from the New Climate Institute in collaboration with Carbon Market Watch.Talk vs actionThe report analyses the climate strategies of around 25 global companies,with a particular focus on whether the companies track and disclosure their emissions,set emission reduction targets,actively reduce their emissions,and take responsibility for unabated emissions via offsetting or other climate contributions.The report also analyses the transparency of companies across each of the four areas.Between them,the 25 companies produce the equivalent of 5%of global greenhouse gas emissions,and the report finds that while all of the companies had made pledges to reduce their carbon footprint,those pledges were often ambiguous and the actual concrete commitments were extremely limited.The report found that all 25 companies committed to some form of zero-emission,net-zero,or carbon-neutral targets.However,it is notable that only three of these companies,namely Maersk,Vodafone,and Deutsche Telekom,have shown a clear and decisive commitment to deep decarbonisation by aiming to reduce over 90%of their full value chain emissions by their respective net-zero and zero-emission target years.Regrettably,at least five companies have pledged to reduce their emissions by less than 15%,often by excluding upstream or downstream emissions.Among the 13 companies that have provided specific details on their headline net-zero commitments,their average full value chain emission reduction target from 2019 stands at only 40%.Meanwhile,the remaining 12 companies have made headline pledges without committing to any specific emission reduction targets for their respective target years.CHAPTER 2Literature reviewAdi Gaskell,Forbes Contributor5Collectively,the 25 companies under assessment have committed to reducing less than 20%of their 2.7 GtCO2e emission footprint by their respective headline target years.While all 25 companies have taken important steps towards decarbonisation,the lack of comprehensive and aggressive emission reduction targets could hinder progress toward a sustainable future.Making meaningful progressWhile any amount of progress is welcome,there remains a substantial opportunity for companies to adopt more ambitious measures to reduce their climate impact,particularly when it comes to addressing their upstream and downstream emissions,commonly referred to as scope 3 emissions.The 25 companies under review have an average of 87%of their total emissions attributable to scope 3 emissions,but only eight of them have disclosed a moderate level of detail regarding their plans to address these emissions.To demonstrate their commitment to climate leadership,the authors argue that companies must prioritise climate change objectives and actively engage in constructive dialogues to share best practices.By doing so,they believe companies substantially enhance their uptake of ambitious measures that will effectively reduce their environmental footprint and mitigate climate change risks.This could involve increasing investment in renewable energy sources,exploring innovative supply chain solutions,and collaborating with stakeholders to drive collective action toward a sustainable future.It is especially important that firms are able to make more substantial progress in terms of sourcing renewable electricity,especially as digital transformation has been cited as a key factor in becoming more sustainable.Indeed,a survey from cloud technology company Pure Storage found that 86%of sustainability managers believe that technology plays a crucial role in becoming more sustainable.Digital driversSuch transformation efforts are problematic in a number of ways,however.Firstly,while investments in digital transformation are undoubtedly valuable,its a mistake to simply assume the act of going digital is inherently greener and therefore it allows organisations to also put a tick in the sustainability box.Such cynical“double accounting”underpins many of the accusations of greenwashing that continue to blight organisations.Indeed,the Pure Storage data shows that it is crucial that any digital investments are made in a sustainable way,not least as most of their respondents thought that investing in digital technology might actually result in their organisations carbon footprint increasing rather than decreasing.The true environmental impact of data centers remains uncertain,creating a significant obstacle for the industry,electricity providers,and policymakers to make wellinformed decisions on the matter.However,what is irrefutable is the substantial impact the industry has already made and the likelihood of it worsening as the exponential growth of data and digital services persists.As dirty as oilThe notion that“data is the new oil”has fueled the drive to accumulate as much data as possible,despite the fact that most organisations only utilise a small fraction of their data.In fact,a vast majority of data is mere noise rather than useful information,resulting in not only operational costs but also significant environmental and financial expenses associated with storing excessive amounts of data.Mike Berners-Lees book How Bad Are Bananas?The Carbon Footprint of Everything popularised this issue,highlighting that our yearly email usage generates up to 40 kilograms of CO2,equivalent to driving a small petrol car approximately 200 kilometers.As the world becomes increasingly reliant on digital services,it is crucial to address the environmental impact of data centers and find ways to minimise their carbon footprint.Things get similarly murky when we look at AI and machine learning which continues to act as the focal point of many digital investments.For instance,research from Carnegie Mellon University shows that training a standard natural language processing(NLP)model produces an estimated 626,155 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions,which is roughly 5 times that produced by a car over its lifetime.Generating emissionsThis has become even more problematic with the release,and subsequent hype,surrounding generative AI models,such as ChatGPT.Estimates suggest that ChatGPT emits 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide per year,more than double the amount generated by an individual,which is around 4 tons annually.However,the precise emissions depend on the power source used to run the data centers-coal or natural gas-fired plants result in far greater emissions than solar,wind,or hydroelectric power.As such,its challenging to provide exact figures.A recent study from the University of California,Riverside,highlights the significant water footprint of AI models such as 6ChatGPT-3 and 4.During GPT-3s training in Microsofts data centers,approximately 700,000 liters of fresh water were used-equivalent to the amount required to produce 370 BMW cars or 320 Tesla vehicles.The intensive training process generates a vast amount of heat,necessitating a staggering quantity of freshwater to regulate temperatures and cool the machinery.Furthermore,the inference process by which ChatGPT responds to queries or produces text,also consumes a significant amount of water.For a simple conversation of 20-50 questions,the water used is equivalent to a 500ml bottle,highlighting the substantial total water footprint for inference given the models billions of users.While efforts are underway to try and make the sector more sustainable,it runs the risk of invoking Jevons Paradox,with any improvements in energy efficiency and sustainability more than offset by the huge increases in usage.Whats more,the analysis by the New Climate Institute urges caution when it comes to the energy efficiency of on-premise IT solutions.Dubious effortsThe vast majority of companies evaluated in the report rely on unbundled renewable energy certificates(RECs)to bolster their claims of minimal or negligible climate impact.Essentially,these companies draw electricity from their local,regional,or national grid and additionally acquire certificates from renewable energy producers,often located in disparate locations.Despite the significant limitations of this approach,companies employ RECs to assert a reduction in their electricity-related emissions.The report also found that many companies utilise offsetting to try and“neutralise”their carbon emissions.Two-thirds of the companies analysed for the report rely on carbon dioxide removals from forestry and other biologically-related carbon sequestration methods(dubbed“nature-based solutions”)to prop up their assertion that their future emissions are offset.The crux of this argument is that the impact on the climate is no different than if the emissions were never emitted in the first place.However,such approaches are ill-suited to individual offsetting claims due to the precariousness of biological carbon storage.For instance,the act of cutting down and burning forests could potentially undo any carbon storage.Moreover,given the pressing need to curb emissions and boost carbon storage,the emphasis should not be on choosing between the two but rather on simultaneously advancing both objectives on a global scale.Driving the changeAt the Harvard discussion,Kerry sounded a cautious note of optimism that companies are beginning to grasp the importance of tackling climate change and ensuring that their operations are Net Zero as quickly as possible.“I think now,given the decisions made by Ford Motor Co.,General Motors by big corporations Google,Apple,SalesForce,FedEx these companies are signed up,theyre on board,their CEOs understand whats happening,”he said.Tackling the challenge of climate change hinges on creative breakthroughs,and it is crucial that companies take a central role in devising and implementing innovative solutions for thorough decarbonisation.These efforts are being heavily backed by the likes of the stimulus package introduced by the Biden administration.However,there remains an urgent need to hasten progress in this arena.As such,corporations must brace themselves for rigorous inspection to ensure that their promises and assertions are genuinely credible.Any fallacious claims must be met with accountability and consequences.7CHAPTER 3Main findingsThe proportion of C-suites surveyed who said sustainable banking is a top concern at board level has decreased,with just over 2 in 5(41%)saying this in 2022,but over just a quarter(26%)now saying this in 2023.Mobiquity surveyed 600 C-suite banking executives across the United States,United Kingdom,the Netherlands,and Australia.8United StatesPresent economic climateThe proportion of C-suites surveyed who said sustainable banking is a top concern at board level has decreased,with just over 2 in 5(41%)saying this in 2022,but over just a quarter(26%)now saying this in 2023.Top concerns at board level for banks across all regionsUnited KingdomAustraliaNetherlandsTalent managementSustainable bankingDigital trans-formationIncreased regulatory complianceBanking instabilityIncreasing competitionConsumer confidence0%10%20%30%Present economic climateTalent managementSustainable bankingDigital trans-formationIncreased regu