Terence Corcoran: Ménage à trois of the Greens + RBC + the Bureau

Article content

The green C-suiters at the Royal Bank of Canada, members of the national corporate executive collective of rollovers who have dragged the Canadian business community into the bushes of climate environmentalism, were quick this week to reject charges that the bank is guilty of greenwashing. The charges came in an aggressive 47-page complaint filed with the Competition Bureau by a band of green activists who allege the bank has made “materially false and misleading misrepresentations on climate action.” In response, and in classic corporatese, RBC said it strongly disagrees with the allegations and “believes the complaint to be unfounded and not in line with Canada’s climate plan.” With that, the bank strangely accuses activists of failing to adhere to government climate policy.

Article content

Despite RBC’s not-guilty plea, Ottawa’s Competition Bureau has agreed to open an investigation into the allegations filed earlier this year by representatives of the usual enemies of business, including aggressive anti-RBC activist Stand.earth. On its website, Stand.earth long ago branded RBC as Canada’s “worst fossil fuel bank.”

Article content

The RBC/Stand.earth/Bureau clash is a perfect three-way demonstration of the absurd policy mangle that is slowly coming to dominate every nook and cranny of the global economy — a ménage à trois of climate policy players attempting to outdo one another in the glorious climate romance known as net-zero carbon emissions.

The Canadian ménage also mirrors a global state of affairs that features corporations, green activists and regulators in the same contentious embrace.

Article content

RBC: The bank is a card-carrying member of the international financial industry fraternity known as Gfanz (the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero), an umbrella group created by former central banker Mark Carney in his role as organizer of global corporate adherence to the United Nations’ carbon control regime. Along with the other Canadian banks and institutions, RBC signed on to Gfanz a year ago, committing to “accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.”

By joining Gfanz, RBC became a member of an official global collusion-like effort to bring the world’s financial players into a co-operative policy movement based on the idea that climate change and net-zero carbon targets must take precedence and become the dominant policy objective of all financial institutions around world. To herd the world’s financial powerhouses into such a movement, each Gfanz member is expected to sign on to the UN “Race to Zero” criteria that will be used to make sure bankers follow the same rules via “co-ordinated efforts.”

Article content

In recent weeks, however, Gfanz has run into roadblocks. The Financial Times reported last weekend that some members of the organization are concerned that such a central financial institutional cabal might be, well, maybe a breach of anti-trust laws, especially in the United States. That, at least, was the expressed concern of Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan.

In battle of climate wits, who’s the greenest?

Competition Bureau: To date, Canada’s competition regulator appears to have no problem with the Big Six banks and other financial institutions collaborating to join what looks like an agreement not to compete on climate agendas. In fact, the Bureau is ready to embrace such agreements.

Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell recently outlined the Bureau’s approach to “Green Growth.”  He said the objective is to foster innovation and competition “based on merit.” Sounds good. But then Boswell introduced a loophole. The Bureau’s policy, he said, is to “leave room for legitimate collaboration between businesses to deliver goods and services in more sustainable ways.” In other words, inter-corporate agreements that might be seen as anti-competitive are now acceptable if the agreement is intended to, say, kill fossil fuel industries.

Article content

Then Boswell adopted a different policy stance with what he called “the demand side.” Competition policy, he said, should help consumers make informed choices “by rooting out misleading environmental claims or anti-competitive practices that can block consumers from choosing greener options.” (Would that apply to Stand.earth?)

Rolling environmental and climate objectives into competition law and theory is a major intellectual stretch, but it is the way of the world. The new theory is that corporate collaboration, hitherto an economic crime, is now seen as the way of the future. An OECD paper last year seemed to indicate that many forms of behaviour once deemed anti-competitive might be acceptable. “One may also consider whether the otherwise abusive conduct may be objectively justified, if it yields environmental benefits.” An International Chamber of Commerce paper argued that because the world faces a “climate emergency” there should be room for “greater co-operation between businesses in the fight against climate change.”

Article content

Under green competition policy, corporate collusion is therefore good if the cause is the UN net-zero regime. But deceptive marketing and greenwashing as allegedly practised by banks and others are bad and should be punished. Maybe some lawyers can sort this out.

Stand.earth: Laughing all the way to the political bank on competition policy are such activists as Tzeporah Berman, Stand.earth’s international program director. She was with Great Bear Rainforest years ago when RBC gave Tides Canada $500,000 to fund Great Bear.

In the battle of climate wits, who’s the greenest? Stand.earth and other activists charge RBC with greenwashing. RBC, maybe Canada’s greenest bank by self-promotion, rejects the allegation. The Competition Bureau, now converting into the Green Competition Bureau, has agreed to investigate. They’re all in this together.