The Commission’s decision to entrust US asset manager BlackRock with the task of advising the EU on how it could better integrate environmental and social factors (ESG) into its supervision of banks has caused surprise, incomprehension and anger among several MEPs (see EUROPE 12466/28).
On Wednesday 15 April, French MEPs Aurore Lalucq (S&D) and Manon Aubry (GUE/NGL) were the first to call on the Commission to explain itself. In a so-called “priority” written question - requiring a response within 4 to 6 weeks - they question BlackRock’s ability to advise the Commission with “neutrality and impartiality”, given that the fund manages interests of eight of the world’s largest oil companies and holds more than 87 billion dollars in shares in fossil fuel companies.
According to our information, BlackRock will be tasked with making an inventory of best practices for the integration of ESG risks into risk management processes and the prudential supervision of banks as well as analysing obstacles to the development of a well-functioning European market for sustainable investments.
“Honestly, I couldn't believe my eyes!”, Aurore Lalucq told EUROPE on Thursday 16 April, denouncing a decision of “culpable naivety”. For her, it is simply “astonishing to see the Commission abandoning an analysis that is not influenced by lobbies”.
It would have been better, in her view, to create a panel of experts including representatives of civil society. “Why didn't the Commission propose to Finance Watch, an NGO specifically created and financed by the EU, to make proposals that do not fall under the influence of lobbies?” she wondered.
On Thursday, the European Parliament’s mobilisation was further boosted with a second written question to the Commission in the evening. The initiative, launched by France’s Pascal Durand (Renew Europe), collected 84 signatures from several political groups.
This second written question also asks the Commission about its decision to entrust an American company with the possibility of setting the guidelines for future European legislation.
On the same day, Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France) sent a letter to the European Commission on the subject. “This ‘BlackRock’ affair is the only visible part of the stranglehold of lobbies eager to unravel the ambitions of the European Green Deal and to hinder an ecological and energy transition that would harm their interests”, she denounces.
Commission defends its choice
The European Commission ensures that the selection procedure complied with EU public procurement rules. BlackRock’s proposal was “the best offer compared to the other offers, both technically and financially”, said Commission spokesman Daniel Ferrie on Thursday.
The European institution also defended itself against criticism of the amount allocated for the study, which was set at 280,000 euros and not 500,000 euros, as may have circulated in the press.
“When the Commission sets an amount for a contract, it does so on the basis of what it believes is the volume of work that is necessary to carry out the work”, said the Commission’s Chief Spokesperson, Eric Mamer.
But the MEPs are not giving up. This “judgement error”, as they call it, could cost the Commission dearly and call into question the credibility of the EU’s work on sustainable finance.
“This is very damaging, especially in the current context, where strong political signals are needed. (...) We are at a moment where Europe, which is so criticised, sometimes falsely and sometimes rightly so, must be irreproachable”, concluded Aurore Lalucq.
See the written question by Mrs Lalucq and Mrs Aubry: https://bit.ly/2K6wIgC
See the written question initiated by Pascal Durand: https://bit.ly/3a9A6lu
See Marie Toussaint’s letter (in French): https://bit.ly/34FskyJ
(Original version in French by Marion Fontana with Damien Genicot)