Citigroup

InfluenceMap Score
for Sustainable Finance Policy Engagement
D+
Performance Band
62%
Organization Score
43%
Relationship Score

Sector:
Banks
Head​quarters:
New York, United States
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Sustainable Finance Lobbying Overview: Citigroup (Citi) appears to have had some engagement on sustainable finance policies, but details of this engagement are generally described in broad terms. Citi has taken mostly positive top-line positions on sustainable finance but where Citi has engaged with specific policies, it has been more mixed.

Top-Line Messaging on Sustainable Finance Policy: Citi has recognized issues in the financial system, like short-termism, that obstruct global climate goals, and has appeared to support the need for systemic reform to deliver a sustainable financial system. Citi has supported emissions reduction in line with a 1.5C target.However, at the World Economic Forum’s 2020 meeting in Davos, then-CEO [726156 Michael Corbat stated that it was not the banking system’s role to enforce standards around climate change. Jane Fraser became CEO after Corbat’s retirement in February 2021 and has since made public statements of support for the Paris Agreement and for financial sector action on climate change. However, a letter Citi submitted to the Municipal Advisory Council of Texas in November 2021 appears to support continued investments in fossil fuels. Citi has stated broad support for sustainable finance regulation, including in its 2020 CDP report and a 2020 letter to an EU Commissioner. In TCFD and ESG reports from 2020 and 2021 Citi mentions engagement with regulators and policymakers as well as trade associations on several sustainable finance policies and frameworks, but details of this engagement and positions on policies are unclear.

Position on Regulated Corporate ESG Disclosure: Citi has expressed top-line support for regulated corporate ESG reporting, while taking a mixed position on specific policies. In its 2021 CDP report Citi stated support for improved standards for corporate climate disclosure and in a 2021 white paper Citi called for a globally consistent disclosure framework based on a double materiality approach. Citi also supported the need for disclosure regulations in its 2021 TCFD report and in a 2022 Global Perspectives paper. However, in its letter to the SEC in June 2022, Citi outlined its objections to the Commission's proposed climate disclosure rule and requested some requirements be removed or softened.

Position on Taxonomies and ESG Standards/Labels/Benchmarks: In 2021 and 2022 white papers and briefings, Citi stated support for a green taxonomy, calling taxonomies “vital to the green finance effort” and emphasizing their importance in combatting greenwashing. However, in a 2021 perspectives paper, Citi warned against creating a taxonomy that is overly restrictive, suggesting it would hinder green investment. In a 2021 report Citi stated support for the EU Green Bond Standard.

Position on Incorporating ESG Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: In its 2021 TCFD and ESG reports and in its 2022 Environmental and Social Policy Statement Citi mentions engaging with regulators on climate risk policy, but details of this engagement are unclear. Citi’s 2021 CDP report suggests some support for regulatory action on climate risk regulations for banks, but in a September 2022 House Financial Services Committee Hearing, CEO Jane Fraser appeared not to support policy to incorporate climate risk into stress testing. A March 2022 memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shows that Citi, as constituents of the Bank Policy Institute, met with the OCC to outline “challenges” to its draft principles for climate-related financial risk management.

Industry Association Governance: Citi has disclosed membership to some trade associations and listed some areas of engagement with associations on sustainable finance policies, but this disclosure is not comprehensive.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
211-111NS
0111NSNSNS
1110NSNSNS
11NSNSNSNSNS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
00NSNSNSNSNS
0NS10NS0NS
0NANANANANANA
1NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
60%
 
60%
 
N/A
 
57%
 
30%
 
30%
 
41%
 
41%
 
54%
 
54%
 
40%
 
40%
 
54%
 
54%
 
58%
 
58%
 
15%
 
15%
 
37%
 
37%
 
46%
 
46%
 
44%
 
44%
 
60%
 
60%
 
53%
 
53%
 
47%
 
47%
 
N/A
 
61%

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.