Citigroup

InfluenceMap Score
C-
Performance Band
61%
Organisation Score
45%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
New York, United States
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Citigroup (Citi) appears to have had some engagement on sustainable finance policy, but details of this engagement are generally described in broad terms. Where its positions are available, Citi appears to support government action on corporate climate disclosure and globally consistent taxonomies and standards for green finance.

Citi has recognized issues in the financial system, like short-termism, that obstruct global climate goals, and appears to support the need for systemic reform to deliver a sustainable financial system. Citi has stated support for emissions reduction in line with a 1.5C target and in 2017 then-CEO Michael Corbat co-signed a letter urging President Trump to keep the US in the Paris Climate Agreement. However, at the World Economic Forum’s 2020 meeting in Davos, 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.

In its 2020 CDP report and a 2020 letter to an EU Commissioner, Citi made some broad statements of support for government action on sustainable finance. 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.

Citi has expressed topline support for regulated corporate ESG reporting but has not fully supported specific disclosure 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 reiterated its support for mandatory disclosure requirements in its 2021 TCFD report. 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.

In 2021 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.

Citi does not appear to have actively engaged on policies that incorporate ESG factors into investor duties, but in a 2021 report summarizing the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), Citi suggested that compliance with the regulation might be complicated and overly rigorous. In its 2021 TCFD and ESG reports 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.

Citi has disclosed some broad positions on and engagement with sustainable finance policies across website articles and white papers but does not have a clearly identifiable, comprehensive disclosure of its sustainable finance policy positions and lobbying activities. Citi has disclosed trade association membership and listed some areas of engagement with these associations on sustainable finance policies, but details of this engagement and desired outcomes are frequently unclear.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
211-111NS
0NS11NSNSNS
1NS10NSNSNS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
00NSNSNSNSNS
0NS1NSNS-1NS
0NANANANANANA
0NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
48%
 
48%
 
39%
 
39%
 
41%
 
41%
 
58%
 
58%
 
55%
 
55%
 
11%
 
11%
 
37%
 
37%
 
42%
 
42%
 
56%
 
56%
 
52%
 
52%
 
48%
 
48%
 
43%
 
43%

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.