Several major U.S. banks, including Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America, have recently announced their departure from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). This global coalition was established to help financial institutions align their lending and investment portfolios with the Paris Agreement’s climate goals.
However, this wave of exits highlights the growing tension between climate commitments and political pressures, particularly in the U.S.
A Retreat from Climate Commitments: U.S. Banks’ Bold Move
The NZBA, launched in 2021 under the umbrella of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), committed its members to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The alliance required banks to set interim targets, reduce emissions associated with their portfolios, and report progress transparently. It also encouraged funding for projects like renewable energy and reforestation to offset emissions.
By 2023, the NZBA had gained significant traction, with over 100 member banks collectively representing 40% of global banking assets. This made it a key player in mobilizing financial resources for the transition to a low-carbon economy. Yet, political and market dynamics have increasingly complicated these ambitions.
Political Backlash and Legal Challenges
In the U.S., political opposition has intensified against net-zero initiatives. Republican-led states have accused financial institutions of prioritizing climate goals over economic interests.
In November, Texas and 10 other states sued major asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, alleging antitrust violations tied to climate activism. These lawsuits argued that such actions limited fossil fuel financing, reduced coal production, and raised energy prices.
- SEE MORE: BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in Legal Soup: Texas Coalition Claims Coal Market Manipulation
This political climate has pressured banks to distance themselves from alliances perceived as restrictive or politically charged. Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America’s decisions to exit NZBA follow earlier withdrawals by Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and others, citing similar concerns.
So, What Now After the Exit?
Despite leaving the NZBA, these banks remain committed to their sustainability goals. Morgan Stanley reiterated its pledge to report on interim financed emissions targets for 2030, emphasizing its continued support for clients transitioning to greener practices.
The bank has committed to achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050. To support this long-term objective, Morgan Stanley has set the following 2030 targets for major emitting sectors:
The firm plans to collaborate with clients to develop and implement strategies that facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, Morgan Stanley emphasizes the importance of transparent reporting and has committed to disclosing its progress toward these goals regularly.
Citigroup also noted its progress on independent net-zero goals, while Bank of America stated it would continue working with clients to meet their sustainability needs.
Citigroup has pledged to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, including both its operations and the emissions associated with its financing activities. As part of this commitment, Citi aims to decarbonize its own operations by 2030.
The bank has developed a Net Zero Framework that includes:
- calculating baseline financed emissions for carbon-intensive sectors,
- identifying appropriate climate transition pathways,
- setting emissions reduction targets for 2030 and beyond, and
- implementing strategies through client engagement.
Similarly, Bank of America remains committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions across its financing activities, operations, and supply chain before 2050. To support this goal, the bank has set interim targets for 2030, focusing on reducing emissions in key sectors such as auto manufacturing, energy, and power generation.
- Their strategy includes mobilizing $1 trillion by 2030 through their Environmental Business Initiative to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.
Additionally, Bank of America achieved carbon neutrality in its operations in 2019 and continues to work towards making its operations more sustainable.
These approaches reflect a strategic balancing act among major bankers. On the one hand, these institutions seek to maintain credibility as leaders in sustainable finance. On the other, they aim to avoid political and financial risks that could arise from their association with climate-focused alliances.
Broader Challenges Facing NZBA
The challenges confronting NZBA extend beyond political opposition. Questions about the availability and quality of carbon credits, critical for offsetting emissions, have raised concerns about the alliance’s effectiveness. Ensuring that credits meet stringent environmental and social standards is essential to maintaining the credibility of net-zero commitments.
Operational complexities also pose difficulties. For instance, NZBA requires members to harmonize emissions reporting and reduction efforts across diverse portfolios and jurisdictions. This has led to administrative bottlenecks and slowed progress in achieving interim goals.
Another challenge is the perception of double regulation. Flights between the UK and the European Economic Area (EEA), for example, face overlapping compliance requirements under both CORSIA and local emissions trading schemes.
Similarly, banks must navigate overlapping climate regulations across multiple frameworks, further complicating their compliance efforts.
GFANZ’s Evolving Role
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which oversees NZBA and other sectoral alliances, has adapted its strategy in response to these challenges.
GFANZ announced it would no longer require financial institutions to join specific alliances to benefit from its guidance. Instead, it will focus on addressing critical gaps in data, investment, and public policy to accelerate the transition to net zero. The Alliance stated in a statement that it has:
“achieved its initial goal of developing the building blocks of a financial system capable of financing the transition to net zero.”
This shift aims to unlock over $5 trillion annually to modernize energy systems and decarbonize economies globally. By prioritizing actionable investments and public-private partnerships, GFANZ hopes to sustain momentum despite recent defections.
But What Does it Mean for Sustainable Finance?
The exits from NZBA signal broader uncertainties in the sustainable finance sector. While financial institutions recognize the importance of addressing climate risks, they face competing pressures from stakeholders with differing priorities.
Investors demand accountability on climate goals, yet political forces challenge these commitments, particularly when viewed as detrimental to traditional industries like fossil fuels.
Moreover, the scaling back of collective initiatives like NZBA could slow progress in mobilizing the trillions of dollars needed for the low-carbon transition. Without unified frameworks, banks may pursue fragmented approaches, reducing the overall effectiveness of global climate action.
Opportunities And the Road Ahead for Net Zero Banking
Despite these setbacks, opportunities remain for financial institutions to lead in sustainable finance. By leveraging innovative tools like sustainable bonds and green loans, banks can support decarbonization while mitigating political and financial risks.
Moreover, investing in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and emerging carbon capture technologies offers pathways to align profitability with climate goals.
The exits of major U.S. banks from NZBA highlight the delicate interplay between climate ambition and political realities. While these developments may slow collective action, they also underscore the need for adaptable strategies to sustain progress. By addressing challenges proactively, the financial sector can continue to play a pivotal role in the global transition to a sustainable future.
The post Morgan Stanley, Citi and Bank of America Exit Net-Zero Alliance: What’s Next for Sustainable Finance? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits