Labour Party Conference 2023 - Saturday

Today, after my Newham Councillor surgery,  I travelled to Liverpool for the 2023 Labour Party conference. I had to go into the conference office (yet again) to pick up my credentials since they had not arrived by post. 

Since this is my 3rd Labour movement conference in Liverpool this year, I feel that I am starting to know my way around the city. 

I will blog and post on conference further. Tomorrow (Sunday), I am speaking on "greenwashing" in pensions at the LAPFF fringe at 12.30.

How can we put an end to greenwashing? Labour Party Conference fringe meeting - Sunday 8 October, 12.30-1.30 Room 25, Liverpool ACC

 CHAIR

·        Clive Betts MP, Chair Parliament Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee

SPEAKERS

·        Baroness Blake of Leeds, Lords Spokesperson Energy and Net Zero

·        Cllr John Gray, Vice Chair, Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF)

·        Cllr Rishi Madlani, SERA - Labour’s Environment Campaign and Chair, London Borough of Camden Pensions Committee

BACKGROUND

There is widespread concern and public anger about companies making misleading and sometimes false statements about their environmental credentials. The issue is also on the radar of regulators and governments with growing interest about the use of terms and labels such as ‘sustainable’. Although interventions are starting to be made will they be enough to guard against the dangers that greenwashing poses?

For government, such dangers include delayed action to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid the worst effects of climate change. It also poses significant risks to our financial system and for investors. Unclear or misleading disclosures from companies could mean risks are masked and action is not taken by investors through their stewardship activity. Equally, misleading financial products also carry with it the risk that capital is misallocated while also undermining confidence in green products and sustainable investment.

The fringe event will discuss what more needs to be done nationally and internationally to improve disclosures and taxonomies and tackle greenwashing? And in the UK, what roles should government, councils, investors, companies and civil society play to end greenwashing?  

As the event is open to all people attending the conference it will not be held under Chatham House Rules.

FRINGE HOSTS

The event is supported by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), which represents the interests of 87 UK public sector (LGPS) pension fund members and seven Pools with combined assets of over £350bn. LAPFF promotes the highest standards of corporate governance to protect the long-term value of local authority pension funds. It does so primarily by engaging some of the world’s largest companies on environmental, social and governance issues.

The Smith Institute, an independent, not-for-profit think tank, is the co-host, providing the secretariat for the fringe event.

CONTACT ON THE DAY Paul Hackett

Picture https://lapfforum.org/engagements/were-going-to-need-a-bigger-planet/

Unreported Deaths - Covid_19 cases in UK Food Processing Plants

 A damning report by PIRC here into the failure of many UK food processing plants (the UK's biggest manufacturing sector) to properly report the deaths of their workers from Covid_19 to the Health & Safety Executive and to take effective action to protect them. 

Private sector pension trustees and Local Government Pension committees (and boards) ought to be pressing their fund managers and advisors to be taking this issue seriously. The reputational and legal risk to investors is potentially huge. 

It is about time the "S" in ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance) is taken as seriously as "Environment" and "Governance". 

We have the term "#GreenWashing" to describe the prentence by some fund managers and advisors that they take Environmental issues seriously. 

What can we call those who don't take any real notice of #social issues? 

"Why fossil fuel divestment isn't the answer"

Last month I went to a well attended public meeting on this topic in Forest Gate Coffee7 and a Chatham House rules seminar in the City. This article today in Professional Pensions reflects what I think and said at those meetings.

John Gray says it's better to reduce carbon exposure over a longer period while seeking suitable alternative investments

I am sure that many pension trustees will have been approached by both beneficiaries and climate change activists concerned about investments in fossil fuel industries. In local government the pension funds are often seen as belonging to the council so residents are also lobbying councillors and pension board members about divesting from carbon.

‎Like so many things about pensions, this topic is important but complex and definitely in the 'difficult box'. From my perspective as a councillor on one Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and as a union-appointed pension board member on another, I firstly try to make it clear that local government pension funds belong to its active members, its deferred members, its pensioners and dependents. Not to the council and definitely not to councillors.

The fund must be invested in the interests of beneficiaries.

Secondly, unlike in the private sector, there is no Pension Protection Fund for the LGPS nor does it have an explicit crown promise like other public sector schemes. 

While it may be unthinkable for many good reasons to imagine an LGPS fund going bust, trustees and those responsible for pensions have to think the unthinkable and in reality, who really knows what will happen in the long term? Due to the LGPS employer contribution cap, if future pension cost is more than 13% then either staff will have to pay more or benefits will be reduced.

What campaigners, who are rightly deeply concerned about the risk of climate change, should be doing is not just lobbying councillors and their officers, but building links and engaging with council staff and their trade unions. It is after all their deferred pay, their pension future, their money.

This doesn't mean that council pension funds should not be examining both the real financial risks ‎of investing in carbon industries but also be conscious of the impending Armageddon of our planet if we do not control our carbon emissions. 

Existing investments in carbon are usually valued on the basis of their proven reserves of coal, oil or gas. It is becoming clear that much of these reserves may never be mined or pumped out, since if they were to do so it would burn the planet. These so called 'stranded assets' are therefore likely to destroy the value of investments in carbon industries.

While to me the case for disinvestment in carbon is unanswerable, I do not feel divestment is the answer. Many calls for divestment want pension funds to sell all their carbon investments within five years. Disinvestment is a call to reduce exposure to carbon over a longer period while seeking suitable alternative investments.

It is probable that the use of fossil fuels will continue but hopefully we will see a significant reduction. It is arguable that at this time there are not sufficient alternative 'green' energy investment opportunities available. This will change but when?

I also feel tactically that calling for the divestment rather than disinvestment from carbon will play into the hands of climate change and other ESG sceptics in the industry, who would relish the opportunity to attack and rubbish total divestment, when they know that the case for disinvestment over time is so powerful.

Do not underestimate the resistance to such change in the industry. While there is much good practice, many professional practitioners may 'talk the talk' on climate change issues but are in reality 'greenwashing'. Beware!

John Gray is a member of Tower Hamlets Council Pension Board, writing in a personal capacity