"Say on Climate" dropped from French bill after pressure from lobbies

Paris, 10 October – The proposed adoption of Say on Climate votes – an obligation for companies to submit their climate strategy to a consultative vote at their annual general meetings – was dropped yesterday by the cross party committee debating France’s draft Green Industry bill. Reclaim Finance says it is disappointed that the government and parliamentarians have given in to pressure from lobbyists, and calls on them to continue to work to improve the conditions for shareholder dialogue so that investors can implement their own climate commitments.

This decision to drop the amendment from the Green Industry bill followed several weeks of negotiations where lobby groups, in particular the French Association of Large Companies (AFEP) had been pushing hard for it to be withdrawn [1].

This measure to combat greenwashing is a minimal, but useful step to support investors who want to invest more responsibly. It costs nothing and it is very consensual. Its removal from the text clearly illustrates the government’s lack of political will to move forward on sustainable finance.

Antoine Laurent, advocacy lead for Reclaim Finance

During the first reading of the “Green Industry” bill, France’s National Assembly had adopted, against the government’s advice, an amendment to extend the “Say on Climate” principle, tabled by MPs from several political groups ranging from the NUPES to the Republicans. This consensual measure, supported by many French [2] and foreign [3] investors, would have required listed companies to submit their climate strategy to shareholders for a consultative vote through a resolution at their annual general meeting [4].

Although the adopted amendment lacked the ambition and precision to provide a proper framework for Say on Climate votes [5], Reclaim Finance had urged deputies to support it because it represented a useful step forward in favour of sustainable finance. It would allow investors who are committed to climate action to supplement their measures to exclude certain companies, by engaging and giving their opinion on the quality of the climate strategies put forward [6].

Reclaim Finance calls on the assembly members who supported this amendment to continue their efforts to ensure that “Say on climate” becomes mandatory and that its content is regulated to prevent “greenwashing”. [7]

Contacts:

Antoine Laurent, Advocacy Lead, antoine@reclaimfinance.org +33642426905
Helen Burley, international media, helen@reclaimfinance.org, +44 7703 731923.

Notes:

Letter, La dernière manche de l’AFEP contre le “Say on climate“, [FR – AFEP’s last stand against Say on Climate] September 2023 / Loi industrie verte : quand l’AFEP tente de retourner les députés sur le “Say on Climate“, [FR – Green Industry bill – when the AFEP tries to turn deputies against ”Say on Climate” ] July 2023.
Forum for Responsible Investment (FIR), Say on Climate.
Investment Week, Investors overseeing £1.8trn in assets call for AGM votes on climate transition plans, October 2023.
See the amendment [FR] tabled by Alexandre Holroyd (Renaissance).
See the more ambitious version put forward by Reclaim Finance.
One of the arguments against the adoption of the “Say on Climate” was that it would impose an additional constraint on companies, particularly in view of the entry into force of the CSRD. However, the requirement to organise a consultative (and non-binding) vote would relate to a report that the CSRD already requires (Article 19a on sustainability information). “Say on Climate” is therefore not harmful to companies, but is a useful new tool for investors wishing to invest more responsibly in climate issues.
The lack of a framework for Say on Climate opens the door to greenwashing both on the part of issuers – who seek to give the impression of taking action by having their climate strategy adopted by a large majority of shareholders – and on the part of institutional investors, who claim to be acting for the climate by voting for Say on Climate documents, even if the latter are of poor quality (incomplete content, weak objectives and poor credibility of the plan).