As the bank with “green answers” – according to their marketing campaign – I have a few questions for Nedbank.
Nedbank has put a lot of effort into creating the impression of being a ‘green’ bank. They have an entire website devoted to the environment, and a range of account options with a green ‘flavour’. In their current ad campaign, Nedbank is eager to point out its carbon neutrality and they top it off with the line “a greener future needs a greener bank with green answers”.
However, despite the bank’s attempts at greenwashing their image, a recent report has named Nedbank among the highest funders of coal-fired power plants in the world.
The report examined the portfolios of 93 banks globally since 2005, looking at how they’ve financed and invested in coal power, a prime source of CO2 emissions. Two South African banks were named in the report: Standard Bank and Nedbank, both for financing Eskom’s portfolio of coal-fired power plants. Standard Bank has reportedly contributed 99 million euros since 2005, while Nedbank coughed up 85 million euros over the same period.
The simple truth is that burning coal is one of the dirtiest ways to generate electricity, not to mention the climate-changing effects of coal power. Yet here we find Nedbank providing finance to a corporation who is building – right now – two of the world’s largest coal-fired power plants in the world. Kusile, the second of these mega-coal plants, will single-handedly increase South Africa’s carbon emissions by 10%.
While I find it shameful that any bank would continue to provide funds for such carbon-intensive developments, Nedbank’s case is as sinister as it is insulting – especially in light of a PDF file I found online. In ‘Carbon finance and the future’, Nedbank outlines why carbon emissions are such an issue, and why corporations and companies should take them seriously:
Through adverse public opinion, firms not acting in the best interests of consumers, or that fail to ensure their organisational impact on the environment is minimised, could face severe reputational and adaptation risks. Such risks will damage brand value and may lead to loss of customers, market share, and could give rise to litigation.
In other words, Nedbank knows that being environmentally aware is good for business, and it advises other corps about the dangers of not minimising their impact on the environment. It gives specific advice about doing business in the context of climate change – and how public opinion is key.
But rather than taking climate change seriously (as it urges others to do), Nedbank flouts its own advice and chooses to focus on the public opinion aspect, trying to dupe customers by applying a lavish coat of greenwash. Faking it brand-wise, Nedbank then goes on to finance possibly the most carbon intensive project in the country.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you profit from financing dirty coal, or you position yourself as ‘green’ and profit from that competitive edge. But you can’t have both: it’s dishonest, and insulting to the customers you do attract with your phony green sheen.
So Nedbank, as the bank with ‘green answers’, I’d like to know how you marry the two: branding yourself as a green bank whilst investing so lavishly in coal power, and driving climate change in South Africa. Judging from the report, your identity is a sham, a conscious effort to deceive customers into thinking you are something you are not – a deception you profit from while bankrolling climate change.
Let’s face it Mike… Nedbank, like any other company, is driven by profit.
Coal power is a mainstay which Eskom is (still) using. Eskom will profit through rates, thus Nedbank will profit.
Since Eskom doesn’t seem keen on solar or wind power, that leaves it to either foreign investment or local start-ups (assuming the government allows it). If they don’t see the potential for profit, then they won’t invest / lend money to the project.
Then again, does Al Gore drive a smart car?
As with much in business and advertising the ‘green’ is used much more to draw in customers than anything else. I do not know too much regarding this issue though with a brother who works in advertising and having worked in online marketing for a few years, I know there is much more intent in capturing the client than anything else.
Though at least Nedbank is doing something, whilst many companies are doing absolutely nothing, and I am sure Nedbank had good reasons for investing in Eskom (I am not sure who else would). Also, having a ‘green’ profile us good for business in the eyes of the client in the real world of running a business no company can afford to be too altruistic or they will become bankrupt very quickly.
Lennon, I think you are missing the point.
The argument I made was that if Nedbank wants to continue investing in coal power (for whatever reasons) then they shouldn’t be marketing themselves as a green bank.
Simple as that, they can’t have it both ways.
While we are very proud of the reputation we have earned as South Africa’s green bank, we are critically aware that sustainability should take on a holistic and integrated approach. This integrated approach brings together the essential elements of environmental, social, cultural, and economic sustainability to unlock synergies across our business and ensure long-term value creation for all stakeholders. In terms of financing companies in the energy and mining sectors, both these sectors are critical to economic growth and job creation and play a vital role in South Africa’s development. We actively work with our clients to minimize the impact of their operations on the environment and are encouraged by their continued commitment to complying with SA’s stringent environmental legislation. We acknowledge that in order to meet the commitments made by SA government in terms of carbon reductions that both these industries will need to radically transform. This fact is something that our clients have been considering strategically for some time and we are partnering with them on some of these initiatives. Nedbank uses its influence to promote awareness of, and improvement in, the sustainable business practices of the mines with initiatives like the Nedbank Capital Green Mining Awards. The banks play an intermediary role that requires a delicate balance between meeting the needs of the now and ensuring we have a future to bank on.
@ Mike: The hypocracy is obvious and I agree that they should either swing one way or the other instead of keeping up with this facade.
Perhaps they don’t care. They look pretty on the outside and most people probably wouldn’t question it just as Al Gore preaches carbon reduction but still drives around in a gas guzzler. He probably doesn’t care either, what with his Nobel Prize and profitable carbon tax company.
Thought Leader?
This issue was thoroughly covered at the time of COP last year.
A record stitching together of corporate catch phrases.
Why finger Nedbank, if the entire banking industry is profit driven, and wouldnt care a stick about the enviroment or anything else, but their profits?
The Praetor
hahaha good one Nedank. The usual hogwash yadda yadda corporate BS talk. I love the words “synergies” and “integrated approach” and others, such lovely common MBA bank talk.
You wrote: “We actively work with our clients to minimize the impact of their operations on the environment and are encouraged by their continued commitment to complying with SA’s stringent environmental legislation.”
Proof it, another empty cliche of banks. I worked for three of them and know what you wrote are pure drivel. It is the same as FNB that have send some of their managers on a R6milj paid holiday to Europe last year. .
All banks in SA are the same. They operate like the mafia and rape SA consumers for what little they have and then still want to convince us they are green.
What is that quote from Lincoln ? “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Nedbank “thou protestith too loudly” or words to that effect by Shakespeare it would have been better if you had not tried to justify your idiotic investments. Just let it ride, you messed up now shut up.
Mike,
Short answer, no.
The expression ‘greenwash’ is itself pejorative, suggesting superficiality and pretense.
Why would any institution, and there are many, not only Ned bank, bother with the effort and expenditure devoted to greemwash?
Because it works.
It is a public relations exercise to appear politically correct and concerned, and to be perceived as ‘doing something’ about an issue which has been exploited to generate public attention…disingenuousness is the stock in trade of real politic, both private and public.
More to the point, the pressing need for an extensive expansion of our energy base surely provided stakeholders with a golden opportunity to invest in “Renewable energy [which] beats coal in every context”. (Greenpeace)
Why, in your honest opinion, did the stakeholders, both public and private, pass up this opportunity?
Why is it that
“if the same amount of attention and resources were applied to renewable energy, we could develop five times Kusile’s proposed power generation capacity from clean energy sources with only 30% of Kusile’s external costs”,
the opportunity to exploit this fantastic technology which delivers power at one fifth of the cost was passed up by the stakeholders, public and private?
(Quote from Greenpeace report)
Do you have concrete evidence to back up your opinions, should they involve incompetence or impropriety on behalf of any of the stakeholders?
Such would indeed have been very engaging…
@Nedbank. Your response is just more hogwash on top of the greenwash. Typical standard corporate jargon. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bull shit. Just face up to the fact that it’s only about profits and all the greenwash is just a promotional smoke screen.
Thanks Mike Baillie, I have been hoping someone would address this issue.
I am an employee of Nedbank & having seen numerous green initiatives implemented over the past years, it is clear that the green focus is by no means just a marketing exercise. In our building they implemented fluorescent lamps, fitted intelligent lighting & motion sensors, use biodegradable cleaning products & recycled water, recycled paper & other waste (we have numerous sets of recycling bins in our building) and encouraged staff to use teleconferencing rather than flying just to name a few.
Nedbank is the first African bank to have obtained carbon neutrality across 13 head office and regional buildings and more than 490 branches, which I think is a significant achievement for this country.
Before anyone asks, I am not from the marketing area within Nedbank. However, like many young people of today I feel very strong about supporting environmental causes and enjoy working for a bank that visibly demonstrates its commitment to the environment.I know it is always easier to poke holes at what people haven’t done or things that are wrong and the same could be done for me – although I have a solar geyser and recycle at home there are more ways I can improve my green footprint over time. Nedbank does walk a fine balance as it is a bank and would clearly have to shut down if it wanted to only lend money to green individuals or green corporates but I think it is still great that Nedbank has started this journey even if it hasn’t got everything a 100% right yet.
Thank you Mike for speaking out. Probably all Banks can be involved to a larger or greater degree since they are profit motivated and their advertsing programmes are designed to create profit. If those programmes are hypocritical it matters little as long as they “do the business”. Interesting too, is that so many banks and Nedbank in particular, are heavily involved in Golf Estate Development and Golf Tournaments which are heavily criticised by the very people whom Nedbank purport to sharing opinions with, feeling that these are obscene water consumers and pollutants of note to our underground water table, with all the pesticides and fertiliser used. that is of course another discussion altogether but coal is not one of the dirtiest, it is THE dirtiest unfortunately. Asking how early man managed without coal is the same today as asking how can anyone manage without automobiles,cell phones, tv’s, iphones and all the other gadgets which this amazingly ignorant species has invented and which by the way are all pollutants. Never mind, the planet will shrug it all off.
Nice work. I always suspected Nedbank’s green-branding as too good to be true but then what does one expect these days-the last thing would be honest banks. The whole system reeks with corruption staring with fractional reserve banking.
What we do need are wholly state-owned public banks that operate as regular retail banks and provide low-cost (low interest) capital/loans for genuine productive green enterprises/ infrastructure.
@Nedbank: You haven’t ‘earned’ a reputation as SA’s green bank, you’ve ‘punted’ it. By reputation, yours is merely the bank with the most expensive fees.
Nice work. I always suspected Nedbank’s green-branding as too good to be true but then what does one expect these days-the last thing would be honest banks. The whole system reeks with corruption starting with fractional reserve banking.
What we do need are wholly state-owned public banks that operate as regular retail banks and provide low-cost (low interest) capital/loans for genuine productive green enterprises/ infrastructure.
MLH #
@Nedbank: You haven’t ‘earned’ a reputation as SA’s green bank, you’ve ‘punted’ it. By reputation, yours is merely the bank with the most expensive fees.
So true! All that awful bank speak can’t hide the truth. All those schmalzy pictures on their leaflets and dishonest sentimental statements about caring. Anyone would think they got Hallmark to write their ads.
Mike, your comments are highly suspect. No way that 1 new and more coal efficient power station generating around 7% of ESKOM’s total coal fired output capacity can generate 10% of ESKOM’s CO2 output, let alone South Africa’s, given that ESKOM does not produce 100% of SA’s CO2 output. Probably closer to 2%.
CO2 really doesn’t cause warming or any of the other sins it is credited with (BEST Study….).
Perhaps you want to look at the damage from lithium, rare earth metals, bat & bird damage, nuclear waste, mercury, SOx, NOx…. the real pollutants.
SA REALLY NEEDS CHEAP and EFFICIENT power to grow and break the poverty cycle.
Of course we all need to be energy efficient, and use low cost renewables where possible, but do not kill our ability to be competitive and condemn our population to poverty.
The whole worldwide green campaign is a sham. So much damage as been done to the environment for so very long that the remedy is beyond the wit of mankind. Let banks do their job of providing an essential function without spending time and money on a futile exercise.
PS Nedbank would do well to drop their Green advertising whilst the electricity industry should be held responsible for keeping down toxic emissions to a minimum.
@Disagree, the new lights and energy saving devices Nedbank have installed are nothing more than what any other SA company would do to cut the enormous electricity bills we currenlty are faced with and nothing to be proud off, its purely a cost decision.
Nedbank has some of the higest fees of all the banks over the years the banks got the reputation of scheisters, although only they think they are god gift to SA people.
I can assure you as with the taxi industry they will get very little sympathy or good talk from ordinary citizens in SA.
Totally agree with you on this one Mike. In fact, when I heard a Nedbank radio ad yesterday the first thing I thought about was this blog. As a communication strategist, that’s my issue with them too: that you cannot position yourself as green and issue bland assurances in your beautifully laid out annual report when you don’t practice what you preach. You’re one or the other.
As for the Nedbank response, it reads like a cut and paste from a press release. Note how they manage to not commit themselves to anything concrete there, or deal directly with the issue. Responses like that don’t cut it in social media. Every trends and marketing presentation I attend emphasises the need for honesty because people see through the marketing dross. Great demonstration here. I think I’ll use this example in my next presentation.
If Nedbank is green, why did I receive an unsolicited pamphlet (printed on glossy, not-made-from-recycled-paper) in my post box? Spam and paper with a higher carbon footprint? Not very green is it?
@Ian – could you please cite your sources? Would appreciate, tx.
However, I feel very strongly that the problem of carbon-emissions and its effect on the environment should not be trivialised, regardless. So Mike, thank you for pointing out Nebank’s duplicitous policies, Mike. I don’t believe there are any innocents where huge amounts of money float around, but one does feel a bit nauseous: ‘Ugh, Nedbank. You think your clients are STUPID? And if you’re lying about this, what ELSE are you fooling the public about, eh?…’
I don’t give a greenie about how green my bank is or what colour its staff or livery are. Good service at a reasonable price, please.
SA ad-space seems to be a parallel universe to the real world: creativity and the warm fuzzies induced by great scripting, great cinematography or photography, substitute for service, product and integrity. There seems to be a total disconnect between the luvvies who do the ads and reality, as remote as the firm is from the customer.
While I think Mike tends to hyperbole (which is understandable, as he obviously feels strongly about all things “green”), this time round he has got a point.
@Disagree: I (personally) know that Nedbank has some good “green” initiatives, so I can vouch for much of what you say. However, though I may not always agree with Mike on emotional intensity and specifics, I do agree with him on many principles.
If, despite the “green initiatives” you and I are aware of, there remains such a serious question mark behind Nedbank’s “greenness,” how can they justifiably market themselves as “green?”
My usual plug: Wind, water, solar, whatever – noble ideas, but they all have (possibly insoluble) scale, economic and/or environmental challenges. Given risks around coal and peak oil, we have no choice but to also pursue the viable nuclear variants further (especially LFTR). Way, way cleaner than coal!
(See for instance http://energyfromthorium.com/ and others.)
A fellow Quaker Kenneth Boulding when in SA as a visiting lecturer in the late 60′s said the problem with SA as he saw it was that Apartheid offered no gap, between the rhetoric it mouthed and what it did in practice. This meant that it offered no opportunity to shame its supporters into moving in a better direction. As I see it at least Nedbank is not in the same position as the old Apartheid regime. Its public rhetoric is in a much better place environmentally than some of its practices, i.e. financing coal fired power stations. This gives all of us the opportunity to call it to put all of its money where its mouth is, rather than just some of it. @mikes post is part of that call as I see it.
We in The US are paying through our derrieres thanks to Obama’s insane gamble with the Green Industry. He went on this bizarre, spending spree handing out insane loans to the most dodgy of ‘Green’ businesses. Now they’re all going belly-up. Naturally, the Obama-media have been somewhat reticent to even do some basic sums to tell us how much we’ve lost on the backs of these idiots. But it appears we’re somewhere in the region of $1 billion in total losses. Bankruptcy protected Greenies should be hauled before the Hague for hoodwinking the general public, and while they’re at it, drag along our Teleprompter-in-Chief. You know, the man who never held any position outside ‘Community Organiser’ in his entire existence. He’d never made payroll, started a company or managed a staff of anything more than a few motley feel-good interns, and some lawyers with axes to grind.
So bearing this in mind, it makes perfect sense to me that Nedbank isn’t betting the farm on these charlatan industries. I’m no fan of the collusive banking industry in your country, but I do know they’re business savvy. The lesson of course for all the Greenies is NOT to build a windmill and expect all the investors to come. It is to discover a proper, reliable, cheap, energy efficient and environmentally friendly energy source that we can all get behind. Investing in dim solar panels who work 1/6 of the year (at best), or feces powered heaters will not cut the mustard.
Be practical. Stick to…
The reality is simply that we have no alternative but to build coal power plants. Nuclear is even more emotional and please can any one of you overgreen beans out there try to convince me in a technical way how we can get the same amount of of power from solar and wind in the same timescale. And how people, does solar energy work after dark or wind energy when there is no wind. These clean but intermittent energy sources can only be used to reduce coal or nuclear power when they are on stream. You still have to build the same amount of dirty power stations to power the grid 24/7.
In a few years nuclear will come back because there is simply no other way of supporting the increasing needs of a growing global population.
I support alternative energy but I don’t get carried away.
What the heck! Green has been their corporate colour for yonks!
Seriously guys, Nedbanks greenwash and “green energy” will not solve SA’s energy probelms in their current form. I do not think Nedbank are spending significant money or effort on “going green”. It’s a marketing ploy and advertising it probably costs more than the actual implementation. Even Disagree is fooled. SA’s solutions in the medium term lie with improving the efficiency of coal fired power stations which is unlikely with costs spiralling due to ANC skimming and technology languishing due to panicked buying (no time for research), limited engineering capability in SA and at Eskom and picking marginal suppliers to skim money. It’s a vital part of SA’s economy and it’s being mismanaged. Nedbank are supplying cash to fuel the mismanagement. We’ll pay for it in electricity prices.
This blog is not about the merits/demerits of coal/nuclear/wind etc but about Nedbank’s HYPOCRACY. Fully agree Mike, and the BS spewed by ‘Nedbank’ just confirms this. Glad I’m not a Nedbank customer, I did consider buying into their MMIs at the time, but that was before they pretended to be greenies..
For all those convinced that coal is the way to go in SA I say: look at Germany. Wind energy has really taken off there. We dare not use the nuclear option with our pathetic level of management, so that side of the equation would have to be dealt with by energy savings. We don’t have their huge winter energy demand for example.
It’s brave to challenge a bank for its greenwash. But unfortunately, simply speaking truth to power isn’t enough. Virtually all South African corporations are destroying the environment while smearing themselves all over with toxic green paint. (And the media encourages this — check out the Mail and Guardian’s “Greening the Future” supplements if you want to be nauseated.)
Mr. Baillie deserves support, but ultimately what is needed is a mass movement to challenge the corporate system which is destroying us.
@nguni: “We dare not use the nuclear option with our pathetic level of management, so that side of the equation would have to be dealt with by energy savings.”
Please explain the first part of your statement above. Why not? Is there a danger, and what is that danger?
PS. Before you do that, I suggest you look at the LFTR option (thorium), lest you scare up bogeymen like meltdown, radioactive waste, and the usual suspects.
@nguni: “look at Germany. Wind energy has really taken off there.”
No, it hasn’t. A lot of money has been invested in implementing it. What still hasn’t been proved is its viability. Way too early to say at the moment.
@jandra I don’t know what needs to be explained re poor management and Eskom. It doen’t get any worse, their only skill is awarding themselves fat bonuses.. This is a SA speciality, most of the world knows that when you look at ALL the costs of nuclear power including decommissioning and long term storage of it’s super toxic waste (“may I lease you farm for 200,000 years madam?”) the bottom line never balances and always requires govt subvention. As to molten salt reactors: ever wonder why they are not being used? China and Japan will still be developing them for the next two decades.. Once it’s a tried and tested system it may become an option, but not in our lifetimes.
Germany’s 30MW is pretty good when it comes to wind energy. SA could only hope to achieve 10% of that, although our capacity is much higher. Also an excellent source of jobs (200,000 in D I think) but these are skilled technician jobs, something the youth in SA don’t aspire to, they’d rather be AA lawyers or doctors..
What strikes me is that there’s still some sort of naive expectation that Nedbank, a bank – i.e., part of the warm pulsing heart of the economic system that is fundamentally opposed to the integrity of the natural world and its inhabitants – can, should or ever would even vaguely consider dealing with real green issues. The saccharine platitudes mouthed by their anonymous representative above are a shining exemplar of the level of integrity that should be expected from them.
I’m also reminded of something Murray Bookchin, the founder of the social ecology movement once said: “The moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists, are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative. Capitalism can no more be ‘persuaded’ to limit growth than a human being can be ‘persuaded’ to stop breathing. Attempts to ‘green’ capitalism, to make it ‘ecological’, are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth.”
In SA the choice is not about green its about electricty – either we want electricty or we are happy to suffer with black outs etc – reality is that in SA our electricty is coal generated – and those power staions require financing – I choose to have electricty
Green or no Green – Electricity is whats required