At their meeting in Luxembourg next week, the EU energy ministers wanted to untie the knot in the reform of the electricity market. At issue is whether France should be allowed to give its industry a competitive advantage by subsidizing nuclear power plants. The joint cabinet meeting of the Paris and Berlin governments over the past two days was supposed to pave the way, but apparently, there has been little progress.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron wants to reach an agreement “this month” – given the discussions that have been going on for some time, this is not exactly ambitious. Macron also wants nothing to do with Germany having a problem with its stance on nuclear power plants. “The European strategy and the Franco-German strategy must focus on simple things,” he said after the closed-door meeting in Hamburg. That, he said, is the phase-out of coal and gas to move toward carbon-free power generation.
He said efficiency improvements, renewable energies and nuclear power must be relied on. Doing without any of these components would be too expensive or impossible, he said. “I think it would be a historic mistake to lose ourselves in petty disputes because one would prefer nuclear and the other would prefer renewables,” Macron said. The priority, he said, must be to produce carbon-free energy at the lowest price possible.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on the other hand, preferred to emphasize the common ground and continued to insist on cooperation. He said that France and Germany agree on the climate protection target, even if the paths are different. To obtain cheap electricity, a joint European solution is needed. This would be most likely if Germany and France developed it together.
However, this is not really convincing, because the meeting in Hamburg was supposed to contribute to the development of such solutions. It does not give the impression that any agreement has been reached.
Nevertheless, start your day well.
After an emergency meeting of foreign ministers, EU Foreign Affairs Chief Josep Borrell clearly distanced himself from his Commission colleague Oliver Varhelyi and also sees the member states behind him: Yes, the Commission does plan to review financial support for the Palestinians. But the chief diplomat presented this as a formality. The point is to ensure once again that no EU funds end up with Hamas. However, cooperation and aid to the Palestinian authorities must continue. There would be no suspension of funds. Apart from “two or three member states,” all foreign ministers had supported this position, Borrell stressed.
The foreign ministers of the EU states had met in Oman for an emergency session on the sidelines of a meeting with the Gulf states that had been planned for some time, with some of them linked in by video. Borrell said he would work personally to ensure that the review of payments happened as quickly as possible. However, he said, that review should not be an excuse to delay payments to the Palestinian authorities. These are the EU’s partners, not Hamas in Gaza, he said.
For the foreign affairs envoy, it would be a big mistake to stop supporting the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank: Collectively punishing all Palestinians would not only be unfair and counterproductive but also “a gift to Hamas,” Borrell stressed. He said he did not know when the next payments would be due. However, he said, the EU will have to provide more aid in the future, not less.
It is also a matter of being ready for the post-conflict period, said Borrell, who is also briefing the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting. Peace between Arab states and Israel is important, he said, but the Palestinians must not be forgotten. Otherwise, he said, the spiral of violence will continue. The escalation is a wake-up call, the Foreign Minister said. He said there was unanimity in condemning the terrorist attack on Israel and calling for the release of the hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza. Israel has the right to self-defense. But this must be done in accordance with international law, he said. In the case of the Israeli government’s decision to cut off Gaza’s supply of electricity, water, and food, he said, this is not the case.
In Brussels, the EU Commission sought to limit the damage after Oliver Varhelyi’s solo effort. The EU Commissioner had not consulted President Ursula von der Leyen before announcing the suspension of aid to the Palestinian territories on the short message service X, insisted Commission spokesman Eric Mamer. He said the announcement had not been agreed with any member of the college. Such a political decision, however, could only be taken in the College and after consultations with the Member States. Varhelyi is regarded as the Brussels deputy of Hungary’s head of government Viktor Orban, who in turn stands firmly at the side of Israel’s right-wing nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu. This is not the first time that the Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy has attracted attention. In the EU Parliament, for example, he had dubbed MEPs “idiots” and had to apologize afterward.
Oliver Varhelyi had triggered headlines around the world with his solo effort on Palestine aid. Also, because the EU Commission’s spokesperson service needed until the evening to catch up to the false report. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had deposited his incomprehension with EU Council President Charles Michel, diplomats said. After all, the EU and its member states are the largest donors to the Palestinians, with an annual €600 million, far ahead of the United States and the Gulf states. Countries such as Spain and France expressed alarm, and Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn also positioned themselves against a suspension.
The Palestinian territories probably need more aid in the near future, not less, said Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares. He added that cooperation must be preset: “We cannot confuse Hamas, which is on the list of EU’s terrorist groups, with the Palestinian population.” EU Council President Charles Michel and French President Emmanuel Macron expressed similar sentiments on the sidelines of the visit to Berlin. Conversely, other member states, such as Austria, have already announced they will suspend their bilateral aid for the time being. In Berlin, Foreign Minister Baerbock announced she was pushing for the continuation of payments.
Climate neutrality is an important political goal in the fight against climate change – and a frequent advertising promise on products or services. Cosmetic products, food, parcel delivery or furniture: Many manufacturers and suppliers advertise neutral or even positive effects on the environment and climate.
From the point of view of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv), advertising for supposedly “climate-neutral” products, services or companies is highly problematic, says Jochen Geilenkirchen, a consultant for sustainable consumption: “It plays on the ignorance of consumers about the connection between ‘climate neutrality’ by offsetting greenhouse gases and the dubious effectiveness of such measures. In addition, it creates the impression that advertised products have no harmful effects on the climate – but so far this is impossible.” Advertising with “climate neutrality” is therefore classic greenwashing.
The EU Commission wants to take action against this greenwashing, i.e. false environmental and climate-related claims. Two directives are currently being negotiated in Brussels: The Consumer Empowerment for Environmental Change Directive prohibits unfair practices and creates binding requirements for product labels. The Green Claims Directive is intended to oblige companies to substantiate environment-related claims about their products with a standard method for assessing their environmental impact.
“We can’t confirm the blanket narrative of unscrupulous companies merely going for a green coat of paint,” says Eva Rössler, spokeswoman for consultancy ClimatePartner. ClimatePartner’s blue label adorns products such as liquid soap or meat products, as well as companies and factory locations. “In our cooperation, we get to know companies wanting to make a contribution, anchoring the topic of climate protection in their corporate strategy, setting ambitious goals and pursuing them continuously.”
According to a 2020 study by the EU Commission, there are currently around 230 sustainability labels in the EU, which vary widely in their degree of transparency. In addition to information on climate neutrality, these also include information on the recycling content of packaging or the environmental friendliness of a product. Around half of such claims on products and services contain “vague, misleading or unfounded information.” 40 percent of the claims cannot be substantiated at all. In the case of a significant proportion of products, it is also unclear whether the claim relates to the entire product or only to one component, to the company or only to individual products. In most cases, it is also unclear which phase of the product life cycle is affected, explains the Commission.
To date, the EU Directive against Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD) has provided a basis for legal action against certain misleading statements. The vzbv also regularly takes legal action against companies that make their products appear greener than they actually are. In June, the association joined consumer protection organizations from other EU member states and the European umbrella organization BEUC in filing a complaint with the EU Commission denouncing misleading climate claims made by 17 European airlines.
“However, a general problem with subsequent judicial review of advertising claims is that they can initially be used on the market until a plaintiff is found,” says Geilenkirchen. “Greenwashing cannot be completely prevented in this way.” In addition, there are no generally applicable guidelines as to how advertised positive environmental properties must be proven and under what conditions environmental properties may be advertised.
The vzbv is therefore calling for regulation for the entire EU internal market that establishes scientific criteria for methods to substantiate environmental claims. Statements such as “climate neutral” that cannot be substantiated should, in the view of the association, be generally banned.
The EU has already implemented the latter: According to the Directive on Consumers Empowerment for Environmental Change, generic environmental claims such as “climate neutral,” “environmentally friendly,” and “ecodegradable” will be considered unfair business practices in the future without appropriate evidence. Claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment will also be classified as unfair if these are based on carbon compensation.
In September, the Council, Commission and Parliament agreed on a legislative text; this must now be formally adopted. The Parliament is expected to vote in November. After the subsequent entry into force of the directive, the member states have 24 months to transpose it into national law.
The Green Claims Directive presented by the Commission in March provides minimum requirements for the substantiation and communication of voluntary environmental claims and environmental labels between companies and consumers.
Environmental claims about products or traders should be substantiated on the basis of a methodology based on accepted scientific evidence and international standards, as well as other criteria established by the Commission. Only environmental claims based on this methodology may be communicated.
ClimatePartner has already replaced the previous “Climate neutral” label with the new “ClimatePartner certified” label. Participating companies must calculate and regularly update their carbon footprint, implement reduction measures and set long-term reduction targets. They welcome the “push for legal regulation for environmental claims, as we would also like to see more uniformity and legal certainty in the market,” says Rössler. “At the same time, regulation must not make it disproportionately difficult for companies to engage in urgently needed climate protection on a voluntary basis and to communicate about it.” The voluntary market, she says, plays a crucial role in generating more speed and visible momentum.
The Commission intends to take a step-by-step approach: The Green Claims proposal, with the Directive on empowering consumers to act in an environmentally responsible way, will provide the initial framework for the fight against greenwashing. On the basis of the experience gained in implementing both directives, the Commission then intends to examine whether further measures are required.
Banks and investment companies have an indirect influence on the real economy through the financing of companies and investments in corresponding projects. However, the central banks have the greatest influence and, at the same time, the greatest responsibility. Not only do they act as role models for commercial banks, they also control their financing and investment behavior quite significantly. Moreover, they carry out huge transactions on the financial markets themselves.
In the European Union, the ECB would have to play a central role here. As an institution of the European Union, the ECB is obliged to comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – at least in theory. In practice, this obligation and responsibility has not yet been reflected in its monetary policy since its foundation. Its monetary policy instruments largely ignore ethical controversies and fundamental rights-related risks. The ECB does not live up to its human rights due diligence in its own supply chain and assets. To change this, I have submitted EU petition 0429/2017.
The petition was registered on May 15, 2017, under the title “Compliance of the European Central Bank with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.” It points to a fundamental problem that has existed since the founding of the ECB: in the core business of the ECB, there is no check whatsoever for potential violations of fundamental rights. The implications of this deliberate ignorance are significant: all banks in the Eurozone have to borrow from the ECB. It grants these loans against pledging eligible collateral.
The volume of eligible marketable securities that can be used as collateral is around €18 trillion. These include government securities, bank and corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and other assets. At the same time, the ECB buys these securities directly. It becomes the direct owner and indirect owner of these securities, via the pledge.
ESG controversy scans using data from reputable service providers show that circa 20 percent of marketable assets are subject to serious or very serious ethical controversies. All of these assets impact the EU single market and EU citizens. However, the ECB’s eligibility criteria for these collateral assets do not include any check for violations of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights: the EU financial market is thus completely ethically blind to the most central EU values.
Building on this, the petition finally demanded a transparent and complete risk assessment by the ECB on possible impairments of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by its traded securities. Including due diligence on EU fundamental rights in the eligibility criteria for all ECB-owned assets is overdue and would immediately free the Eurosystem from its ethics blindness. Highly controversial securities such as those of Eni or LafargeHolcim would immediately lose their attractiveness across the EU, as they would no longer be suitable for transactions with the central bank.
In the course of the past six years, this petition has demonstrably confronted all those with political co-responsibility with the problem. The handling of the petition indicates the political seriousness with which the EU and its member states want to restructure the European financial markets sustainably. The petition is neither one-sidedly politically colored nor ideologically charged. It is quite simply about the ordoliberal implementation of the fundamental rights already enshrined – without renegotiating them. Behind it lies the simple question of whether all European institutions must be equally committed to protecting and promoting fundamental rights in their core business. Or whether there can be one institution that can rise above it without restriction – to the potential detriment of the EU as a whole and to damage on its credibility.
At the end of September, the Petitions Committee of the EU Parliament considered the petition to be closed and closed it with a terse letter on October 2. This sends a fatal signal to all European commercial banks, which are expected to give a detailed account of their sustainability performance and have to scrutinize their treasury organization, while the mother of all banks still does not have to worry about this in its own house! Walk the walk, before you talk the talk? I guess that doesn’t apply to the ECB …
At their meeting in Luxembourg next week, the EU energy ministers wanted to untie the knot in the reform of the electricity market. At issue is whether France should be allowed to give its industry a competitive advantage by subsidizing nuclear power plants. The joint cabinet meeting of the Paris and Berlin governments over the past two days was supposed to pave the way, but apparently, there has been little progress.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron wants to reach an agreement “this month” – given the discussions that have been going on for some time, this is not exactly ambitious. Macron also wants nothing to do with Germany having a problem with its stance on nuclear power plants. “The European strategy and the Franco-German strategy must focus on simple things,” he said after the closed-door meeting in Hamburg. That, he said, is the phase-out of coal and gas to move toward carbon-free power generation.
He said efficiency improvements, renewable energies and nuclear power must be relied on. Doing without any of these components would be too expensive or impossible, he said. “I think it would be a historic mistake to lose ourselves in petty disputes because one would prefer nuclear and the other would prefer renewables,” Macron said. The priority, he said, must be to produce carbon-free energy at the lowest price possible.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on the other hand, preferred to emphasize the common ground and continued to insist on cooperation. He said that France and Germany agree on the climate protection target, even if the paths are different. To obtain cheap electricity, a joint European solution is needed. This would be most likely if Germany and France developed it together.
However, this is not really convincing, because the meeting in Hamburg was supposed to contribute to the development of such solutions. It does not give the impression that any agreement has been reached.
Nevertheless, start your day well.
After an emergency meeting of foreign ministers, EU Foreign Affairs Chief Josep Borrell clearly distanced himself from his Commission colleague Oliver Varhelyi and also sees the member states behind him: Yes, the Commission does plan to review financial support for the Palestinians. But the chief diplomat presented this as a formality. The point is to ensure once again that no EU funds end up with Hamas. However, cooperation and aid to the Palestinian authorities must continue. There would be no suspension of funds. Apart from “two or three member states,” all foreign ministers had supported this position, Borrell stressed.
The foreign ministers of the EU states had met in Oman for an emergency session on the sidelines of a meeting with the Gulf states that had been planned for some time, with some of them linked in by video. Borrell said he would work personally to ensure that the review of payments happened as quickly as possible. However, he said, that review should not be an excuse to delay payments to the Palestinian authorities. These are the EU’s partners, not Hamas in Gaza, he said.
For the foreign affairs envoy, it would be a big mistake to stop supporting the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank: Collectively punishing all Palestinians would not only be unfair and counterproductive but also “a gift to Hamas,” Borrell stressed. He said he did not know when the next payments would be due. However, he said, the EU will have to provide more aid in the future, not less.
It is also a matter of being ready for the post-conflict period, said Borrell, who is also briefing the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting. Peace between Arab states and Israel is important, he said, but the Palestinians must not be forgotten. Otherwise, he said, the spiral of violence will continue. The escalation is a wake-up call, the Foreign Minister said. He said there was unanimity in condemning the terrorist attack on Israel and calling for the release of the hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza. Israel has the right to self-defense. But this must be done in accordance with international law, he said. In the case of the Israeli government’s decision to cut off Gaza’s supply of electricity, water, and food, he said, this is not the case.
In Brussels, the EU Commission sought to limit the damage after Oliver Varhelyi’s solo effort. The EU Commissioner had not consulted President Ursula von der Leyen before announcing the suspension of aid to the Palestinian territories on the short message service X, insisted Commission spokesman Eric Mamer. He said the announcement had not been agreed with any member of the college. Such a political decision, however, could only be taken in the College and after consultations with the Member States. Varhelyi is regarded as the Brussels deputy of Hungary’s head of government Viktor Orban, who in turn stands firmly at the side of Israel’s right-wing nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu. This is not the first time that the Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy has attracted attention. In the EU Parliament, for example, he had dubbed MEPs “idiots” and had to apologize afterward.
Oliver Varhelyi had triggered headlines around the world with his solo effort on Palestine aid. Also, because the EU Commission’s spokesperson service needed until the evening to catch up to the false report. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had deposited his incomprehension with EU Council President Charles Michel, diplomats said. After all, the EU and its member states are the largest donors to the Palestinians, with an annual €600 million, far ahead of the United States and the Gulf states. Countries such as Spain and France expressed alarm, and Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn also positioned themselves against a suspension.
The Palestinian territories probably need more aid in the near future, not less, said Spain’s Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares. He added that cooperation must be preset: “We cannot confuse Hamas, which is on the list of EU’s terrorist groups, with the Palestinian population.” EU Council President Charles Michel and French President Emmanuel Macron expressed similar sentiments on the sidelines of the visit to Berlin. Conversely, other member states, such as Austria, have already announced they will suspend their bilateral aid for the time being. In Berlin, Foreign Minister Baerbock announced she was pushing for the continuation of payments.
Climate neutrality is an important political goal in the fight against climate change – and a frequent advertising promise on products or services. Cosmetic products, food, parcel delivery or furniture: Many manufacturers and suppliers advertise neutral or even positive effects on the environment and climate.
From the point of view of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv), advertising for supposedly “climate-neutral” products, services or companies is highly problematic, says Jochen Geilenkirchen, a consultant for sustainable consumption: “It plays on the ignorance of consumers about the connection between ‘climate neutrality’ by offsetting greenhouse gases and the dubious effectiveness of such measures. In addition, it creates the impression that advertised products have no harmful effects on the climate – but so far this is impossible.” Advertising with “climate neutrality” is therefore classic greenwashing.
The EU Commission wants to take action against this greenwashing, i.e. false environmental and climate-related claims. Two directives are currently being negotiated in Brussels: The Consumer Empowerment for Environmental Change Directive prohibits unfair practices and creates binding requirements for product labels. The Green Claims Directive is intended to oblige companies to substantiate environment-related claims about their products with a standard method for assessing their environmental impact.
“We can’t confirm the blanket narrative of unscrupulous companies merely going for a green coat of paint,” says Eva Rössler, spokeswoman for consultancy ClimatePartner. ClimatePartner’s blue label adorns products such as liquid soap or meat products, as well as companies and factory locations. “In our cooperation, we get to know companies wanting to make a contribution, anchoring the topic of climate protection in their corporate strategy, setting ambitious goals and pursuing them continuously.”
According to a 2020 study by the EU Commission, there are currently around 230 sustainability labels in the EU, which vary widely in their degree of transparency. In addition to information on climate neutrality, these also include information on the recycling content of packaging or the environmental friendliness of a product. Around half of such claims on products and services contain “vague, misleading or unfounded information.” 40 percent of the claims cannot be substantiated at all. In the case of a significant proportion of products, it is also unclear whether the claim relates to the entire product or only to one component, to the company or only to individual products. In most cases, it is also unclear which phase of the product life cycle is affected, explains the Commission.
To date, the EU Directive against Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD) has provided a basis for legal action against certain misleading statements. The vzbv also regularly takes legal action against companies that make their products appear greener than they actually are. In June, the association joined consumer protection organizations from other EU member states and the European umbrella organization BEUC in filing a complaint with the EU Commission denouncing misleading climate claims made by 17 European airlines.
“However, a general problem with subsequent judicial review of advertising claims is that they can initially be used on the market until a plaintiff is found,” says Geilenkirchen. “Greenwashing cannot be completely prevented in this way.” In addition, there are no generally applicable guidelines as to how advertised positive environmental properties must be proven and under what conditions environmental properties may be advertised.
The vzbv is therefore calling for regulation for the entire EU internal market that establishes scientific criteria for methods to substantiate environmental claims. Statements such as “climate neutral” that cannot be substantiated should, in the view of the association, be generally banned.
The EU has already implemented the latter: According to the Directive on Consumers Empowerment for Environmental Change, generic environmental claims such as “climate neutral,” “environmentally friendly,” and “ecodegradable” will be considered unfair business practices in the future without appropriate evidence. Claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment will also be classified as unfair if these are based on carbon compensation.
In September, the Council, Commission and Parliament agreed on a legislative text; this must now be formally adopted. The Parliament is expected to vote in November. After the subsequent entry into force of the directive, the member states have 24 months to transpose it into national law.
The Green Claims Directive presented by the Commission in March provides minimum requirements for the substantiation and communication of voluntary environmental claims and environmental labels between companies and consumers.
Environmental claims about products or traders should be substantiated on the basis of a methodology based on accepted scientific evidence and international standards, as well as other criteria established by the Commission. Only environmental claims based on this methodology may be communicated.
ClimatePartner has already replaced the previous “Climate neutral” label with the new “ClimatePartner certified” label. Participating companies must calculate and regularly update their carbon footprint, implement reduction measures and set long-term reduction targets. They welcome the “push for legal regulation for environmental claims, as we would also like to see more uniformity and legal certainty in the market,” says Rössler. “At the same time, regulation must not make it disproportionately difficult for companies to engage in urgently needed climate protection on a voluntary basis and to communicate about it.” The voluntary market, she says, plays a crucial role in generating more speed and visible momentum.
The Commission intends to take a step-by-step approach: The Green Claims proposal, with the Directive on empowering consumers to act in an environmentally responsible way, will provide the initial framework for the fight against greenwashing. On the basis of the experience gained in implementing both directives, the Commission then intends to examine whether further measures are required.
Banks and investment companies have an indirect influence on the real economy through the financing of companies and investments in corresponding projects. However, the central banks have the greatest influence and, at the same time, the greatest responsibility. Not only do they act as role models for commercial banks, they also control their financing and investment behavior quite significantly. Moreover, they carry out huge transactions on the financial markets themselves.
In the European Union, the ECB would have to play a central role here. As an institution of the European Union, the ECB is obliged to comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – at least in theory. In practice, this obligation and responsibility has not yet been reflected in its monetary policy since its foundation. Its monetary policy instruments largely ignore ethical controversies and fundamental rights-related risks. The ECB does not live up to its human rights due diligence in its own supply chain and assets. To change this, I have submitted EU petition 0429/2017.
The petition was registered on May 15, 2017, under the title “Compliance of the European Central Bank with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.” It points to a fundamental problem that has existed since the founding of the ECB: in the core business of the ECB, there is no check whatsoever for potential violations of fundamental rights. The implications of this deliberate ignorance are significant: all banks in the Eurozone have to borrow from the ECB. It grants these loans against pledging eligible collateral.
The volume of eligible marketable securities that can be used as collateral is around €18 trillion. These include government securities, bank and corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and other assets. At the same time, the ECB buys these securities directly. It becomes the direct owner and indirect owner of these securities, via the pledge.
ESG controversy scans using data from reputable service providers show that circa 20 percent of marketable assets are subject to serious or very serious ethical controversies. All of these assets impact the EU single market and EU citizens. However, the ECB’s eligibility criteria for these collateral assets do not include any check for violations of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights: the EU financial market is thus completely ethically blind to the most central EU values.
Building on this, the petition finally demanded a transparent and complete risk assessment by the ECB on possible impairments of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by its traded securities. Including due diligence on EU fundamental rights in the eligibility criteria for all ECB-owned assets is overdue and would immediately free the Eurosystem from its ethics blindness. Highly controversial securities such as those of Eni or LafargeHolcim would immediately lose their attractiveness across the EU, as they would no longer be suitable for transactions with the central bank.
In the course of the past six years, this petition has demonstrably confronted all those with political co-responsibility with the problem. The handling of the petition indicates the political seriousness with which the EU and its member states want to restructure the European financial markets sustainably. The petition is neither one-sidedly politically colored nor ideologically charged. It is quite simply about the ordoliberal implementation of the fundamental rights already enshrined – without renegotiating them. Behind it lies the simple question of whether all European institutions must be equally committed to protecting and promoting fundamental rights in their core business. Or whether there can be one institution that can rise above it without restriction – to the potential detriment of the EU as a whole and to damage on its credibility.
At the end of September, the Petitions Committee of the EU Parliament considered the petition to be closed and closed it with a terse letter on October 2. This sends a fatal signal to all European commercial banks, which are expected to give a detailed account of their sustainability performance and have to scrutinize their treasury organization, while the mother of all banks still does not have to worry about this in its own house! Walk the walk, before you talk the talk? I guess that doesn’t apply to the ECB …
