Impact Finance and the UN Sustainable Development Goals
How financial elites plan to profit from the global drive towards "sustainability" and what this means for society
Impact finance (or impact investing) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) are crucial elements of the global technocratic agenda that is unfolding before our eyes. In this article I will offer my thoughts on the relationship between the two and what it might mean for the future of society.
In episodes 35 and 36 of the Crossroads Podcast I talked about BlackRock and the “shapers of the Great Reset”, essentially making the argument that the green revolution that was (and is) being so heavily marketed to the public will ultimately be led by financial institutions and hedge funds (as opposed to green political parties and Greta Thunberg fans).
Then, in episode 41, I reiterated this point in the context of COP 26, where individuals like Mark Carney (WEF member, ex Goldman Sachs, former Governor of the Banks of England and Canada, on the board of BIS) took centre stage and laid out the plan to “change the plumbing of finance” as a means to combat climate change and achieve net zero.
If you haven’t listened to those episodes, that’s fine, because this article will provide you with just as much knowledge about this important subject, if not more.
Before we begin, we must of course familiarise ourselves with two key concepts: (i) impact finance and (ii) the UN SDGs.
Impact Finance
The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defines impact finance as follows:
“Investments made into companies, organisations, and funds with the intention to generate a measurable, beneficial social or environmental impact alongside a financial return.”
In a nutshell, impact finance is the groundbreaking idea that investors can generate profits whilst also doing explicit good for society and/or the environment.
Sounds great, right? But of course, it’s not that simple.
Let’s say Person X decides to invest in Tesla — not just because they think it’s a good company that will yield profits for their portfolio, but also because they believe in reducing carbon emissions as a means to fight climate change.
So, as part of their investment, they include a “reduction in carbon emissions” as one of the priorities.
According to the currently accepted standards (around which there is still considerable debate) Person X is an impact investor — their investment was made with the intention of generating a measurable environmental impact (a reduction in carbon emissions) as well as a financial return.
If Person X’s investment had been made with the sole objective of achieving a financial return, they would be considered a traditional investor.
Of course, there is still the rather important question of whether getting everyone to drive a Tesla as a means of reducing carbon emissions is actually a good thing for the environment, especially in the long term (look up EV batteries), but we’ll leave that aside for now and just assume that it is.
Although the concept of impact investing has been around for at least fifteen years, its widespread popularisation was largely a consequence of the aftermath of the Great Recession, whose impact (ha ha) elicited numerous calls for a more “humane” form of capitalism to replace the current, not-so-humane version.
Since that time, the global impact investing industry has seen considerable growth — from less than $25 billion in 2010, to an estimated $715 billion in 2020.
But okay, aside from the “will to do good”, what is actually driving this movement towards the creation of a seemingly more conscious and sustainable economic system? Are we witnessing a genuine transformation, or is capitalism simply giving itself a reboot?
The UN Sustainable Development Goals
The UN SDGs are a set of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a "blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all". They were established by the UN General Assembly in 2015.
Each goal is measured through a series of targets and indicators, resulting in a total of 169 targets and 232 indicators to measure progression towards each goal, which you can see below:
This certainly seems to be a noble (if not utopian) pursuit — after all, who could possibly have an issue with things like ending poverty, providing children with quality education, and reducing inequalities?
On the other hand, it is quite difficult to ignore the fact that in order to achieve the SDGs, our societies — and arguably our world — will have to be completely transformed.
This raises many important questions:
What will this transformation look like?
How will it be achieved (and financed)?
Who will the winners and losers be?
What if someone doesn’t particularly like, or believe in the SDGs? Will they be forced to partake in this transformation nonetheless?
If these questions (especially the last one) sound strange or out of place to you, chances are you are yet to grasp the significance of this global transition towards “sustainability” and what it really means at the level of the individual and wider society. Just to give a quick example, consider the new EU-level legislation concerning energy-efficient buildings aimed at advancing the EU’s energy and climate goals. According to this, all new buildings in the EU will need to use little to no energy for heating, cooling, or hot water by 2050.
Great. How to achieve this?
Member States will need to implement long term strategies to support renovation of buildings
The use of smart technologies will need to be encouraged to reduce energy consumption
New buildings will be required to have charging points for electric cars in parking spaces
"What if I don't want a smart meter in my home?" you might ask; or, "what if I don't want to pay for a charging point for electric cars in my parking lot?"
All valid questions, and the answer to them touches on a very important point in this whole discussion that is unfortunately slightly beyond the scope of this article: personal choice.
What are the roles of individual freedom and personal choice in a world that is increasingly looking to implement AI-based, tech-driven smart solution to solve every problem imaginable?
In my last article I talked about the Moonshot R&D Program and how the Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST) is fully onboard with the implementation of the SDGs:
Although Japan might be a rather extreme example of where things are headed, the idea that we should ignore the fact that one of the world’s most prominent nations is seeking to create a society where “human beings can be free from limitations of body, brain, space and time by 2050” and that this is being directly tied to the implementation of the SDGs seems a bit silly.
Whether we like it or not, technology — and especially digital technology — is set to play a fundamental role in the pursuit of the SDGs, as highlighted by the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development’s calls to make digital connectivity a foundational pillar for achieving each goal; as well as by initiatives such as ID2020, which seek to provide every single human on Earth with a digital identity under the pretext of “not leaving anyone behind”.
This, of course, raises its own set of questions in terms of how these technologies will be implemented and managed, something increasingly relevant as more and more organisations and multinational corporations commit themselves to the 2030 agenda, as evidenced by initiatives like the Strategic Partnership Framework between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum:
As you can see, this partnership was forged in order to accelerate the push for the SDGs by getting the private sector (represented by the WEF) officially on board with the agenda.
Thus, the “public world” represented by the UN and the “private world” represented by the WEF are in agreement when it comes to the overall direction of society, technology, sustainable development, and how to best deal with “key global challenges and opportunities” in the future, a fact that has huge implications on the relationship and balance of powers between citizens, states, and corporations.
The reality, however, is that virtually nobody is talking about this..
BlackRock’s Revolution
As you read this, investors all over the world — by which I mostly mean hedge funds, banks, venture capital funds, and philanthropic institutions — are becoming increasingly interested in financing this “green” agenda.
But they’re not just interested, the key word here is incentive. They are incentivised to do so.
How? Let’s talk about BlackRock for a moment.
As the world’s largest asset fund, BlackRock occupies a uniquely powerful position within the globalised world order. A good starting point to understand the extent of this colossus’ influence is to head over to a site like Yahoo Finance, use the search function to look up any major company/corporation, and select the “holders” tab to examine said company’s ownership.
You will soon find that BlackRock owns between 5-25% of virtually all major companies.
Whether it’s a bank, a pharmaceutical company, a media conglomerate, or a big tech firm, it doesn’t matter. BlackRock (in conjunction with Vanguard and State Street, the two other major players in this arena) probably owns a piece of it.
BlackRock is also a World Economic Forum partner, which should really come as no surprise, especially if you’ve been keeping tabs on the unfolding global technocratic regime that has been making steady strides over the last couple of years.
Here is a quote taken from an article published on the WEF website in January 2020, titled “BlackRock Announces Move to Green Finance After Activist Outcry”, which references the company’s CEO, Larry Fink:
In his annual letter to CEOs posted on the company’s website on Tuesday, Fink forecast a “fundamental reshaping of finance” and said companies must act or face anger from investors over how unsustainable business practices might curb their future wealth. Fink also said BlackRock would “be increasingly disposed” to cast critical proxy votes tied to sustainability, and said in a separate letter to clients that the firm will by mid-2020 sell off from its actively managed client portfolios stakes in companies that derive more than 25% of their revenues from thermal coal production.
There are at least three things we can learn from this rather revealing paragraph:
The green transformation/Agenda 2030 necessitates a fundamental reshaping of finance (remember Mark Carney and his intent to “change the plumbing of finance?”)
A key element of this shift will be the enforcement of an environmental, social and governance (ESG)-based regulatory system for companies as a means to evaluate the extent to which they are committed to the SDGs (this is already in motion, and has been for a few years)
Thanks to their position as asset managers, companies like BlackRock will be able to directly steer the private sector towards these objectives — or rather, towards compliance with the myriad of ESG practices and criteria that will supposedly lead to the achievement of these objectives.
Now, regardless of whether one believes in the importance of sustainability and preserving the planet, it is crucial to understand what all of this actually means in practice — not in some corporate boardroom in a Manhattan high rise building — but in the real world. Because the reality is that what we are witnessing under the pretext of pursuing these noble causes is a top-down, corporate takeover of society — starting, of course, with a restructuring of the global financial system which is almost certainly going to involve the use of blockchain technology.
Why blockchain?
Great question. Here is a short clip featuring globalist-du-jour Pippa Malmagren at the aptly named World Government Summit which took place a couple of weeks ago that may help answer it:
That’s right, friends — a blockchain-based financial system would afford governments the ability to see “every single transaction” taking place within said system. Don’t worry though — I’m sure the “digital constitution of human rights” will have your back when your transaction at the store is declined because you didn’t take your latest vaccine booster or dared to express the wrong political opinion on social media.
Sarcasm aside, this isn’t simply a matter of governments and corporations having complete awareness of our spending patterns just for the sake of it — on the contrary, I believe this level of Orwellianism to be a necessary element of the world that is currently being built before our eyes.
Why?
Because in this tech and AI-driven landscape, where Smart Cities, the internet of things (IoT), and augmented reality are ubiquitous, values like privacy, freedom of thought, and bodily autonomy rapidly become obsolete. Like mere inefficiencies that need to be removed in order for the system to effectively and efficiently function.
This becomes painfully clear when looking at initiatives like Moonshot R&D (remember “body-monitoring: through life, through each day” in order to prevent illness?).
In a nutshell: “more data means more accuracy”.
And friends, make no mistake — they are coming for all the data.
In Conclusion: Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste
The subheading I chose for this particular article is “how financial elites plan to profit from the global drive towards sustainability and what this means for society.”
The “how” part, though complex in its technical elements, is quite straightforward, as it essentially involves the creation of a new set of values and incentives that will reward those who buy into (and comply with) the system and penalise those who don’t, or are unable to. The latter includes, for example, small businesses, which will be increasingly nudged towards compliance with ESG regulations and other practices designed to facilitate the functioning of this new paradigm, such as cashless payment systems.
The second part of the question is a bit trickier (a “society” is a very complex and multi-layered thing after all), and could therefore be approached in a variety of ways. Broadly speaking, however — and this is something I have alluded to many times in my research — I believe that this top-down drive to change the world will ultimately result in a complete transformation of society and social relations that will eventually culminate in the implementation of a social credit system enabled by digital identity.
Although this might sound outrageous to many, it’s important to keep in mind that everything I have been discussing is taking place within a much larger context characterised by uncertainty (pandemic; geopolitical conflict; economic downturn; political instability) and a rapidly changing technological landscape (4th Industrial Revolution).
If my analysis is correct and all of this does indeed turn out to be a technocratic plan to reconfigure society — as opposed to a well meaning plan to save the world from climate change — then there is really no better set of circumstances to implement this agenda than the ones offered by the current state of the world.
Thus, much like we’ve seen with Covid-19, which has greatly accelerated various elements of this agenda (biosecurity, cashless, digitalisation) the next few years will likely be characterised by a protracted state of emergency — whether due to war, economic crisis, or pathogens — which will in turn provide ample opportunity for the paradigm shift towards technocracy and the UN SDGs to advance.
The question, of course, is what are you going to do about it?