The industry should not finance businesses that jeopardize our livelihood sustainably and ignore planetary boundaries. If fossil energy companies want to explore and exploit new reserves and raise funds for it, a financial company claiming to be sustainable should cut the funding.

An investor who sells all shares obviously loses influence. Therefore, they should not withdraw from controversial sectors per se but should influence companies. However, any engagement requires clearly defined goals. These principles are only credible if there is an escalation plan in place in case a company fails to meet the established standards – in the worst-case scenario, divestment is the only option. Think about game theory: in doubt, a player must be willing to walk away from the table to be taken seriously by other participants.

This may be true for the near future. But it won't work in the long term. Society will not be willing to socialize the costs of the climate crisis; instead, it will hold the culprits accountable. For funders, it is worthwhile in the long run to demand a change from companies because many existing business models have no future – and they shouldn't!

I am not speaking solely for Greenpeace. There is a societal consensus that we must protect the climate, for example. Otherwise, there would be no international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. And there are clear scientific findings on what is necessary to limit global warming. Our climate goals are not possible if we continue to expand fossil fuels. This is a clear criterion, also for companies and their funders.

The majority supports the goal of climate protection, as surveys continually show. The debate revolves around how it should happen concretely and who should bear the costs.

We do not question the role of the finance industry. Fund companies, of course, have a fiduciary duty. It is core to their business model to generate returns and excess returns for their customers. However, we say that business models must be compatible with the self-imposed goal of sustainability. For instance, fund companies also state that they do not invest in controversial weapons or child labor. Such fundamental principles do not contradict the duty as a fiduciary. Given the escalating climate crisis, the same applies to climate protection.

A financial company that describes itself as sustainable and takes this goal seriously must accept the risk of losing such customers. But you cannot advocate sustainability without getting involved. On the other hand, it can also attract new customers. Competition in the fund industry should not only be based on investment success but also on the sustainability profile. Financial companies need a set of values that they clearly communicate and adhere to.

The impact is more significant than you think! The capital market is not homogeneous and not always perfect, as economists say. Yet, if a critical mass of investors behaves differently than before, the consequences are noticeable. Consider so-called sin industries like tobacco or gambling. Although only a small part of the funders abstains here, price effects can be demonstrated. Or think about large insurers withdrawing from the coal industry. It has become extremely expensive to insure a new coal power plant. Financial companies can change a lot if they genuinely commit to sustainability – even if not everyone follows suit.

Morality is a big word. But the idea that ownership and the associated derivatives come with responsibility is widespread. Take a look at Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the constitution. It states: 'Property obliges. Its use shall also serve the public good.' In my view, this states the essentials. Companies evidently have the task of making profits. But they have always had to consider some side conditions: these include occupational safety, environmental protection, and other social issues.