HSBC Sparks Outcry After Quitting Net-Zero Banking Alliance

HSBC is facing sharp criticism from sustainability-focused investors and climate campaigners after announcing its withdrawal from the United Nations-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), marking it as the first major UK bank to exit the influential coalition. The move, revealed last Friday, follows the recent departures of several major US and Canadian banks and comes amid mounting political and industry resistance to collective climate action.

HSBC had joined the NZBA as a founding member in 2021, committing to align its financing activities with the 2015 Paris Agreement’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In its withdrawal statement, the bank maintained that this long-term net-zero ambition remains unchanged, pledging ongoing support for clients’ decarbonisation plans and promising to update its Net Zero Transition Plan later in 2025. HSBC credited the alliance for shaping its early climate strategy, but argued it now has the necessary foundation to continue independently. The bank will continue to participate in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), focusing on capital mobilisation for the net-zero transition.

However, the announcement has stoked concerns among investors and advocacy groups over HSBC’s genuine commitment to its climate objectives. ShareAction, a responsible investment NGO that led a coalition of investors representing £1.2 trillion in assets demanding firmer commitments at HSBC’s May AGM, condemned the bank’s exit as a step backwards for climate accountability. Jeanne Martin, ShareAction’s co-director of corporate engagement, warned that the departure "sends a counterproductive message to governments and companies, despite the multiplying financial risks of global heating and the heatwaves, floods, and extreme weather it will bring”.

The backlash has only intensified in light of HSBC’s earlier decisions in 2025 to push back its net zero target for operations and supply chains from 2030 to 2050, delay interim goals for critical sectors, and restructure its sustainability leadership, notably downgrading the group chief sustainability officer role. Critics argue that together, these moves point to a retreat on climate ambitions at a time when investors and global authorities are urging businesses to demonstrate stronger climate leadership and action.

Tesco Pushes for Appeal in Landmark £4bn Equal Pay Lawsuit

Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, is seeking to appeal a decision in a high-stakes £4 billion equal pay lawsuit ahead of a crucial final hearing. The case, which has been ongoing since 2018, involves claims by thousands of predominantly female store workers who allege they have been paid less than their male counterparts working in Tesco’s distribution centres, despite performing work of equal value.

The lawsuit currently includes around 49,000 current and former employees, supported by law firms Harcus Parker and Leigh Day. The claimants argue that their pay rates are significantly lower, sometimes by as much as £3 per hour, than those received by distribution centre staff. Earlier judgments issued in 2023 mostly sided with the claimants, allowing sample claimants’ cases to proceed to a final tribunal hearing.

Tesco’s attempt to appeal comes after a series of legal setbacks. In early 2025, the Employment Tribunal refused to admit the company’s expert economic evidence, which Tesco wanted to use to argue that pay differences were due to legitimate market factors rather than discrimination. The supermarket subsequently lost its attempt to overturn this decision at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Now, Tesco is aiming to bring the matter before the Court of Appeal. A one-day hearing is scheduled before the final tribunal hearing, which is set to begin on September 1, 2025, and is expected to last approximately ten weeks.

If Tesco ultimately loses the case, it could face payback of up to £4 billion in backdated wages, with average payouts of around £20,000 per affected worker. This case is one of the largest equal pay claims in UK history and is being closely followed by employees and employers alike across the retail sector. Similar claims have been made against other major retailers such as Asda, Sainsbury’s, and Morrisons. The outcome has the potential to significantly influence pay equity and wage practices across Britain’s retail industry for years to come.

LVMH’s Loro Piana Placed Under Court Watch Over Worker Abuse Claims

Loro Piana, the esteemed Italian cashmere brand owned by luxury conglomerate LVMH, has been placed under court administration in Italy after a judicial inquiry found failures to prevent worker exploitation within its supply chain. The Milan court’s decision follows allegations that Loro Piana indirectly subcontracted production to Chinese-owned firms accused of underpaying and mistreating workers, including the use of undocumented labour and unsafe working conditions.

The investigation revealed that Loro Piana’s supplier had offloaded production to a shell company, which then further outsourced it to workshops run by Chinese nationals in northern Italy. These workshops reportedly flouted basic labour rights, forcing workers to endure excessively long hours, minimal pay, and hazardous conditions, with some even sleeping in the factory itself. The court concluded that Loro Piana had "negligently facilitated" the exploitation, specifically citing inadequate oversight and due diligence measures regarding subcontractors.

The administration order is set to last one year and is described by the court as “preventative,” designed to correct lapses and protect law-abiding businesses from infiltration by illegal practices. Similar actions have been taken against other luxury brands, including Valentino, Armani, Dior, and Alviero Martini, reflecting mounting scrutiny of Italy’s high-end fashion sector and its reliance on fragmented, sometimes opaque supply chains.

In response, Loro Piana stated it had terminated its relationship with the implicated supplier within 24 hours of learning about the unauthorised subcontracts and expressed “full willingness to cooperate with the authorities on this matter”. The brand has pledged to bolster oversight and enforce its code of conduct across the supply chain. However, the court’s ruling underscores broader reputational risks and intensifies calls for increased transparency and accountability in the global luxury goods industry.

Barclays Fined £42m for Failing Anti-Money Laundering Checks

Barclays has been fined £42 million by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for serious deficiencies in its anti-money laundering (AML) controls, following failures to adequately vet two corporate clients involved in high-profile financial crime. The FCA announced the penalty on Wednesday, revealing that the majority, £39.3 million, pertains to Barclays’ relationship with Stunt & Co, a gold bullion company tied to one of the UK’s largest money-laundering cases.

Stunt & Co had received nearly £47 million from Fowler Oldfield, a precious metals dealer previously at the centre of criminal proceedings that led to lengthy jail sentences for its directors. Despite the clear risk indicators, including ties to Fowler Oldfield and subsequent police raids, Barclays continued to offer banking services to Stunt & Co. The FCA found that the bank only properly reviewed its exposure after the regulator notified Barclays of its intention to prosecute rival NatWest for a similar lapse, by which point substantial sums had moved through the accounts.

A further £3 million of the fine was levied over Barclays’ dealings with WealthTek, a Newcastle-based wealth management firm whose principal, John Dance, was charged with stealing over £64 million from clients and laundering the proceeds. Barclays opened a client money account for WealthTek without confirming it was authorised by the FCA to hold client funds. As a consequence, £34 million was deposited into the account before WealthTek collapsed. The bank has since agreed to make a £6.3 million voluntary payment to reimburse clients with unrecovered losses.

In both cases, the FCA emphasised that basic due diligence, such as consulting the Financial Services Register, could have prevented the breaches. Barclays, for its part, said it fully cooperated with the investigations and has since strengthened its financial crime controls. The bank received a reduced fine in recognition of its cooperation and voluntary remediation efforts, but has faced scrutiny, given its history of previous regulatory failings.

Shell Gets Green Light to Drill Off South Africa’s West Coast

Shell has received environmental authorisation to drill up to five deepwater wells off South Africa’s west coast, marking the most significant move in the country’s offshore oil and gas sector in recent years. The approval, announced on July 11th, allows the energy giant to proceed with exploration and appraisal activity in the Northern Cape Ultra Deep Block situated in the resource-rich Orange Basin, where water depths range from 2,500 to 3,200 metres.

Shell’s drilling campaign seeks to unlock potential oil and gas resources similar to major discoveries made in neighbouring Namibia, a region that has attracted growing interest from international oil companies, including TotalEnergies. The company described the authorisation as a potential boost for South Africa’s energy security and economic development, pointing to the country’s recent decline in domestic refinery capacity and rising dependence on imported petroleum products. Shell stated, “Should viable resources be found offshore, this could significantly contribute to South Africa’s energy security and the government’s economic development programmes,” while cautioning that no drilling timeline has yet been provided.

This latest approval comes as South Africa’s upstream oil and gas sector faces mounting regulatory, environmental, and legal challenges. Shell’s previous efforts to explore the east coast were halted by court rulings that cited insufficient public consultation and raised concerns about the impact of seismic surveys on marine life. The protracted legal dispute over these issues is scheduled for review by the country's highest court later in 2025 and could set precedents influencing the entire sector.

Environmental groups and some community stakeholders have voiced strong opposition to offshore drilling, citing ecological risks and procedural concerns. Nevertheless, the government and some industry advocates argue the potential energy and economic benefits are crucial, especially as South Africa grapples with growing demand and supply vulnerabilities. The outcome of Shell’s drilling, and its reception by both courts and the public, could reshape the trajectory of South Africa’s energy strategy for years to come.