Frequently Asked Questions

Freedom to Invest aims to protect the rights of investors and companies to invest and operate responsibly. Special interest groups and their political allies are working to ban businesses from integrating responsible investment and business practices into decision-making. Freedom to Invest has rallied private and public sector leaders to remind policymakers restricting consideration of all financial risks and opportunities encroach on investor and business’ freedoms to manage their portfolios, operations, and supply chains responsibly and puts the economy at risk.

Freedom to Invest launched in March 2023 when hundreds of investors and companies signed a statement, coordinated by Ceres and the We Mean Business Coalition, emphasizing the importance of responsible business practices and smart risk management to protect their investments and business operations. Since then, more private and public sector leaders have joined them in urging policymakers to protect their rights to consider all financial risks and opportunities in decision-making. 

Freedom to Invest was created to protect responsible business practices that evaluate materiality and long-term financial performance. For decades, investors and companies have assessed material risks and opportunities that threaten bottom lines, including the financial impacts of extreme weather.  Some policymakers are pushing proposals that would ban investors and companies from taking these considerations into account.  Private and public sector leaders have mobilized to remind policymakers that they should be free to consider all risks and opportunities to manage their portfolios, operations and supply chains responsibly. Government has no right to keep businesses from making financial decisions that they believe will benefit shareholders, employees, and customers. 

The political attacks are being funded and advanced by actors outside of the investment community, mostly fossil fuel interests and conservative political action groups, who are looking to obstruct progress on climate action. Research released by InfluenceMap shows the fossil fuel industry was involved in the drafting and distribution of the first bills targeting responsible investing and business practices in Texas and West Virginia and has continued to support other bills that have been introduced in state legislatures. While they hide behind misleading claims, the mainstream investment community and a body of research evidence overwhelmingly supports prudent risk management and responsible business practices to ensure profitability and long-term shareholder value. 

Some states are considering legislation in various forms designed to prohibit investors and financial institutions from considering climate-related risks and opportunities in decision-making.  However, the economic impact of such legislation could cost states tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. An analysis found that taxpayer in six states — Kentucky, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Missouri — could have been on the hook for up to $700 million in excess interest payments if such restrictions on sustainable investing had been passed and implemented.  

Investors and companies have long advocated for U.S. state and federal policies and regulations that support and invest in the economic transition to a cleaner, stronger, and more resilient economy such as:  

• The Inflation Reduction Act 2022, the largest-ever federal investment in climate action that provides financial incentives to fuel the clean economy, lower energy costs, reduce harmful pollution, and catalyze sustainable investments; 

• A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that provides more transparency to the market about corporate climate risk disclosure; 

• A U.S. Department of Labor rule that levels the playing field so fiduciaries can consider all financially relevant factors in making investment decisions. 

No. These global investor initiatives are not in violation of antitrust laws or any law for that matter. Investors are independent fiduciaries with responsibilities to their clients and beneficiaries. They have made their own decisions about factoring climate risks and opportunities into their investment strategies. Antitrust laws protect competition and prohibit various practices that harm consumers. These laws do not prohibit investors from working together to achieve a common goal that is not anti-competitive and that they have each independently decided is in their interest.  An analysis published by Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law  says antitrust language and concepts have been weaponized to undermine private sector action on climate change.  

Opponents of responsible investing claim that considering climate risk and other material financial issues can compromise financial returns.  But prudent investors must consider all relevant issues—including environmental factors — that either create risks or signal investment opportunities across their portfolios. In a comprehensive study of more than 1,000 research articles published between 2015-2020, most found a positive link  between responsible investment and performance (Forbes 2023).