A years-long Republican campaign against corporate climate action took a twist last month when 16 attorneys general (AGs) accused the Big Four accounting firms — Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC — of conflicts of interest and other wrongdoing related to the companies’ support of climate disclosure initiatives.
The accusations come in a Aug. 24 letter from Nebraska AG Mike Hilgers and allies that is notable both for bringing a new batch of companies into the campaign and for the legal arguments it contains, which differ from those used in recent campaigns against climate nonprofits.
What’s the context?
Climate has been a focus for Republican AGs during President Donald Trump’s second term, with letters or subpoenas sent to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and CDP, as well as several organizations that work on packaging issues. Companies that collaborate with the packaging nonprofits, including Unilever, Coca-Cola and Target, have also received demands that they answer questions and share documents relating to the work.
Antitrust accusations have been at the heart of these investigations. SBTi and CDP, for instance, were accused of creating a “climate cartel” and of “creating incentives for corporations to pay in exchange for favorable treatment.”
In an earlier wave of investigations, Republican AGs alleged that ESG investing by financial institutions constituted anti-competitive practices.
What does the latest missive say?
Hilgers does not mention antitrust once in his 38-page letter. Instead, the focus is on the Big Four’s support for corporate climate disclosure, including guidelines from the International Sustainability Standards Board. That support amounts to a conflict of interest because the accounting firms also handle climate disclosures for clients, claim the AGs. The letter also argues that the firms’ support for disclosure undermines their independence and may violate state law.
The signatories are state-level officials, but the letter makes it clear that the campaign is backed, at least when it comes to the ideas involved, by SEC Chair Paul Atkins, who was nominated for the position by Trump in 2025. The agency withdrew its support for climate disclosure soon after Atkins took office; he had previously described climate policies as designed to “mandate disclosure of information climate activists have long sought in order to conduct pressure campaigns to achieve their desired political outcomes.”
What’s likely to happen next?
The AGs’ strategy often seems to be about creating unwelcome headlines and pressuring organizations to back away from climate initiatives, not bringing charges. This January, for instance, a group led by Florida AG James Uthmeier wrote to Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors on sustainability issues. The organization responded with a denial of Uthmeier’s claims the same month and has not heard back since, a spokesperson told Trellis.
That doesn’t mean the campaign will necessarily be short-lived, however. Uthmeier was also the lead signatory on the February letter to the packaging organizations and their corporate partners. In May, his office elevated the campaign by demanding that both groups share relevant documents.
Nor does that mean that the Big Four can completely rule out charges. One of the earlier anti-ESG investing complaints leveled against asset managers did eventually go to court: In a settlement announced in February, Vanguard agreed not to push any of the companies it invests in to “take any particular course of conduct to reduce carbon emissions.” Two other asset managers named in the case, BlackRock and State Street, continue to contest the charges.
