From the article: > contradiction between the company’s new activist stance and I don't think I agree with calling BlackRock activists. An activist investor u

From the article: > contradiction between the company’s new activist stance and I don't think I agree with calling BlackRock activists. An activist investor uses investment choices as leverage to apply pressure to achieve some other goal. But BlackRock's statement seems to say that they are doing this for financial reasons. It says they're doing it because regulation (existing or potential) is making those investments riskier. From BlackRock's letter (as quoted in the article): > Thermal coal production is significantly carbon intensive, becoming less and less economically viable, and highly exposed to regulation because of its environmental impacts. ... we do not believe that the long-term economic or investment rationale justifies continued investment in this sector They also mention "ESG risk" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corporate_governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corp...) later. So in other words, BlackRock isn't using pressure to change the world. It's responding to pressure and uncertainty. This is just market forces causing BlackRock to keep its distance purely for financial reasons.