Finance
Chinese lenders among top backers of “forest-risk” firms
Recent data shows that Chinese banks have become the largest creditors to “forest-risk” companies, after major producing countries Brazil and Indonesia
Adobe Stock
Key findings
- Recent data shows that Chinese banks have become the largest creditors to “forest-risk”* companies, after major producing countries Brazil and Indonesia, with over $23 billion in financing provided from 2018 to 2024.
- Key Chinese banks, including CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China, are among the top creditors for “forest-risk” companies such as Royal Golden Eagle Group, which has faced repeated allegations that its supply chain has driven deforestation.
- The increasing flow of finance to “forest-risk” companies undermines China’s climate and environmental goals under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration and national Green Finance Guidelines.
- Meanwhile, Chinese banks rank poorly compared to their international counterparts in terms of deforestation-related policies, with four out of six major Chinese lenders scoring zero in the Forest 500 annual policy assessment.

Cattle in Pará State of Brazil. 60% of tropical deforestation is linked to just three key products – beef, palm oil and soy. Fernanda Ligabue / Global Witness
Recommendations
- Chinese banks and regulators must take stronger action to cut ties with deforestation-linked companies.
- Chinese banks should publish and implement clear zero deforestation and human rights protection policies when financing “forest-risk” companies.
- Banks should implement China’s 2022 Green Finance Guidelines by establishing due diligence processes to identify, monitor and screen out clients linked to deforestation.
- Chinese banks should establish open communication channels to rapidly receive and address deforestation allegations from international community.
- The Chinese banking regulator should strengthen green finance policies with clear requirements that banks cease financial support to companies with deforestation-linked supply chains.
Ranking global contributors to “forest-risk” finance: China’s rise to the top
Chinese banks became the largest creditors of “forest-risk” companies globally between 2018-2024 – excluding financial institutions based in Brazil and Indonesia – according to a new analysis by Global Witness, based on data released in September 2024 by the Forests & Finance coalition.
This marks a shift from Global Witness’s previous reporting on Chinese bank finance in 2021, which used Forests & Finance data from 2013-2020. During this period, Chinese banks were the fifth largest creditors globally of major companies producing and trading commodities at high risk of driving deforestation.
The Forests & Finance database, compiled by Dutch research firm Profundo, tracks financial flows to over 300 “forest-risk” companies involved in agricultural supply chains such as beef, palm oil and soy production – industries that are major drivers of tropical deforestation.
Profundo’s methodology, including how it defines “forest-risk” companies, is summarised below.
The financial sectors of Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia provide a disproportionate amount of “forest-risk” financing to commodity producers in their own countries and are excluded from this analysis, which focuses on international financial flows. When including these countries, China ranked third globally overall in 2023, the final year for which full data is available.
At COP26, countries like the US, France, the Netherlands and the UK pledged to end deforestation by 2030. However, private financial institutions based in those financial centres also remain some of the biggest supporters of “forest-risk” companies.
According to the data, between 2018-2024, Chinese banks provided a total of $23 billion in credit to “forest-risk” companies.
This figure for the seven-year period is higher than the figure provided in the seven-year period between 2014-2020 ($18 billion), indicating that the financial sector has failed to adjust lending practices to mitigate the damage some of these companies are wreaking upon global forests.
There are a handful of key Chinese banks among the top creditors providing “forest-risk” financing – CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China were the top three creditors between 2018-2024, according to the data.
The two biggest “forest-risk” recipients of this Chinese bank lending are Sinochem and Royal Golden Eagle Group (RGE), despite both RGE and its subsidiaries facing repeated deforestation allegations.
COFCO, a major Chinese agricultural trader, is the third-largest recipient. Despite the company’s multiple commitments to address deforestation, in 2024 COFCO was alleged to have sourced soybeans from illegally leased Indigenous lands in Brazil.
Just one year prior, another investigation challenged whether COFCO had done enough to ensure its soy and palm oil supply chains were indeed deforestation-free.
In response COFCO claimed that it has not violated its own commitments, insisting that it takes numerous measures to monitor and enforce its supply chain standards.
It claimed the farmers tied to deforestation were indirect suppliers and said it was “working to increase traceability of indirect purchases, which will lead us to strengthen our controls and risk monitoring for this part of the supply chain.”
One noteworthy data highlight is that, in 2024, Chinese bank credit provision to global manufacturing conglomerate RGE spiked, despite data for 2024 only including deals made between January-July.
RGE’s sprawling network of “shadow companies” has faced multiple allegations of deforestation over the years in relation to its palm oil and pulp and paper supply chains.
RGE denies allegations of wrongdoing. In response to a July 2024 publication published by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), RGE claimed it was “local communities”, rather than one its subsidiary companies, who were responsible for clearing forests in its palm oil supply chain – despite allegedly providing no evidence to support this conclusion.
RGE has also denied links to deforesting companies in its pulp and paper supply chains, most recently in response to an October 2024 investigation from The Gecko Project and Bloomberg.

Orangutans in the protected Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, Indonesia. Paula Bronstein / Getty Images
Over the past two years, RGE has received a series of sustainability-linked loans (SLL) supported by a consortium of banks, including Chinese banks such as Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Co, Ltd and Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Ltd.
These “sustainable” loans allow RGE to borrow under more favourable conditions, providing it hits pre-determined “linked” environmental and social targets.
For example, the $1 billion 2024 SLL (provided to two “sustainable” palm oil producers in RGE’s network of subsidiaries Asian Agri and Apical) is tied to indicators of the companies’ compliance with “anti-deforestation commitments”, as well as to independent suppliers’ traceability verification.
However, the credibility of these “sustainable” deals was called into question in the above published by the Rainforest Action Network.
Why this matters: Chinese banks’ lack of robust deforestation policies
The rising influence of Chinese banks in “forest-risk” sectors is of particular concern given that Chinese banks persistently have some of the weakest deforestation policies in place compared with banks from other countries.
The lack of formal policy raises questions about whether and how the world’s top creditors to “forest-risk” agribusinesses are carrying out due diligence to ensure their investments do not drive deforestation.
One way of comparing the strength of banks’ policies on deforestation is via the Forest 500, prepared by Global Canopy, which ranks financial institutions based on an evaluation of their publicly available commitments to tackle deforestation and related human rights abuses, assessing factors such as if all commodities are included, as well as the transparency of their reporting against targets.

Key Chinese banks, including CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China, are among the top creditors for “forest-risk” companies. VCG via Getty Images / Getty Images
Four out of six major Chinese lenders (including CITIC, Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China) assessed in Forest 500’s database have policy scores of zero. Just two Chinese banks score above zero: China Construction Bank scores three points and Agricultural Bank of China scores four points.
All the banks from China in this assessment also score zero points for their approach to human rights abuses associated with deforestation, apart from Agricultural Bank of China, which scores one point only.
By comparison, the overall highest scoring financial institution in Forest 500’s ranking is Schroders, which scores a total of 58.5 points, and has a policy to eliminate “forest-risk” commodity-driven deforestation from its portfolios by 2025.
According to Forest 500, a strong deforestation policy for a bank includes clear, time-bound commitments to eliminate deforestation and associated human rights abuses from its financing, applies to all high-risk commodities across all financial services, and includes robust implementation measures such as due diligence, monitoring and transparent reporting.
Global Witness approached Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and CITIC with an opportunity to comment on the report’s findings – including their financing activities and apparent lack of deforestation policies. None of the three banks responded to this request.
Recommendations: What should change
Chinese banks and their regulators must take their deforestation-risk portfolio seriously – the increasing financial support to the “forest-risk” companies shown by our analysis suggests a clear departure from China’s commitment and national policies.
The increasing flow of this funding, coupled with no national regulations to prevent it falling into the hands of deforesting companies, appears to contradict the commitments China has made on the international stage – such as those made under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration, signed by China and more than 140 nations at COP26, that commits to realigning financial flows with forest protection.
Crucially, supporting companies with a track-record of causing environmental and social harm is also at odds with China’s national policies, especially those designed to guide and leverage finance to support the green and low-carbon transition.
For example, in 2022, a major overarching policy called Green Finance Guidelines set out detailed expectations for banks and insurance companies to identify, monitor, prevent and control their environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks.
The guidelines made it clear that banks should “strictly restrict” granting credit to clients that face significant environmental and social violations and risks (article 20) and strengthen ESG risk management in their credit and investment granting for overseas Belt and Road projects (article 25).
In recent years, China has made efforts to decarbonise its economy and balance growth within planetary boundaries. In fact, the world is increasingly looking to China for leadership in climate and nature actions as the country explores new opportunities in the clean energy sectors.

Rainforest being removed to make way for palm oil and rubber plantations. WhitcombeRD / Getty Images
Since the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative, China has also introduced a series of policies aimed at greening or reducing risks associated with overseas investments.
Despite being one of the world’s largest markets for “forest-risk” commodities such as soy, beef and palm oil, China currently lacks a national policy prohibiting the import of commodities linked to deforestation.
However, China has made notable bilateral commitments with key forest country partners. For instance, in April 2023, China and Brazil pledged to collaborate on eliminating deforestation and illegal logging, while also enforcing laws to prevent illegal imports and exports.
Major Chinese food companies and traders are piloting “deforestation-free” shipments of commodities like soy, and efforts are underway to make Brazilian beef supply chains to China more traceable.
Global Witness’ analysis suggests that Chinese banks and their regulators can do much more to reverse the environmental and social harm caused by financing deforestation-linked companies, which undermines China’s international climate and nature goals.
Global Witness calls for:
- Chinese banks should publish and implement clear zero deforestation and human rights protection policies when financing “forest-risk” companies.
- Banks should implement China’s 2022 Green Finance Guidelines by establishing due diligence processes to identify, monitor and screen out clients linked to deforestation.
- Chinese banks should establish open communication channels to rapidly receive and address deforestation allegations from international community.
- The Chinese banking regulator should strengthen green finance policies with clear requirements that banks cease financial support to companies with deforestation-linked supply chains.
Methodology
The Forests & Finance coalition dataset, produced by Profundo and analysed by Global Witness, identifies financial transactions with more than 300 company groups that are involved in the upstream segment of the beef, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy and timber supply chains in Southeast Asia, Central and West Africa and South America, collectively referred to as “tropical forest-risk sectors” as they drive most deforestation.
Profundo notes that this selection of “forest-risk companies” is “intended to be a representative sample of companies most impacting tropical forests … Factors that led to their selection include the size of the company and land area of operation, access to information on their financing, and known negative impacts of their operations on tropical forests.”
Profundo’s data is compiled from Bloomberg, Refinitiv, Orbis and other sources, along with company reports.
The dataset captures six types of asset class and transaction, split into investments (2024; bondholding and shareholding), and credit (2010-2024; revolving credit facilities; loan issuance; bond issuance and share issuance).
Profundo applied “segment adjusters” to each company to estimate how much of a given portion of total finance could reasonably be expected to have financed the production or trade of a “forest-risk” commodity.
That means, for example, that finance provided by a Chinese financial institution to the US branch of a global conglomerate company is discounted, meaning all financing in this dataset are Profundo’s estimates of funding allocated towards commodity production in regions where deforestation occurs.
Read more information on Profundo’s methodology.
Finance
When making travel plans, timing and financing are major considerations
For the true travel fan, there’s often a built-in conflict on how best to plan for your next adventure.
On the one hand, the world awaits. Spin the globe, cover your eyes and point. Or, throw a dart at the map! Then it’s time to dig in and research your next dream destination.
On the other hand, getting the best bargain can be a last-minute proposition. There may be a fare sale today, but not tomorrow. How does that mash up with your bicycle tour in Italy? Or your friend’s wedding in Hawaii?
Spreading out all the options on the table can be daunting. It’s a bit like taking a sip from the fire hose. And we all have varying degrees of tolerance for changing prices, tiny seats and geopolitical uncertainty.
So let’s take a snapshot of what’s happening now, knowing you won’t likely drink from the same river, or fire hose, twice.
Since most of today’s snapshots are on the phone, there are some handy settings: You can zoom in for a closer look at that fruit and cheese platter, frame it up nicely for a good shot of your seatmate, or look out the window and get a nice view from 30,000 feet.
Fares we love. There are just a few fares to zoom in on right now.
Anchorage-Chicago. Three airlines will offer nonstop flights this summer: Alaska, United and American. Alaska and United fly the route year-round. There are just a couple of months where travelers have to stop in Denver or Seattle on the way. Right now, the Basic price is $349 round-trip. United has the least-expensive Main price of $429 round-trip. Alaska charges more: $449-$469 round-trip.
The rate to Chicago is steady throughout the summer, as long as you’re open to flying on other airlines, including Delta and now Southwest, starting May 15.
Anchorage-Dallas. Choose from four airlines with competitive prices. United and Delta offer great rates starting on March 30, for travel all summer and into the fall for $331 round-trip in basic economy. Remember: Basic economy means you’ll be sitting in the middle seat back by the potty. There are few, if any, advance seat assignments permitted and you’re the last to board. Don’t expect to accrue many frequent flyer points. Alaska will give you 30%. Delta and American offer none. United is axing MileagePlus points for basic travelers soon.
Delta and United offer the chance to pay $100 more for pre-reserved seats and mileage credit. Of course, they may charge you more for a nicer seat on the plane. But that’s another story.
American Airlines charges a little bit more, about $20 more for a round-trip, to fly nonstop. It’s a nice flight.
Anchorage-Albuquerque. Delta is targeting this route with a nice rate: $281 round-trip in Basic or $381 in Main. But it’s just between May 23 and June 29. Why? Well, it lines up nicely with Southwest’s launch on May 15. Who knows why airlines cut their fares during a traditionally busy season? It’s just a hunch.
Looking at airfares more broadly, there are a few more bargain rates out there, but most only go through May 20. Airlines are hoping for a robust summer — so prices go up after that.
For example, between March 29 and May 20, Alaska Air offers a nonstop from Anchorage to Los Angeles for $257 round-trip in basic. For pre-assigned seats and full mileage credit, the main price is $337 round-trip. Prices go up to $437 round-trip in the summer.
The view from 30,000 feet is pretty clear, although past performance is no guarantee of future results. Several carriers, including American, Delta, United, Southwest and Alaska are adding flights for the summer. There will be robust competition, which means lower fares. Just last week, Alaska Air dropped the price from Anchorage to Seattle to $210 round-trip. That rate is gone, but others will come along.
Charge it. Banks own the airlines by virtue of their popular credit cards. Do they own you, too?
Sifting through the various credit card offers and bonus points emails, it’s easy to forget that banks, not travelers, are the airlines’ biggest customers. At a Bank of America conference last year, Alaska Airlines reported it receives about 15% of its total revenue from its loyalty plan. That adds up to more than 1.7 billion in 2024. Delta has a similar deal with American Express, which paid the airline about $8.2 billion last year.
Think about that the next time the flight attendants are handing out credit card applications in the aisle.
Zooming in, if you’re going to play the Atmos loyalty game on Alaska Airlines, you have to have an Alaska Airlines credit card from Bank of America.
I carry the plain-old Alaska Air card. I used to have two of them, primarily for the $99 companion fare. That’s still a compelling offer. But to get that benefit, you have to charge it on an Alaska Airlines Visa card.
So the question is: Is it worth it to pay $395 per year for the new Summit Visa card from Bank of America?
If you use your credit card for your business or if you regularly charge thousands of dollars every month, the Summit card may be the card for you.
One of the foundational benefits is for every $2 you charge, you earn one status point toward your next elite tier, such as titanium. It’s possible to charge your way to the top tier of the frequent flyer ladder without ever stepping on a plane. If that’s your level of charge-card use, then the Summit is for you. For the lesser Ascent card like mine, you earn one status point for every $3 spent.
For a little wider view, consider that your other travel costs, including accommodations, can hit your budget a lot harder than an airline ticket. It’s one reason I carry a flexible spend credit card in addition to my Alaska Airlines card. Here’s a snapshot of some popular options:
1. Bilt Rewards. I finally signed up for a Bilt account, although I haven’t yet received my card. There are two big benefits with Bilt: You can charge your rent and transfer points to Alaska Airlines. There also is a scheme to charge your mortgage, but it’s more convoluted. But the charge-your-rent option is a stand-alone gold star for the Bilt program, even if you don’t fly Alaska Airlines.
In addition to the link with Alaska Airlines, Bilt points transfer to other oneworld carriers like British, Japan Airlines and Qatar Air. Hotel partners include Hyatt, my favorite, and Hilton. A big bonus comes with the “Obsidian” card, $95 per year: three points for every dollar spent on groceries.
But there’s also a Bilt card with no annual fee. And there are no extra fees incurred when you charge your rent.
2. American Express. If you fly on Delta, the American Express card is a natural choice.
The two companies really are joined at the hip. The last American Express card I had was a Delta “Gold” card, which included a 70,000-point signup bonus. Cardholders get a free checked bag, although Delta offers two free checked bags for SkyMiles members who live in Alaska, and 15% off award tickets.
The Delta card is free for the first year, then $150 per year thereafter.
There is a dizzying array of American Express cards available, including some with no annual fee. But with Delta there is a narrowed-down selection, including one that’s more than $800 per year. That includes lounge access and some other benefits, including a companion pass.
American Express cardholders also can transfer their points to Hilton and Bonvoy as well as to 15 other airlines.
Capital One offers the Venture X card, which offers cardholders 75,000 points plus a $300 travel credit at their in-house travel service. The cost is $395 per year. Get the slimmed-down Venture card for just $95 per year. You still can earn the 75,000 bonus points after spending $4,000 in the first three months. Plus, there’s a $250 credit with Capital One Travel.
Airline partners include EMirates, Singapore Air, Japan Air and EVA Air, from Taiwan. Hotel partners include Hilton and Marriott.
I’ve carried several Chase cards for years. Right now I have the Chase Sapphire Preferred card, for which I received 80,000 bonus points. But that was several years ago. More recently, I got the Chase-affiliated Ink Business Cash card to harvest a 90,000 point bonus. Previously, I carried the Chase Sapphire Reserve. I got a 100,000 point bonus for that. But I dropped that card when the fee went up to $795 per year.
Stacking the cards like that — getting more than one — has helped me to get more bonus points, both for American Express and for Chase.
The best value for Chase points that I’ve found is for Hyatt Hotels. Right now, it’s the best redemption ration, but that can change. Chase also allows for transfers to Emirates, United, Singapore Air and Southwest, among others. The Chase travel portal is managed by Expedia, so you can redeem points for other hotels at a lower redemption rate.
The long view: All airline mileage plans are now credit card loyalty plans. Terms and conditions change, along with signup bonuses and other features of the cards. Last year, Chase dropped its airport restaurant feature, which offered $29 per person at select restaurants in Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. A couple of years ago, the Priority Pass affiliated with Chase dropped the Alaska Airlines lounges as a partner.
It takes some time and effort to keep up with the programs and get the best value. But airline credit card plans are here to stay, even if the frequent-flyer programs are watered down year after year.
Finance
Lawmakers target ‘free money’ home equity finance model
Key points:
- Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering a bill that would classify home equity investments (HEIs) and shared equity contracts as residential mortgages.
- Industry leaders have mobilized through a newly formed trade group to influence how HEIs are regulated.
- The outcome could reshape underwriting standards, return structures and capital markets strategy for HEI providers.
A fast-growing home equity financing model that promises homeowners cash without monthly payments is facing mounting scrutiny from state lawmakers — and the industry behind it is mobilizing to shape the outcome.
In Pennsylvania, House Bill 2120 would classify shared equity contracts — often marketed as home equity investments (HEIs), shared appreciation agreements or home equity agreements — as residential mortgages under state law.
While the proposal is still in committee, the debate unfolding in Harrisburg reflects a broader national effort to determine whether these products are truly a new category of equity-based investment — or if they function as mortgages and belong under existing consumer lending laws.
A classification fight over home equity capture
HB 2120 would amend Pennsylvania’s Loan Interest and Protection Law by explicitly including shared appreciation agreements in the residential mortgage definition. If passed, shared equity contracts would be subject to the same interest caps, licensing standards and consumer protections that apply to traditional mortgage lending.
The legislation was introduced by Rep. Arvind Venkat after constituent Wendy Gilch — a fellow with the consumer watchdog Consumer Policy Center — brought concerns to his office. Gilch has since worked with Venkat as a partner in shaping the proposal.
Gilch initially began examining the products after seeing advertisements describe them as offering cash with “no debt,” “no interest” and “no monthly payments.”
“It sounds like free money,” she said. “But in many cases, you’re giving up a growing share of your home’s equity over time.”
Breaking down the debate
Shared equity providers (SEPs) argue that their products are not loans. Instead of charging interest or requiring monthly payments, companies provide homeowners with a lump sum in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation, which is typically repaid when the home is sold or refinanced.
The Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP) — an industry-led group founded in 2025 by Hometap, Point and Unlock — emphasizes that shared equity products have zero monthly payments or interest, no minimum income requirements and no personal liability if a home’s value declines.
Venkat, however, argues that the mechanics look familiar and argues that “transactions secured by homes should include transparency and consumer protections” — especially since, for many many Americans, their home is their most valuable asset.
“These agreements involve appraisals, liens, closing costs and defined repayment triggers,” he said. “If it looks like a mortgage and functions like a mortgage, it should be treated like one.”
The bill sits within Pennsylvania’s anti-usury framework, which caps returns on home-secured lending in the mid-single digits. Venkat said he’s been told by industry representatives that they require returns approaching 18-20% to make the model viable — particularly if contracts are later resold to outside investors. According to CHEP, its members provide scenario-based disclosures showing potential outcomes under varying assumptions, with the final cost depending on future home values and term length.
In a statement shared with Real Estate News, CHEP President Cliff Andrews said the group supports comprehensive regulation of shared equity products but argues that automatically classifying them as mortgages applies a framework “that was never designed for, and cannot meaningfully be applied to, equity-based financing instruments.”
As currently drafted, HB 2120 would function as a “de facto ban” on shared equity products in Pennsylvania, Andrews added.
Real Estate News also reached out to Unison, a major vendor in the space, for comment on HB 2120. Hometap and Unlock deferred to CHEP when reached for comment.
A growing regulatory patchwork
Pennsylvania is not alone in seeking to legislate regulations around HEIs. Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut have also taken steps to clarify that certain home equity option agreements fall under mortgage lending statutes and licensing requirements.
In Washington state, litigation over whether a shared equity contract qualified as a reverse mortgage reached the Ninth Circuit before the case was settled and the opinion vacated. Maine and Oregon have considered similar proposals, while Massachusetts has pursued enforcement action against at least one provider in connection with home equity investment practices.
Taken together, these developments suggest a state-by-state regulatory patchwork could emerge in the absence of a uniform federal framework.
The push for homeowner protections
The debate over HEIs arrives amid elevated interest rates and reduced refinancing activity — conditions that have increased demand for alternative equity-access products.
But regulators appear increasingly focused on classification — specifically whether the absence of monthly payments and traditional interest charges changes the legal character of a contract secured by a lien on a home.
Gilch argues that classification is central to consumer clarity. “If it’s secured by your home and you have to settle up when you sell or refinance, homeowners should have the same protections they expect with any other home-based transaction,” she said.
Lessons from prior home equity controversies
For industry leaders, the regulatory scrutiny may feel familiar. In recent years, unconventional home equity models have drawn enforcement actions and litigation once questions surfaced around contract structure, title encumbrances or consumer understanding.
MV Realty, which offered upfront payments in exchange for long-term listing agreements, faced regulatory action in multiple states over how those agreements were recorded and disclosed. EasyKnock, which structured sale-leaseback transactions aimed at unlocking home equity, abruptly shuttered operations in late 2024 following litigation and mounting regulatory pressure.
Shared equity investment contracts differ structurally from both models, but those episodes underscore a broader pattern: novel housing finance products can scale quickly in tight credit cycles. Just as quickly, these home equity models encounter regulatory intervention once policymakers begin examining how they fit within existing law — and the formation of CHEP signals that SEPs recognize the stakes.
For real estate executives and housing finance leaders, the outcome of the classification fight may prove consequential. If shared equity contracts are treated as mortgages in more states, underwriting standards, return structures and secondary market economics could shift.
If lawmakers instead carve out a distinct regulatory category, the model may retain more flexibility — but face ongoing state-by-state negotiation.
Finance
Cornell Administrator Warren Petrofsky Named FAS Finance Dean | News | The Harvard Crimson
Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.
Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.
Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.
As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.
He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.
Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.
Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.
As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.
Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.
In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.
“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
-
World3 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts4 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana6 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Denver, CO3 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT