Entre engagement complaisant et désinvestissement complet : y a-t-il une troisième voie ?

The document analyzes the limitations of both shareholder engagement and full divestment in the oil and gas sector, citing recent moves by Dutch pension funds PFZW and ABP. It argues that while divestment may not provide immediate financial pressure on companies, total withdrawal removes necessary levers of influence. Reclaim Finance proposes a strategy of stopping new capital injections (specifically new bonds) while using voting rights to block 'climaticide' strategies, including voting against director re-elections and dividend distributions.

• Major institutional investors are divesting from fossil fuels due to the failure of shareholder dialogue. Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) announced the divestment of 310 oil and gas companies totaling 2.8 billion euros because it no longer believes companies like TotalEnergies, Shell, and BP can "adapter leurs modèles économiques à l’Accord de Paris". Similarly, the Dutch civil servants' pension fund ABP divested 15 billion euros from fossil fuels in 2021, and the Church Commissioners for England divested from companies lacking a strategy aligned with the 1.5°C goal.
• The oil and gas industry is accused of lacking credible transition plans, with 96% of oil and gas producing companies continuing to open new fields according to Urgewald. Reclaim Finance notes that BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies have reduced their climate ambitions, with TotalEnergies increasing its hydrocarbon production targets four months after 30% of its shareholders voted for a climate-focused resolution.
• Full divestment is viewed as potentially too slow to force a rapid transition to the 1.5°C target and strips investors of their influence. Reclaim Finance suggests that while cleaning a portfolio is reasonable to avoid complicity, it would take "de longues années ou une masse critique de désinvestissement" to create sufficient financial pressure.
• Reclaim Finance proposes a strategy where investors stop buying new bonds and use their shareholder power to obstruct fossil fuel expansion. This includes voting against the re-election of directors, executive compensation, and dividend distributions at 2024 general meetings for companies that do not end new fossil projects and allocate the majority of profits to the energy transition.

APA

Martin, L. (2024). Entre engagement complaisant et désinvestissement complet : y a-t-il une troisième voie ? Reclaim Finance. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/2024/02/13/entre-engagement-complaisant-et-desinvestissement-complet-y-a-t-il-une-troisieme-voie/

Chicago

Martin, Léo. Entre engagement complaisant et désinvestissement complet : y a-t-il une troisième voie ? Reclaim Finance, 2024. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/2024/02/13/entre-engagement-complaisant-et-desinvestissement-complet-y-a-t-il-une-troisieme-voie/.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |last1=Martin |first1=Léo |title=Entre engagement complaisant et désinvestissement complet : y a-t-il une troisième voie ? |publisher=Reclaim Finance |date=13 February 2024 |url=https://reclaimfinance.org/site/2024/02/13/entre-engagement-complaisant-et-desinvestissement-complet-y-a-t-il-une-troisieme-voie/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{martin2024entre, author = {Martin, Léo}, title = {{Entre engagement complaisant et désinvestissement complet : y a-t-il une troisième voie ?}}, publisher = {Reclaim Finance}, year = {2024}, month = feb, url = {https://reclaimfinance.org/site/2024/02/13/entre-engagement-complaisant-et-desinvestissement-complet-y-a-t-il-une-troisieme-voie/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }