Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report finds that investor climate targets are often opaque, lack ambition, and are poorly linked to real-world emission reductions. Analysis of 83 global investors reveals that many targets rely on volatile financial metrics, exclude scope 3 emissions, and are frequently reported as achieved long before their deadlines. The document recommends that investors adopt science-based sectoral targets, increase transparency in reporting, and align climate solutions investments with established taxonomies.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • A significant portion of the analyzed investors lack comprehensive climate strategies; 22% of the 83 investors in scope have no targets at all, and 58% have five targets or fewer.
  • Many emissions targets use financial-based metrics—such as absolute financed emissions, WACI, or carbon footprint—that are weakly correlated with real-world emissions because they are influenced by inflation and corporate value growth.
  • There is a widespread failure to cover material emission sources, with 58% of emissions targets excluding scope 3 emissions and no targets specifically addressing methane.
  • Asset class coverage is uneven and often undisclosed; nearly 75% of targets do not disclose the percentage of assets under management (AUM) covered, and when disclosed, the average coverage is less than 50%.
  • A high number of targets are reported as achieved prematurely, suggesting low initial ambition; 60% of short-term targets (mostly 2025) and 15% of medium-term targets (mostly 2030) have already been met.
  • Alignment and engagement targets are often based on vague or opaque metrics that lack the transparency needed to prevent greenwashing.
  • Climate solutions investment targets are largely non-comparable due to varying definitions of 'green' or 'sustainable' and often lack taxonomic clarity.
  • Existing net-zero alliances, such as the NZAOA, NZAM, and PAAO, have failed to provide sufficiently prescriptive guidance on how to design meaningful targets.

Cite the original document

APA
McCully, P. (2026). TARGETING FAILURE. Reclaim Finance. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Targeting-failure.pdf
Chicago
McCully, Patrick. TARGETING FAILURE. Reclaim Finance, 2026. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Targeting-failure.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=McCully |first1=Patrick |title=TARGETING FAILURE |publisher=Reclaim Finance |date=January 2026 |url=https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Targeting-failure.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{mccully2026targeting, author = {McCully, Patrick}, title = {{TARGETING FAILURE}}, institution = {Reclaim Finance}, year = {2026}, month = jan, url = {https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Targeting-failure.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated