Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), finding a contradiction between its extensive environmental policies and its financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel sectors. While IMechE promotes climate change mitigation and adaptation, it maintains significant corporate links through event sponsorship and a company-based registration scheme. The report highlights a lack of transparency regarding IMechE's £23.2 million investment portfolio and the absence of an overarching ethical investment policy, though some fund managers apply limited screening against coal and tar sands.

The report examines the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), finding a contradiction between its 'Charter for Sustainable Development' and its financial activities. While ICE promotes sustainability and adheres to UN Principles for Responsible Investment, the analysis reveals significant investments in fossil fuel companies and financial ties to the arms sector through corporate partners, event sponsors, and education programme supporters. The report notes a lack of transparency regarding the full extent of its investment portfolio and the specific funding levels of its corporate sponsorships.

The Royal Academy of Engineering maintains extensive financial ties with the arms and fossil fuel sectors, particularly in its school education programmes and high-prestige events, while lacking a specific internal environmental or ethical investment policy.

The Energy Institute (EI) maintains extensive financial and corporate ties to the fossil fuel industry, particularly oil and gas, across its investments, event sponsorships, corporate memberships, and governing council. While the EI adopted a strategic theme of "supporting the transition to a lower carbon world" in 2016 and has some professional guidance on environmental issues, it lacks an overarching environmental or ethical investment policy. The study finds that fossil fuel corporations heavily sponsor its major events, such as International Petroleum Week, and make up approximately 40% of its corporate members. The EI's governing council also shows strong links to the oil and gas sector, with nearly half of its members having such backgrounds. Links to the arms industry were found to be low, though the lack of an ethical investment policy suggests some indirect exposure is likely.

The document investigates EngineeringUK's corporate associations, finding significant financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel sectors. It highlights that while the organization promotes engineering to young people, its flagship events and programmes are heavily sponsored by companies like BAE Systems and Shell. The report notes a lack of environmental or ethical investment policies and criticizes the transparency regarding the scale of funding from these controversial sectors.

The Geological Society of London maintains extensive financial ties to the fossil fuel industry through corporate membership, event sponsorship, and investments, despite public statements supporting climate action. While the society is praised for its transparency in financial reporting, it lacks an overarching environmental policy to govern the activities of its members or the organization itself. The study finds that approximately 70% of its corporate patrons are from the fossil fuel sector, and a significant portion of its 'Science and Education' income is derived from Petroleum Group events. Links to the arms industry were not explicitly found, though gaps in investment data leave this possibility open.

The case study examines the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3), finding that while it provides more investment detail than some peers, it lacks an environmental or ethical investment policy. Analysis of available data shows approximately 9% of identified investments are in the fossil fuel sector, including holdings in Royal Dutch Shell plc and Rio Tinto plc. The report notes a lack of transparency regarding corporate membership and suggests that gaps in investment data may hide further links to the arms and fossil fuel industries.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Chemical Society's (ACS) alignment between its public sustainability policies and its financial practices. While the ACS expresses concern for climate change and provides educational toolkits, SGR highlights a lack of transparency regarding $1.22bn in securities and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel industry, specifically through the Petroleum Research Fund and sponsorship from ExxonMobil. SGR argues that these ties and the absence of carbon emission targets undermine the ACS's role as a scientific leader in the energy transition.

The report examines the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), finding that while the organization promotes sustainable engineering in its ethics code and conferences, it lacks transparency regarding its $2.55 million investment portfolio. Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) highlights that ASEE accepts significant funding from fossil fuel company Chevron as a "Champion Partner" and arms company Boeing as a "Contributing Partner." SGR argues that these ties contradict the goals of the Paris Agreement and pose financial and reputational risks, urging a transition toward renewable energy investments and the divestment of fossil fuel patrons.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), highlighting a lack of transparency regarding its CA$3.77m in investments and the absence of an ethical investment policy. SGR identifies financial links between CIM and fossil fuel firms Syncrude and Teck Resources, noting that Teck served as a 'Gold sponsor' for CIM's 2021 Convention with a donation of CA$20,000-30,000. While CIM partners with the Mining Association of Canada on the 'Towards Sustainable Mining' standard, SGR argues that CIM's ties to companies not aligned with 1.5C warming limits undermine its stated goal of 'Collaborating towards a sustainable future'.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), noting that while the organization has committed to net zero operations by 2025 and alignment with climate goals, it maintains 'gold corporate partners' including BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell. SGR criticizes IChemE for a lack of transparency regarding its £6.09m investment portfolio and urges the institution to divest from fossil fuel companies to align with the 1.5°C warming limit and avoid financial and reputational risks.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) evaluates the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), noting that while the organization promotes sustainability and climate change mitigation through policy statements and committees, it lacks transparency regarding its $55.4 million in publicly traded securities. SGR expresses concern that the absence of an ethical investment policy may mean ASCE holds funds in the fossil fuel industry, which would contradict its climate goals. Additionally, the report identifies Boeing, an arms manufacturer, as a partner of the ASCE since 2006.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the Geological Society of America's (GSA) financial relationships with fossil fuel companies and its lack of investment transparency. While acknowledging GSA's public support for climate action, SGR highlights contradictions between GSA's position statements and its acceptance of sponsorships from companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which do not align with 2°C warming limits. SGR argues that GSA's failure to disclose specific investments and its reliance on fossil fuel funding undermine its role as a scientific thought-leader and calls for divestment to support a transition to renewable energy.

The report argues that MDBs fail to deliver genuine climate finance due to flawed accounting methodologies that allow fossil fuel-related projects, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and waste-to-energy incineration, to be counted as climate action. It highlights a systemic bias toward mitigation over adaptation and a preference for loans over grants, which exacerbates debt in the Global South. Specific analysis of the AIIB and ADB reveals transparency gaps, the inclusion of high-emitting projects in climate portfolios, and a failure to integrate gender equality and human rights into climate finance principles.

Indian companies are investing heavily in energy efficiency to combat high energy prices and meet regulatory requirements. Data from CDP shows that between 2012 and 2013, companies invested nearly $1 billion in over 200 projects, achieving an average internal rate of return (IRR) of 12.7%. Key investments include industrial process improvements and heat recovery systems, with the latter yielding a 30% IRR. Government initiatives like the Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme are significant drivers, with 50% of CDP-surveyed companies citing the scheme as a key strategic driver. The report highlights that adopting low-carbon technologies could reduce India's projected 2050 emissions from 7.8 GtCO2 to 2.4 GtCO2, though this would require annual investments between $200 billion and $400 billion.

Based on data from 1,763 companies, the report shows that low-carbon investments, particularly in energy efficiency and renewables, can deliver significant internal rates of return (IRR). It highlights that 'forward-thinking' companies—those aligning targets with climate science—outperform peers financially. However, it notes that most corporate targets remain insufficient to meet the 2°C global temperature rise limit, calling for stable, long-term policy frameworks to incentivize more expensive, transformational decarbonization.

The report finds that companies in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) achieve a high average internal rate of return (IRR) of 17% on low-carbon investments, significantly outperforming European companies. Energy efficiency measures are the primary driver of emissions reductions, delivering an average IRR of 16.7%. The document also highlights that LAC companies are setting emissions targets that are, on average, 14% more ambitious than science-based recommendations. It argues that this strong business case should encourage regional governments, particularly Peru, to push for more ambitious international climate agreements.

The document asserts that corporate net-zero targets are fundamentally dependent on the continued function of natural carbon sinks, which are currently declining. It argues that value-chain decarbonization alone is insufficient because significant nature-related emissions occur in informal sectors and many companies lack science-based targets. To address a projected $4.1 trillion finance gap for nature, the briefing proposes that if 1,700 of the world's highest emitters compensated for 10% of their annual emissions through nature-based solutions, they could mobilize 30 Gt of climate solutions by 2030, representing over 10% of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget.

The report establishes a risk assessment framework for the commercial real estate sector in South and Southeast Asia, focusing on the financial impacts of energy insecurity, water scarcity, and climate change. It highlights that while these risks are increasing due to infrastructure limitations and physical vulnerability, green building investments can mitigate these risks and achieve net positive returns within three years. The analysis specifically examines commercial office buildings in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, with a primary focus on India.

The report finds that while developed countries exceeded their US$ 30 billion Fast-Start Finance (FSF) target, much of the funding was not 'new and additional' and was heavily skewed toward mitigation over adaptation. Only 18% of FSF supported adaptation, and the distribution of funds closely mirrored existing Official Development Assistance (ODA) patterns rather than correlating with greenhouse gas emissions or country vulnerability. The study highlights a lack of transparency in reporting and suggests that future finance should better target vulnerable countries and avoid funding climate-incompatible development.