Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that ENGIE's transition plan is incomplete and incompatible with a 1.5°C scenario, as the company targets a "well below 2°C" world and continues to expand its fossil gas and LNG infrastructure. While ENGIE has significantly reduced its coal capacity and set ambitious renewable energy targets for 2030, the briefing highlights a lack of transparency in capital expenditure, accounting practices, and the feasibility of its 2045 gas decarbonization goal.

The report analyzes BP's decarbonization targets and investment strategies, claiming they are insufficient to meet 1.5°C goals. It highlights that BP's scope 3 emission targets cover only a fraction of total emissions and that the company continues to invest in new oil and gas fields, including unconventional sources. The author recommends that shareholders vote against BP's advisory 'Say on Climate' vote, support a shareholder resolution for Paris-aligned targets, and vote against the reelection of the Board of Directors.

Reclaim Finance asserts that Equinor's climate plan is insufficient to meet 1.5°C targets, noting that the company will exceed its carbon budget by 2037. The statement criticizes Equinor for continuing to develop new fossil fuel resources, including unconventional and Arctic projects, and for relying on unproven CCUS scalability. It recommends that shareholders reject the company's transition plan and support resolutions calling for absolute GHG reduction targets and a cessation of exploration.

A coalition of NGOs argues that TotalEnergies' climate strategy is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal, citing insufficient decarbonization targets and continued fossil fuel expansion. They call on investors to vote against the company's climate strategy and the reappointment of specific directors at the May 2022 Annual General Meeting, and to suspend new financial services to the company.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's transition plan, noting that its coal exit is largely achieved through selling assets rather than closing them, and that the company is increasingly dependent on fossil gas. The briefing warns that ENGIE's reliance on hypothetical future technologies like green hydrogen and its continued gas expansion in several countries are incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit, calling for investor action at the company's General Meeting.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's climate strategy is inadequate because it relies on selling coal assets rather than shutting them down and maintains a heavy dependence on fossil gas. The briefing advises investors to vote against the company's "Say on Climate" resolution at the upcoming AGM, noting that ENGIE's targets align with a "well below 2°C" world rather than a 1.5°C pathway.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 finds that most of the 25 major global companies assessed have net-zero pledges that lack integrity, with aggregate emissions targeted for reduction by only 40% at most. While 15 companies report interim targets for 2030, the average reduction commitment for full value chain emissions is only 23%. Scope 3 emissions average 87% of total emissions, yet only 8 companies provide moderate detail on addressing them. The report notes a heavy reliance on unbundled renewable energy certificates (RECs) and contentious offsetting plans, particularly nature-based solutions, while suggesting that 'climate contributions' without neutrality claims are an emerging alternative.

The report argues that the climate pledges of major oil and gas companies are 'empty promises' designed to deceive the public. It finds that none of the analyzed companies' plans meet the standards required to limit warming to 1.5°C, as they often exclude Scope 3 emissions, rely on unproven carbon capture technology, and continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration and production.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's new climate targets, noting that while the company moved its net-zero goal to 2045, it lacks absolute emission reduction targets aligned with 1.5°C. The analysis highlights a continued reliance on LNG and the risks of converting coal plants to gas or biomass, particularly in Chile, while noting that ENGIE's renewable energy investments lag behind competitors like Enel.

The document urges investors to vote against Total's fourteenth and sixth resolutions at its May 2021 AGM, claiming the company's climate strategy is insufficient. It highlights a lack of precise global scope 3 emission targets, planned increases in gas production, and continued investment in new oil projects in East Africa. The authors argue that Total's reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unrealistic and that its capital expenditure remains heavily skewed toward fossil fuels, creating a risk of stranded assets.

The briefing highlights the dual role of the mining industry in the energy transition, noting its necessity in providing raw materials for low-carbon technologies while remaining a significant source of global emissions. It advocates for the adoption of science-based targets, the use of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, and the cocreation of a comprehensive decarbonization pathway to mitigate physical and financial climate risks.

Milieudefensie, an association representing 80,000 members, asserts that Royal Dutch Shell plc is legally liable for its substantial contribution to global climate change. The document claims Shell has been aware of the causal link between fossil fuels and global warming since at least 1986, yet continues to prioritize oil and gas growth over sustainable energy. Milieudefensie demands that Shell align its investment decisions with the Paris Agreement, phase out oil and gas production, and reduce scope 3 emissions to zero by 2050. The letter argues that Shell's current strategy—which assumes fossil fuels will meet over 50% of energy demand by 2050—is unlawful under Dutch law and violates human rights. It further alleges that Shell has engaged in misleading PR and lobbying to obstruct climate policies in the EU and US.

The report examines 'water balance' goals, where companies aim to restore a volume of water equivalent to what they consume. While these goals provide clear communication and incentive for action, the document argues that they must be grounded in local basin contexts and collective action to avoid 'greenwashing' and effectively mitigate physical, regulatory, and reputational risks. It highlights the transition toward 'context-based targets' aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 6.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025 finds that corporate climate action is frequently treated as a marketing exercise rather than a business model redesign. While some companies like Inditex and Adidas have improved their target setting, the report highlights widespread 'creative accounting' and greenwashing. Key issues include the use of unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in tech and fashion, the conflation of land-based carbon removals with emission reductions in agrifood, and the use of unsubstantiated carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality. The document argues that voluntary standards are insufficient and calls for stringent government regulation, specifically citing EU directives like the CSRD and CSDDD, to mandate transparent reporting and ban product-level carbon neutral claims.