Search Climate Insights Directory

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG-P) announced a partnership on 9 September 2025 to merge and align their greenhouse gas accounting frameworks. The collaboration focuses on three core areas: corporate footprints, product footprints, and project-level GHG accounting. While the authors welcome the potential for a unified global framework to reduce fragmentation and reporting burdens, they warn that harmonisation must not lead to the dilution of standards. Specifically, they argue that carbon credits must not be treated as substitutes for direct emission reductions and that scope 3 accounting must not be artificially lowered through certificate trading. The authors also emphasize that the governance of the new standards must be transparent and inclusive to prevent the overrepresentation of large corporate interests, suggesting a model that combines ISO's regulatory recognition with GHG-P's transparency and stakeholder breadth.

Reclaim Finance is calling for shareholders to vote against the re-election of TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné at the May 24, 2024, Annual General Meeting. The organization argues that the company's strategy of developing new fossil fuel projects is incompatible with the 1.5°C warming limit and that management has ignored climate-related shareholder resolutions. Reclaim Finance highlights that TotalEnergies was the world's sixth-largest upstream oil and gas developer in 2023 and plans to allocate only 33% of capital expenditure to its low carbon and power division through 2028, while distributing 3.4 dollars to shareholders for every dollar invested in its integrated power business in 2023.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a statement released by the SBTi Board of Trustees on April 9, 2024, which suggested extending the use of environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 emissions abatement. The organization asserts that this move contradicts existing SBTi policy, which limits carbon credits to long-term net-zero targets for residual emissions (up to 10%), and was made without consulting the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) or Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). Reclaim Finance warns that this decision threatens the scientific integrity of science-based targets and could facilitate greenwashing.

The author contends that while South Africa requires urgent energy stabilization, the proposed Karpowership deal is an exorbitant and risky option. The text highlights the need for grid reconfiguration to support renewable energy and suggests that short-term gas needs could be more cost-effectively met via Mozambique rather than a 20-year contract with a company accused of circumventing environmental regulations.

The report argues that large corporations and their lobbying groups have systematically co-opted the CBD and the GBF process. It details strategies such as 'revolving doors', privileged access to the CBD Secretariat, and the promotion of ambiguous terms like 'nature positive' and 'nature-based solutions' to replace binding regulations with voluntary reporting and self-certification. The document highlights the role of groups like Business for Nature and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in steering the GBF away from addressing structural drivers of biodiversity loss.

The report examines the influence of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) and corporate actors on the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). It argues that the transition from multilateralism to multi-partnership governance allows powerful multinationals and private foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, to steer global food policy toward 'technofixes' and market-based solutions. The analysis of 26 MSIs shows that corporate actors are the most influential stakeholders, often holding leadership positions. The report specifically highlights the role of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in promoting industrial agriculture and carbon offset mechanisms, which the authors claim undermine food sovereignty and exacerbate global inequalities.

The document critiques COVAX as a multi-stakeholder entity that marginalizes the World Health Organization (WHO) and replaces public health governance with a commercial banking model. It argues that COVAX is designed to protect the global pharmaceutical market and serve as a tool for geopolitical 'soft power' rather than ensuring equitable vaccine access. The author highlights that COVAX's funding mechanisms, dominated by a few wealthy nations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, allow private interests to influence vaccine R&D and distribution, potentially risking the health and political autonomy of developing nations.

The document critiques COVAX as a multistakeholder group that functions more like a merchant bank than a health organization. It argues that COVAX marginalizes the World Health Organization (WHO) and the multilateral system, favoring the interests of pharmaceutical companies and wealthy donors. The author contends that COVAX's focus on a 20% vaccination target for 92 low- and middle-income countries is insufficient for herd immunity and risks turning vaccine access into a geopolitical tool for superpowers like China and Russia.

The document argues that the 'COVID crisis' consists of three layers: a viral reality, a systemic crisis rooted in existing inequalities, and a 'power crisis' driven by the strategic responses of powerful actors. It contends that multistakeholderism (MSism)—exemplified by ACT-A and COVAX—serves as a tool for the Global North to maintain corporate profits and the rules of globalisation while bypassing the accountability of the UN system. The author identifies four responses by the powerful: expanding markets, protecting globalisation, a passive 'stand-back' approach that allows mass death in the Global South, and limited mitigation. The report concludes with recommendations to treat health as a global public good and return governance to multilateral frameworks.