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.

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 document argues that 'Big Food' companies face escalating risks across three domains: waste, climate, and health. It highlights the 'Brussels Effect,' where strict EU directives on single-use plastics and chemical safety set global standards. The report warns that failure to transition from linear 'take-make-waste' models to circular reuse systems exposes companies to legal action, financial penalties, and loss of brand value, particularly among millennial and Gen Z consumers.

The document outlines the legal case Friends of the Earth Netherlands v Royal Dutch Shell plc, arguing that Shell's current net-zero strategy is insufficient compared to IPCC standards. It details the legal basis of the claim—centered on Dutch civil law and human rights—and warns investors of the reputational and financial risks associated with climate litigation and emerging EU due diligence legislation.

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 document highlights a regulatory divergence in climate risk disclosure, noting that TCFD implementation is largely an EU phenomenon. It proposes that IOSCO, which represents regulators for over 95% of world securities markets, can reduce systemic financial risk by issuing formal acknowledgments of TCFD, updating its Principles, and developing reporting standards. It suggests investors engage either their national regulators or IOSCO directly to push for these actions, specifically targeting the Committee on Issuer Accounting, Audit and Disclosure (Committee 1).