Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2026 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard reveals that 20 private equity firms, managing $7.3 trillion in assets, back 244 energy companies operating over 1,050 fossil fuel assets. These portfolios generate approximately 1.5 gigatons of annual greenhouse gas emissions, a volume that exceeds the emissions of the international shipping and aviation industries and ranks fifth globally, behind China, the U.S., India, and Russia. The report highlights that these firms own 15,000 miles of pipelines and 124GW of capacity across 324 fossil fuel plants. Furthermore, an analysis of dedicated oil and gas private equity funds active since 2001 indicates poor financial performance, with inflation-adjusted returns being negative on average. The document concludes that most of the studied firms have made limited progress in aligning their portfolios with climate standards to mitigate climate and financial risks.

The report analyzes the gap between the supply and demand of climate finance in African agrifood systems, drawing on CPI's experience with 23 agribusinesses and 17 finance vehicles. It identifies a systemic misalignment where investors prioritize risk-adjusted returns and export-oriented cash crops, while enterprises often operate across the entire value chain and focus on staple crops essential for food security. The document argues that while enterprise-level technical assistance is helpful, closing the investment gap requires vehicle-level interventions that better price risk and align mandates with market realities. Key findings highlight a geographic concentration of capital in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda, and a disconnect between the upstream focus of finance vehicles and the end-to-end operations of agribusinesses.

The report argues that capital mobilization for African agrifood systems is hindered by a systemic misalignment between the risk-return mandates of climate finance vehicles and the operational realities of agribusinesses. Drawing on a portfolio of 17 finance vehicles and 23 enterprises, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) finds that effective investment requires active intermediation, demand-side intelligence in vehicle design, and TA calibrated to specific investor screening criteria. It highlights a particular gap in financing for food crop economies, which are often overlooked in favor of export-oriented cash crops. The report recommends that donors fund coordination infrastructure, integrate pre-investment TA into vehicle structures, and support blended finance mechanisms that combine cash and food crop investments to enhance food security.

The report highlights that the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) has a high allocation to private markets, which obscures significant climate risks due to the opacity of these investments. It identifies specific exposure to fossil fuel assets through managers like BlackRock's Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) V and recommends the adoption of science-based climate targets and increased disclosure to mitigate financial risk.

The report identifies significant fossil fuel exposure within the Maryland State Retirement and Pension System's (SRPS) private market allocations, which comprise approximately 41% of its $74 billion in assets. It highlights specific controversial assets, such as the Rio Grande LNG terminal and the AES Corporation's power plant portfolio, and notes that 64% of energy companies associated with SRPS's private equity managers are fossil fuel-based. The document advocates for the adoption of five climate standards, including science-based targets and fossil fuel disclosure, to mitigate financial risks associated with the energy transition.

The evaluation concludes that the SAP has become operationally ineffective, failing to deliver on its promises of simplification and acceleration. While it has provided unintended value as a 'stepping-stone' for Direct Access Entities (DAEs) to build institutional capacity, it is now virtually indistinguishable from the standard Project Approval Process (PAP). The report recommends discontinuing the SAP in its current form and replacing it with a new, integrated access modality featuring delegated authority and a focus on replicating proven interventions rather than piloting new ideas.

The evaluation finds that while country ownership is a core principle of the GCF, its operationalization is uneven and often reduced to procedural compliance. Key structural bottlenecks include limited institutional capacity of National Designated Authorities (NDAs), a heavy reliance on International Accredited Entities (IAEs) over Direct Access Entities (DAEs), and a lack of meaningful whole-of-society engagement. The report recommends shifting from a process-based approach to one focused on long-term institution-building, simplifying access to finance, and embedding inclusivity as a cultural default.

The report evaluates the climate transition of 594 OECD pension funds using Net Zero Finance Tracker data. While target-setting is improving, significant exposure to expansionist fossil fuel companies remains. The analysis finds that funds with formal climate targets and transition plans hold higher shares of clean energy and that robust regulatory frameworks in countries like the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands correlate with stronger climate action.

The report examines how private equity firms use 'energy transition funds' to invest in 'false solutions'—technologies that are unproven, promote continued fossil fuel use, or lack accountability. It analyzes six specific industries: carbon capture, carbon trading, gas certification, hydrogen, biomass, and renewable natural gas. Through case studies of firms like BlackRock (GIP), Warburg Pincus, Quantum Capital Group, and Apollo, the report demonstrates a gap between sustainability claims and actual portfolio holdings, which remain heavily invested in fossil fuels. It concludes by providing due diligence resources for institutional investors to mitigate climate-related financial risks.

The report finds that 'responsible' employee savings funds offered by France's top account keepers are marginal and often contradictory to climate goals. It highlights that over 30% of responsible funds from Crédit Agricole and Société Générale invest in fossil fuel expansion, attributing this to partnerships with asset managers like Amundi. The study also accuses these institutions of greenwashing through misleading marketing, while noting that BNP Paribas E&RE and Natixis Interépargne offer more aligned options via managers like Mirova.

The Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC), a major French public investor managing 323 billion euros, is criticized for a lack of transparency regarding its portfolio composition and voting records. Despite claiming alignment with a 1.5°C trajectory, the CDC holds 9.2 billion euros in fossil fuel-related investments and lacks a strict ban on companies developing new oil and gas projects. Furthermore, the CDC delegates approximately 10 billion euros to external asset managers without applying robust climate selection criteria, potentially exposing public savings to climate-harmful strategies.

The evaluation of the GCF's 'Health and Well-being, and Food and Water Security' (HWFW) result area finds that while investments are highly relevant to country needs—particularly in food and water security—the RA approach itself has been inconsequential to achieving results. The report highlights significant gaps in health-related programming and tracking, as well as systemic challenges in results reporting and data quality. It recommends a comprehensive rearticulation of the purpose and formulation of all GCF result areas to better align with project origination and strategic impact.

The report outlines a five-step framework for structuring adaptation-focused financial instruments: defining a resilience thesis, building a bankable pipeline, strategically engaging funders, cultivating local collaborations, and measuring impact. It highlights that while adaptation finance lags behind mitigation, private sector opportunities exist if perceived risks are managed through blended finance and simplified structures. Based on 17 adaptation-relevant instruments, the report notes that 12 successfully mobilized capital, totaling USD 1.2 billion, emphasizing the role of technical assistance and concessional capital in de-risking early-stage projects.

The 2024 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard reveals that 21 analyzed private equity firms are responsible for an estimated 1.17 gigatons of annual emissions from upstream operations, LNG terminals, and coal plants. The report argues that the industry's lack of transparency and continued investment in fossil fuels obstruct the global transition to a 1.5°C warming scenario. It ranks firms from 'B' to 'F', with EIG Global Energy Partners receiving the lowest grade due to its high emissions and low alignment with climate demands. The authors call for mandatory disclosures and a just transition for workers and impacted communities.

The evaluation finds that while the GCF has a prominent position in climate finance and a diverse set of instruments, its energy sector approach lacks a clearly articulated strategy and suffers from a mismatch between its stated and actual risk appetite. The portfolio is heavily skewed toward international accredited entities (IAEs) and focuses primarily on renewable energy generation, while underfinancing energy efficiency and emerging technologies like green hydrogen and large-scale storage. Results management is described as underdeveloped, with inconsistent metrics for measuring paradigm shifts and a lack of specific emissions reduction targets for the energy sector. The report recommends that the GCF clarify its role in the global energy transition, increase support for enabling environments and regulatory frameworks, and better align its risk appetite with transformational innovation.

The report finds a significant gap between the climate commitments of French life insurers and their actual investment practices. While most have pledged to stop funding new coal projects in their 'fonds euro', many continue to invest in oil and gas expansion. A critical 'blind spot' exists in 'unités de compte' (UC), where 63% of analyzed funds contain fossil fuel developers, including in products labeled as 'responsible' or 'ESG'. The report calls for regulators to mandate an 'eco-score' and extend ISR labeling to 'fonds euro' to protect savers from greenwashing.

The report finds that 84% of analyzed employee savings funds invest in fossil fuel expansion, with Amundi and Natixis Investment Managers dominating the market. It highlights a lack of transparency, the prevalence of 'greenwashed' funds, and the inefficiency of supervisory boards in protecting employees' climate interests.

The report reveals that 70% of analyzed 'sustainable' passive funds from five major asset managers are exposed to fossil fuel expansion, highlighting a critical 'blindspot' in climate policies. It argues that passive investing is not a neutral process but a series of active management choices, and calls for regulators to forbid the sale of funds with misleading sustainability claims that support fossil fuel developers.

The GCF Risk Dashboard for Q4 2024 reports that portfolio concentration risks remain within Board-approved tolerance levels, though 28 projects are under close monitoring due to notable issues or delays. The fund's total committed amount is USD 15.8 billion equivalent, with a geographic distribution led by Africa (37%) and APAC (30%). Financial instruments are primarily split between loans (41%) and grants (39%), while 54% of target areas focus on mitigation and 46% on adaptation. The report also notes one non-performing loan of USD 4.19 million associated with the IDB's Low Emissions and Climate Resilient Agriculture Risk Sharing Facility.

The GCF Risk Dashboard for Q2 2023 reports that portfolio-level risks remain within Board-approved tolerances, with no non-performing loans and liquid assets at approved levels. As of 30 June 2023, the portfolio consists of 216 approved funding proposals totaling USD 12.03 billion in equivalent terms. Funding is distributed across Africa (36%), Asia-Pacific (34%), and LATAM & Car. (26%), with a focus on mitigation (41%) and adaptation (23%), alongside cross-cutting projects. The fund's commitment authority increased significantly due to a USD 1 billion contribution from the United States. While concentration risks are within limits, the portfolio is skewed toward International Accredited Entities and the 'Energy access and power generation' sector. The report also tracks several projects facing implementation delays and identifies a projected 12-month forward liquid asset portfolio of USD 8.9 billion.