Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for the EU to establish a comprehensive environmental due diligence framework within its sustainable corporate governance directive. It argues that human rights protections alone are insufficient because environmental damage can occur without direct human harm. The briefing proposes that companies be obligated to identify, prevent, and remedy adverse impacts across their entire value chains, aligned with international standards like the Paris Agreement and OECD Guidelines. It suggests a broad definition of environmental impacts—including climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss—and calls for a robust enforcement regime combining administrative, criminal, and civil liability to ensure victims, including those outside the EU, have access to justice.

The Framework for Sustainable Finance Integrity provides a structured approach to evaluate and drive the sustainability commitments of financial actors. It establishes 'Minimum Benchmarks' that all institutions should adopt—such as aligning portfolios with the Paris Agreement and eliminating new coal finance—and 'Leadership Benchmarks' for those seeking to drive transformative change, including science-based five-year emissions targets and comprehensive TCFD alignment. The report emphasizes the need for a 'whole-of-government' approach, the integration of biodiversity and just transition into financial mandates, and the necessity of cross-sector collaboration to avoid siloed efforts that fail to meet global climate goals.

Reclaim Finance argues that AXA has abandoned its climate leadership by refusing to commit to ending investments or insurance coverage for oil and gas production, including shale gas. The organization highlights AXA's reliance on collective 'net zero' alliances to avoid individual responsibility and criticizes AXA's potential support for Total's climate plan, which Reclaim Finance claims is incompatible with the 1.5°C goal. Additionally, AXA is criticized for continuing to invest in Fortum despite the pro-coal lobbying activities of its subsidiary, Uniper.

A coalition of NGOs calls on Total shareholders to reject the company's climate strategy and leadership, citing insufficient emission reduction targets, planned increases in hydrocarbon production, and a lack of transparency regarding Scope 3 emissions.

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.

Reclaim Finance critiques Total SE's climate claims, asserting that the company's scope 3 emission targets are vague and insufficient. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions for 2030 will significantly exceed 1.5°C alignment levels and that its carbon intensity reductions are far below the 90% decrease recommended by Carbone 4 to limit warming to 2°C.

Reclaim Finance challenges Total SE's claims regarding its carbon neutrality ambitions and Scope 3 emission targets. The organization argues that Total's projected emissions will overshoot the 1.5°C trajectory by 200MT by 2030 and that its reported reductions in Europe are misleading. Reclaim Finance further criticizes Total's carbon intensity calculations for excluding non-fuel products and intermediate stages, concluding that the company's strategy is inadequate for limiting global temperature rise.

The briefing examines the initial net-zero announcements from Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo. While these institutions have committed to 2050 targets, the document notes that they are in early stages, lacking specific interim targets, defined pathways, and clear coverage standards for business units like capital markets. It highlights varying organizational responses, ranging from Wells Fargo's centralized Institute for Sustainable Finance to Goldman Sachs' hybrid model, and notes the adoption of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) by several banks to improve emissions reporting consistency.

The paper argues that a low-carbon product standard—a market-based regulation establishing emissions intensity benchmarks with tradable credits—can incentivize the U.S. steel industry to adopt abatement technologies. It recommends regulating finished steel products (sheets, plates, bars, beams, pipes, and tubes) at the point of first sale, covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and significant upstream Scope 3 emissions (coke, lime, and direct-reduced iron). To prevent carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness, the authors suggest applying the standard to all steel products sold or imported into the U.S., including indirect steel products above a certain value threshold. The paper emphasizes that while such a standard is a powerful tool, it must be complemented by R&D funding, government procurement, and other policies to achieve full decarbonization.

ClientEarth's review of 250 large UK-listed companies reveals a systemic failure to provide material climate-related financial information, with only 4% including such factors in financial accounts and 4% of auditors explicitly addressing them. While narrative risk disclosures are improving, they are often boilerplate. The report recommends mandatory TCFD-aligned reporting, stronger regulatory enforcement to prevent 'greenwash', and increased investor stewardship.

The document argues that Total SE's carbon neutrality ambitions are 'window dressing' because they exclude global Scope 3 emissions and forecast increased hydrocarbon production. It highlights the contradiction between the climate pledges of major French banks and insurers and their continued financing of Total SE, including controversial projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The document analyzes the gap between Total SE's public climate ambitions and its actual business strategy, which continues to prioritize fossil fuel expansion. It highlights the role of French banks and investors in supporting this model and calls for a shift toward absolute emission reductions and the cessation of new fossil fuel projects.

The document outlines eight key demands from Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France addressed to BNP Paribas. It calls for the bank to strictly apply its coal exit policy, cease all support for hydrocarbon development, exit high-risk sectors like the Arctic and unconventional oil and gas by 2030, and vote against Total's climate strategy. Additionally, it urges the bank to withdraw from gas projects in Mozambique, strengthen exclusions on soy-related deforestation in the Cerrado, and formalize a policy to end support for oil drilling in the Amazon.

Iberdrola is a global power utility headquartered in Spain that aims for carbon neutrality in Europe by 2030 and globally by 2050. The company is aggressively expanding its renewable energy capacity, targeting 60 GW by 2025, and investing heavily in smart grids, electric mobility, and green hydrogen. It is a major issuer of green bonds and actively advocates for ambitious global climate policies through partnerships with the UN and the European Union.

The document reports a significant increase in net-zero commitments from 823 cities, 101 regions, and 1,541 companies. While these actors represent a vast population and economic footprint, the paper notes that the ambition and impact of these targets vary based on the emission scopes covered and the reliance on carbon offsets.

The Climate Bonds Initiative presents a framework to categorise economic activities based on their role in a net-zero transition and establishes five principles to ensure transition labels are scientifically credible and ambitious. It distinguishes between 'green' and 'transition' labels based on the long-term viability of the activity in a low-carbon economy.

The Climate Bonds Initiative proposes a framework for 'transition' labels to prevent greenwashing and ensure investments align with the Paris Agreement. The framework establishes five core principles for ambitious transitions: alignment with a 1.5 degree trajectory (net zero by 2050), science-based goals, the exclusion of offsets, the prioritization of technological viability over economic competitiveness, and a requirement for operating metrics over pledges. It categorizes economic activities into five types—Near Zero, Pathway to Zero, No Pathway to Zero, Interim, and Stranded—to determine whether a 'green' or 'transition' label is appropriate. The framework is designed to be flexible, applying to both whole entities (via equity or sustainability-linked bonds) and specific activities (via use-of-proceeds bonds).

The report outlines strategies for organizations to manage business air travel emissions, emphasizing the need for direct reductions over carbon offsets. It discusses the use of absolute and intensity targets, the importance of senior management leadership, and the role of decision-support tools in encouraging sustainable travel choices.

The document argues that because supply chain emissions are significantly larger than operational emissions, companies must move beyond fragmented action. BSR recommends a strategy of mapping the entire value chain via 'reverse sourcing', testing reductions through pilot projects, and scaling these efforts through collaboration with peers and value chain partners.