Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance calls on European public reinsurers, specifically Flood Re (UK), CCS (Spain), and SACE (Italy), to follow the example of France's Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) by committing to cease new investments in companies developing new oil and gas projects. The document asserts that financing fossil fuel expansion contradicts the mandate of these entities to preserve the insurability of climate risks, noting that a world warming by 3°C would render such risks untransferable to the insurance sector. It highlights that bonds make up between 70% and 97% of the financial asset portfolios of these public reinsurers, providing a significant lever for change. Furthermore, the author urges these actors to demand alignment from their asset managers and to integrate financial incentives or strict conditions into reinsurance contracts for insurance clients that continue to support fossil fuel development.

The document asserts that climate change is a systemic financial risk that threatens the global economy and the living conditions of beneficiaries, thereby making climate action an integral part of an asset owner's fiduciary duty. It advocates for a 'systemic approach' that prioritizes long-term stability over short-term gains, urging asset owners to halt capital allocation to fossil fuel expansion, engage aggressively with portfolio companies, influence asset managers, and advocate for ambitious public policies. The report highlights that current risk models often underestimate the potential for catastrophic economic losses, which could reach 50% of global GDP by the end of the century.

Private equity firms continue to finance LNG terminals despite increasing market volatility, geopolitical conflicts, and strong community opposition. The document highlights that these investments face risks from unstable long-term demand, project cancellations, and the incompatibility of LNG expansion with 1.5°C climate goals.

The report finds that between 2019 and 2025, 240 global banks provided US$590.8 billion to the top fifteen petrochemical companies, with a high concentration of funding from US, Japanese, Chinese, German, and UK institutions. Institutional investors held US$146.6 billion in exposure to these companies as of September 2025, dominated by US-based asset managers like Vanguard and BlackRock. The document argues that this financing persists despite structural risks such as overcapacity and collapsing profit margins, and often contradicts the public climate commitments of the financial institutions involved.

Eleven civil society organizations, including Reclaim Finance, have called on Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites to cease supporting fossil fuel expansion. The signatories argue that continued investments, particularly through bonds and external managers like BlackRock, exacerbate climate change and expose portfolios to financial risks. They specifically highlight TotalEnergies' recent climate setbacks, including the abandonment of its 2050 carbon neutrality goal in March 2026, as evidence that shareholder dialogue is insufficient. The letter demands an immediate end to new investments in oil and gas projects, systematic voting against directors of expanding fossil fuel companies, and the implementation of science-based climate criteria for selecting external asset managers.

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.

Between 2021 and 2025, 19 major European banks facilitated 216 bond issuances for oil and gas developers, raising 219 billion euros. The report highlights that 2025 saw the highest number of such issuances, with Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BBVA, Santander, and Standard Chartered as the top facilitators. It argues that bond markets have become a critical funding source for fossil fuel expansion and criticizes the 'facilitated emissions' formulas used in bank climate policies as inadequate, urging a shift toward 'sector portfolio financing volume' (SPFV) targets and total exclusion policies across the entire value chain.

The document highlights a trend in 2025 where some European and North American asset owners began withdrawing mandates from asset managers like BlackRock and State Street due to inadequate climate strategies. It criticizes large asset managers for continuing massive investments in fossil fuel developers and calls for asset owners to implement clear climate selection criteria and escalation strategies to force a transition away from fossil fuels.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites (FRR) continues to use public money to support fossil fuel expansion despite updating its exclusion policy. The FRR's new measures only target unconventional hydrocarbons and thermal coal, leaving conventional oil and gas investments intact. The document also highlights the FRR's failure to implement science-based criteria for selecting asset managers, noting that it continues to work with firms like BlackRock despite their climate records.

Pension funds, managing over USD 73 trillion globally, face systemic risks from climate change that could reduce returns by 33% by 2050. While 200 major funds have begun divesting from fossil fuels to fulfill fiduciary duties, third-party asset managers often maintain carbon-intensive investments. This misalignment has led pension funds to withdraw over USD 100 billion from managers including BlackRock and State Street.

The Private Equity Stakeholder Project outlines five categories of climate standards for private markets investors: alignment with science-based targets, disclosure of fossil fuel exposure and emissions, the requirement for portfolio-wide energy transition plans, integration of environmental justice and community protections, and transparency regarding political spending and climate lobbying. The framework recommends specific timelines, such as phasing out coal power by 2030 and achieving a 4:1 ratio of low-carbon energy supply investments relative to fossil fuel investments by 2030.

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.

Reclaim Finance advocates for a revised SFDR framework (SFDR 2) to address confusion and greenwashing caused by the original 2019 regulation. The organization supports the exclusion of fossil fuel developers from sustainable and transition categories, calls for clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and identifies inconsistencies in the European Commission's proposal regarding reporting obligations and fund claims.

The document argues that the original SFDR created confusion and enabled greenwashing due to a lack of clear minimum guarantees. It proposes that the revised 'SFDR 2' should exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories, establish stricter and clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and resolve inconsistencies regarding reporting obligations for non-categorized funds to restore investor trust.

The report finds that while OECD pension funds are increasing their climate target-setting and internal governance, their portfolios remain heavily exposed to expansionist fossil fuels. Progress is strongly linked to national regulatory environments, with the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK leading. A critical lever for future impact is the governance of the asset owner–asset manager relationship, where leading funds are moving toward more active mandates, stricter stewardship oversight, and in some cases, the internalization of asset management to ensure alignment with net-zero goals.

Reclaim Finance and 19 youth and student organizations have issued an open letter to Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites, urging them to stop funding the development of coal, oil, and gas. The signatories argue that continued investment in fossil fuel companies, such as TotalEnergies and BP, and the use of asset managers like BlackRock, contradicts scientific goals to limit global warming to 1.5°C and threatens the future stability, health, and security of young people.

Reclaim Finance reports that the vast majority of TotalEnergies' top shareholders voted in favor of management resolutions at the 2025 general assembly, including the re-election of directors and CEO remuneration. This support persists despite the company's decision to stop 'Say on Climate' votes and its increased investment in oil and gas projects, which Reclaim Finance describes as a 'climaticide' strategy that ignores IPCC and IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C trajectory.

Reclaim Finance identifies a 'double discourse' within the Crédit Agricole group, noting that while the parent bank has committed to ending oil and gas expansion, its subsidiary Amundi continues to invest in bonds issued by fossil fuel companies such as TotalEnergies, BP, Saudi Aramco, and Glencore in 2024 and 2025.

The document analyzes Nigeria's climate policy through four 'policy moments', highlighting a persistent struggle with institutional overlap and fragmented governance. It examines how internal competition between bodies like the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) and the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy on Climate (OSPEC) dilutes Nigeria's international bargaining power. The paper also discusses the impact of global energy market shifts, the divestment of onshore assets by International Oil Companies (IOCs), and the challenges of removing fuel subsidies. It concludes that Nigeria must move away from transplanting foreign institutional models and instead develop a domestically driven, streamlined framework that integrates the petroleum sector into its climate goals.