Search Climate Insights Directory

Allianz Global Investors (Allianz GI) introduced its first coal exclusion policy in July 2021, excluding companies that derive over 30% of revenues from thermal coal or produce over 30% of electricity from coal. Reclaim Finance argues this policy is outdated, mirroring a 2015 standard rather than the more stringent current Allianz Group policy. The analysis highlights that Allianz GI remains invested in 96 coal companies, including 43 coal developers, and lacks commitments to end support for coal expansion or set a full exit date for the coal sector. The document calls for the adoption of absolute exclusion thresholds and alignment with the Allianz Group's goal to exit coal by 2040.

A letter from a Stockholm Environment Institute scientist to the Massachusetts Attorney General arguing that Harvard's fossil fuel investments are misaligned with the Paris Agreement and contribute to global health and environmental crises.

The Bank of England's proposed strategy to decarbonize its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) is based on three principles: incentivizing net zero action through engagement, leading by example, and ratcheting up requirements over time. Reclaim Finance argues that this approach is flawed due to an over-reliance on engagement over divestment, a lack of clear timelines and resources for monitoring company progress, and insufficient exclusions of oil and gas companies. The author recommends that the Bank exclude companies involved in new fossil fuel projects or those deriving majority revenues from fossil fuels, and calls for the immediate integration of scope 3 emissions for carbon-intensive and finance sectors.

Reclaim Finance argues that Japan's three megabanks (Mizuho, MUFG, and SMBC) maintain policies that allow continued support for the coal industry. While the banks have updated policies to restrict direct project financing for new coal plants 'in principle', these policies contain exceptions and do not apply to general corporate financing. Between October 2018 and October 2020, these banks provided $39bn, $36bn, and $32bn respectively to companies on the Global Coal Exit List. The document contrasts this with European peers like Crédit Agricole and notes increasing shareholder and activist pressure on the Japanese institutions to align with the Paris Agreement.

The Geological Society of London (GSL) has aligned its investment and gift acceptance policies and reports that its funds are not currently invested in coal, oil, or gas companies. While the GSL lacks a formal environmental policy, it aims to establish one by the end of 2022 and intends to pledge to reach Net Zero emissions by the end of 2021. The Society maintains patronage from Rio Tinto, citing the company's ongoing governance improvements, and is considering thresholds for disclosing corporate sponsorship in its 2021 Annual Accounts.

A joint statement by Reclaim Finance, Urgewald, and BlackRock’s Big Problem criticizing BlackRock for voting in support of weak climate plans at Total and Shell during the 2021 European shareholder season, despite the firm's public rhetoric on climate risk.

SGR acknowledges IOM3's move to a fund excluding arms and high-carbon fossil fuels but argues that the Institute maintains insufficient transparency and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel sector. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of all ties to companies not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of a formal responsible investment policy, and the reporting of the investment portfolio's carbon footprint.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Royal Meteorological Society to phase out financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. While acknowledging the Society's commitment to becoming a net zero organisation, SGR identifies critical gaps in transparency regarding investments and a lack of a formal environmental policy. The letter demands the disclosure of corporate payments over £1,000 and investments over £5,000, alongside a transition to fossil-fuel-free indexes. SGR benchmarks these demands against other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Geological Society, which have already implemented divestment or restrictive investment policies.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has written to the Royal Society calling for the rapid phase-out of financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies several concerns, including the acceptance of donations from these sectors and a lack of transparency regarding specific company investments. The letter outlines ten specific demands, including the use of fossil fuel-free indexes, reporting the carbon footprint of the investment portfolio, and joining the Pledge to Net Zero. SGR notes that other professional bodies, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, have already divested from fossil fuels and arms companies.

SGR acknowledges The Geological Society's recent updates to exclude arms and high-carbon emissions from its investment policy but argues that financial ties to fossil fuels persist through corporate patronage and sponsorship. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies not aligned with the 2C Paris goal, the adoption of a formal environmental policy, and the disclosure of corporate payments over 1,000. SGR cites other UK professional bodies that have divested from fossil fuels as benchmarks for the Society's expected progress.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has called on the Institute of Physics (IOP) to end its financial ties to the fossil fuel and arms industries. SGR identifies ongoing concerns regarding the IOP's lack of transparency in investments and its acceptance of sponsorship from arms companies. The letter demands a rapid phase-out of investments in companies whose activities are not aligned with the Paris Agreement's 2°C goal, the adoption of fossil fuel-free indexes, and the elimination of links to the military technology sector, citing examples of other professional bodies that have already divested.

Reclaim Finance criticizes UniCredit for participating in a billion euro loan to EPH, a company that continues to acquire coal assets and generate significant revenue from coal. This action is presented as a contradiction of UniCredit's September 2020 coal policy, which committed to a coal phase-out by 2028 and the exclusion of coal expansionists. The document highlights EPH's acquisition of the Schkopau lignite coal plant as a critical test of the bank's policy adherence and warns against the use of 'green financing' loopholes for coal companies.

The report alleges that BlackRock has created an "echo chamber" of influence in Brussels to weaken the EU's climate finance regulations. By operating through 23 trade associations and securing direct consultancy contracts with the European Commission, BlackRock is accused of pushing for "soft" regulation and voluntary standards, such as the EU Green Bond Standard, to avoid binding restrictions on its investment choices. The document argues that this strategy serves to protect BlackRock's significant holdings in fossil fuel companies and its business model based on financial risk management rather than climate impact.

The document examines how the global shift toward low-carbon energy, driven by the Paris Agreement, creates a risk of stranded assets for fossil fuel-dependent African nations. While this transition threatens export revenues and economic stability, it offers opportunities through increased demand for critical minerals like cobalt and copper. The author argues for a 'just transition' that avoids premature deindustrialisation and leverages fossil fuel revenues for economic diversification and green industrialisation.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Natixis for continuing to support oil and gas majors and shale energy infrastructure despite overall reductions in fossil fuel financing. The statement highlights gaps in the bank's exclusion policies, its role as a top French investor in high-production shale companies, and the lack of fossil fuel policies across several of its investment management subsidiaries.

Legal & General is identified as the top UK coal investor, holding $7.2 billion in the sector as of January 2021. The document criticizes the company's weak exclusion thresholds and the fact that its passive assets, totaling $1 trillion, are not subject to coal exclusion policies, allowing continued investment in high-emitting companies like BHP Group.

Reclaim Finance calls on the Paris financial center to lead a global transition by ending support for fossil fuel expansion. The letter argues that to limit warming to 1.5°C, oil and gas production must decrease annually, and financial actors should exit non-conventional sectors by 2030 and all oil and gas by 2040 in the OECD and 2050 globally.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Aviva for failing to align its financial activities with the 1.5°C climate goal, highlighting the company's continued investment in coal, oil, and gas developers. The statement calls for Aviva to close loopholes in its coal exclusion policy and commit to ending support for fossil fuel expansion before COP26.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays is a leading global financier of coal and fossil fuels, providing over $27 billion to coal companies between 2018 and 2020. The statement criticizes the bank's current policies for allowing the funding of companies with coal expansion plans and calls for a full exit from coal by 2030 in EU/OECD countries and 2040 worldwide.

The report concludes that Alberta's oil sector faces a bleak long-term outlook due to technological shifts, climate action, and market volatility. It argues that the sector will become a diminishing contributor to provincial prosperity, making economic diversification imperative. Modelling shows that price volatility has a more severe negative impact on GDP, employment, and royalties than consistently low prices. The authors recommend that oil for combustion should not be a target of industrial policy and that the transition for workers and communities must be managed immediately.