Search Climate Insights Directory

Reclaim Finance argues that the Trucost list used by the Fédération bancaire française (FBF) fails to capture the full coal value chain and omits major global coal actors, including large Chinese and Russian firms. The analysis highlights significant discrepancies in revenue estimations for companies like Glencore and Adani Enterprises compared to the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), suggesting that Trucost's methodology may lead financial institutions to underestimate their exposure to coal and carbon-intensive activities.

The document critiques the EU's introduction of the Paris Aligned Benchmark (PAB) and Climate Transition Benchmark (CTB), stating they fail to require absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions or exclude companies developing new fossil fuel projects. It highlights the risk of greenwashing in passive index management, where over 20% of global assets are managed, and proposes four sets of stricter criteria for financial institutions to achieve genuine climate alignment.

The guide argues that traditional mining tax regimes, primarily based on corporate income tax and royalties, are outdated and vulnerable to profit shifting. It highlights how the energy transition, disruptive technologies like AI and automation, and climate change are altering the economic landscape of the extractive sector. The document proposes a three-step dialogue process involving governments, industry, and civil society to identify innovative fiscal reforms that ensure sustainable and equitable revenue collection for resource-rich developing nations.

The report critiques common climate scenarios, such as the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), for underestimating emissions and overestimating carbon capture to justify continued fossil fuel use. It argues that these scenarios often lead to warming above 2°C despite claims of alignment with the Paris Agreement. The author calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel financing by 2040 in Europe and 2050 globally.

The WRI Investment Policy outlines the management of its portfolio, which includes a Permanent Endowment, Board Designated Working Capital Reserve, and Working Capital. The policy mandates the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and impact factors to maximize long-term risk-adjusted returns and align with the Paris Agreement. It defines a governance structure involving the Board, Finance and Investment Committee, an Investment Advisor (OCIO), and Investment Managers. Key restrictions include a goal to be 100% fossil fuel free by excluding investments in the exploration, drilling, refining, or production of oil, natural gas, and coal.

Reclaim Finance criticizes BlackRock, CalPERS, and CalSTRS for maintaining 'feeble' coal policies that allow continued investment in coal expansion. The statement highlights loopholes in exclusion thresholds and the failure to apply policies to passive investments or the coal power sector, urging these institutions to divest from coal developers.

The report finds that financial institutions managing at least USD 47 trillion in assets—approximately 25% of the global financial market—have committed to climate-related investment targets. It identifies three primary mechanisms for influencing emissions: divestment, positive impact investment, and corporate engagement. The analysis emphasizes that divestment alone may not reduce real-economy emissions if other investors purchase the carbon-intensive assets, and notes that most institutions with such targets are currently concentrated in Europe, the United States, and Australia.

The oil, gas, and petrochemical sectors are facing a systemic crisis marked by declining profits and financial frailty. To maintain shareholder dividends and a facade of stability, companies like ExxonMobil and BP are increasing debt, while others like Shell have cut payouts. The industry is selling assets at discounted prices due to skepticism over the future value of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the petrochemical sector is not a viable growth alternative due to falling resin prices and increased regulation. The document concludes that these trends represent an 'endgame' for the industry, posing significant fiduciary risks for investors and arguing against the use of public funds for bailouts.

Reclaim Finance reports that the Paris financial centre has failed to meet its mid-2020 deadline for coal exit strategies, with only about ten French financial actors adopting sufficiently robust policies. The analysis specifically criticizes Société Générale for policies that exempt companies with coal exposure under 25%, arguing that such gaps prevent a genuine transition to zero coal.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Paris financial center has failed its commitment to implement effective coal exit strategies by mid-2020. While some institutions like AXA and Crédit Agricole/Amundi have adopted strong policies, many others, notably Société Générale, are criticized for insufficient policies that do not require companies to establish closure plans for coal infrastructure. The author warns against 'greenwashing' and the substitution of 'exit' policies with weaker 'exclusion' policies.

The report identifies five major barriers to climate-aligned finance: structural challenges to influencing the real economy, competitive disadvantage, varying alignment methodologies, multiple decarbonization pathways, and inadequate data. It argues that while divestment alone is insufficient, financial institutions can use levers such as sustainability-linked loans, transition finance, and collective action initiatives (e.g., Climate Action 100+, Poseidon Principles) to drive decarbonization. The document emphasizes the need for harmonized assessment methodologies, industry-informed decarbonization pathways, and standardized reporting to move the financial sector from a reactive to a proactive role in the low-carbon transition.

Reclaim Finance highlights a contradiction between the public climate pledges of AXA and Amundi/Crédit Agricole and their decision to vote against a shareholder resolution calling for Total to improve its climate actions. The document argues that Total's current strategy—which includes increasing hydrocarbon production and maintaining high fossil fuel capex—is not aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory, making the investors' opposition to the resolution hypocritical given their stated goals of carbon neutrality and Paris Agreement alignment.

The Unfriend Coal/Insure Our Future campaign calls on the insurance industry to leverage the economic disruptions of COVID-19 to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. The authors argue that while progress has been made in restricting coal insurance, insurers must now expand these restrictions to oil and gas to meet Paris Agreement targets. The letter outlines five specific demands, including an immediate end to insuring new coal, oil, and gas projects and the divestment of assets from companies not aligned with a 1.5ºC pathway.

The report by Reclaim Finance and Les Amis de la Terre France analyzes the climate pledges of several French financial institutions. While some banks like Natixis and SCOR have introduced coal exit timelines and exclusions, the authors argue that many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of major oil and gas companies, and a lack of alignment across all business lines, particularly in the case of Société Générale and SCOR's reinsurance activities.

The report analyzes the coal and shale oil and gas policies announced in May 2020 by BNP Paribas, Natixis, Rothschild & Co, Société Générale, and Crédit Agricole. It concludes that while some institutions like Natixis have made progress toward coal phase-out, many commitments remain insufficient due to narrow scopes, the exclusion of oil and gas majors, or a lack of firm disinvestment strategies. Notably, Société Générale is criticized for postponing action and continuing to support shale gas development.

A joint letter from various environmental and climate organizations calling on global insurance associations to ensure COVID-19 stimulus packages support a low-carbon transition rather than fossil fuel industries, while urging the insurance sector to end coverage for coal and oil and gas expansion.

The document highlights the shared origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and climate risks, both stemming from the degradation of the natural environment. It argues that traditional financial risk models cannot capture future climate risks and that delaying climate action while addressing the pandemic would be a 'double erreur'. The text advocates for green recovery plans, the integration of ESG criteria into central bank portfolios, and the exclusion of fossil fuels—specifically coal and unconventional oil and gas—from monetary and prudential crisis responses.

The letter argues that the financial system currently supports emissions leading to warming exceeding 4C, posing catastrophic risks to banks and insurers. While acknowledging the Bank of England's existing work on climate risk stress tests and disclosures, the signatories assert these measures are insufficient due to short time horizons and methodological limitations. They propose three specific actions: making climate-related disclosures mandatory, excluding fossil fuel assets (starting with coal) from future bond purchases and collateral frameworks, and adjusting the macroprudential framework to increase capital requirements for high-carbon loans.

The paper finds a significant gap between the necessity of integrating climate risks and actual investor practice in Southeast Asia's power sector. While physical risks are generally well-understood and factored into due diligence, transition risks—including policy, technology, and reputational risks—are often ignored or superficially addressed. Investors frequently use long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to shift climate-related liabilities to state-owned utilities. The study identifies institutional habits, the need to deploy large amounts of capital quickly, and limited financial governance as primary barriers to shifting investment from fossil fuels to renewables.

The report evaluates the DBSA and IDC using the Fair Finance Guide International (FFGI) methodology, finding that both institutions lack strong policy commitments to a low-carbon transition despite their developmental mandates. The DBSA showed strength in nature and power generation policies but failed on climate change targets, while the IDC ranked lowest among six assessed DFIs due to a critical lack of publicly available policies.