Search Climate Insights Directory

The fact sheet compares the climate strategies of eleven major asset owners, detailing their Net Zero targets, interim emissions reduction goals, and specific exclusions of fossil fuels. It highlights varying levels of Scope 3 reporting and tracks financial commitments to climate solutions, with some investors like CDPQ and NYC Funds reporting significant progress or exceeding their targets.

This guide outlines a comprehensive set of questions for institutional investors to use during due diligence of private equity managers. It focuses on five key areas: alignment with science-based climate targets (including phasing out fossil fuels by 2030), disclosure of fossil fuel exposure and emissions, the existence of portfolio-wide energy transition plans, the integration of climate and environmental justice, and transparency regarding political spending and climate lobbying.

The document demands that AXA cease providing insurance for new oil and gas projects, divest from unconventional hydrocarbons, and adopt a stricter definition of the Arctic region. It specifically calls for AXA to vote against Total's climate strategy, divest from Fortum due to pro-coal lobbying, and implement an exclusion policy for soy traders linked to deforestation in the Cerrado.

The document argues that the original SFDR framework led to confusion and greenwashing due to vague criteria for fund classification. It recommends that the proposed SFDR 2 exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories—including 'ESG'—and establish clearer, data-driven definitions for 'transition' funds based on emissions, targets, and investments. Additionally, it warns against reducing transparency requirements, such as Principle Adverse Impacts (PAIs), and opposes clauses that would prevent EU Member States from implementing more ambitious national transparency rules.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Amundi for voting in favor of TotalEnergies' 'Say On Climate' plan despite its failure to align capital expenditures (CAPEX) with a 1.5°C trajectory. The letter highlights inconsistencies in Amundi's voting patterns across seven oil and gas majors, noting that Amundi approved plans for Repsol, TotalEnergies, and BP while rejecting those of Woodside Petroleum, Shell, and Equinor. Reclaim Finance argues that Amundi's current approach ignores the IEA Net Zero scenario, which mandates no new oil and gas fields, and calls for a systematized engagement policy that includes commitments to divest from companies continuing fossil fuel expansion.

The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund (the Oil Fund) held US$6.15 billion in bonds across 39 oil and gas developers as of June 2024. The report argues that these bonds provide fresh capital for upstream and midstream expansion, contradicting the Fund's ambition to lead in climate risk management. Case studies on TotalEnergies, Enbridge, and ExxonMobil highlight the misalignment between the Fund's financial support and the companies' lack of credible transition plans. The authors recommend a policy to halt new bond purchases from oil and gas developers and a phased divestment from existing holdings.

The document critiques the ECB's climate roadmap as insufficient and proposes a comprehensive set of recommendations to align the bank's operations with the Paris Agreement. It advocates for replacing 'market neutrality' with a climate-aligned benchmark, decarbonising the collateral framework and asset purchases, and adjusting refinancing operations like TLTROs to penalise carbon-intensive lending. Additionally, it calls for the integration of climate risks into internal credit ratings and the implementation of stricter prudential capital requirements (Pillar I and II) for fossil fuel exposures to ensure financial stability and support the EU's low-carbon transition.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for participating in an EU consultation and provides template answers advocating for stricter regulations on the financial sector. It argues for the creation of a 'brown taxonomy' to identify and exclude fossil fuels and polluting activities, the implementation of a 'social taxonomy' to protect labor rights, and the alignment of all EU financial activities with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It specifically suggests that the European Central Bank's monetary policy and post-COVID-19 recovery measures should exclude the most polluting sectors.

The document outlines a step-by-step process for responding to a consultation on the EU's sustainable finance strategy and provides model answers. It argues that the EU needs major additional policy actions to align finance with the Paris Agreement, specifically calling for a 'brown taxonomy' to identify harmful activities, a legal prohibition on financing new fossil fuel projects, and the establishment of a social taxonomy to identify socially abusive activities. It further suggests that the European Central Bank's monetary policy should exclude polluting sectors and that COVID-19 recovery funding should be tied to social and environmental conditions.

Two years after the Paris financial center committed to coal exit strategies, Reclaim Finance finds a mixed record. While 24 of 54 analyzed actors have robust policies, others lack them entirely or have significant gaps, such as failing to exclude coal developers or lacking clear exit dates. Major banks like BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Crédit Agricole, and Natixis remain under scrutiny for continuing to support coal companies without credible transition plans.

Reclaim Finance critiques the updated NZAOA Target Setting Protocol for failing to align with the IEA net zero scenario, specifically regarding fossil fuel phase-out dates and the lack of rigorous engagement standards. The organization argues that the Protocol contains loopholes for coal plants under construction and lacks clear requirements for absolute emission targets and Scope 3 inclusion. Reclaim Finance recommends a full coal exit by 2030 in OECD countries and 2040 globally, an immediate end to oil and gas supply project support, and the implementation of transparent, time-bound engagement escalation policies leading to divestment.

Reclaim Finance responds to the Bank of England's consultation on the Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS), urging the Bank to prioritize the exclusion and divestment of fossil fuel assets to mitigate climate-related financial risks. The organization argues that engagement is often ineffective for high-carbon companies and recommends that the Bank set ambitious, short-term portfolio targets, integrate scope 3 emissions, and implement a heavy negative tilt strategy. Reclaim Finance further suggests that the Bank should lead the market in climate risk management by increasing capital requirements for fossil fuel exposures and expanding its environmental focus to include nature-related financial risks.

The Russian Fossil Fuel Exclusion List identifies Russian-headquartered companies from the Global Coal Exit List and Global Oil & Gas Exit List, as well as major non-Russian coal and oil and gas companies active in Russia, for the purpose of financial divestment.

The report evaluates the Institute of Physics (IOP), finding a contradiction between its environmental commitments and its financial practices. While the IOP maintains an ISO 14001 compliant environmental management system and endorsed the 2015 Climate Communiqué, it lacks a formal ethical investment policy. Analysis of available data shows that approximately 22% of the identified portion of its £22.1 million investment portfolio was held in the fossil fuel sector, including a 2.1% holding in BP. Additionally, the report highlights extensive ties to the arms industry, particularly the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which has been a consistent sponsor of the IOP's Awards Dinner and other events. The report also notes that 16% of the IOP's board of trustees have strong connections to the arms industry.

The Institution of Environmental Sciences (IES) is a professional body with approximately 3,500 members that promotes environmental science and sustainable development. An assessment of its public documents and annual reports indicates that the IES has no financial involvement with the arms or fossil fuel industries and holds no investments. The organization maintains extensive environmental policies, including a professional code of conduct requiring members to have "full regard for the enhancement of environmental quality and sustainable development and the mitigation of environmental harm." Additionally, the IES was one of 24 UK-based societies that endorsed a joint Climate Communiqué prior to COP 21, urging governments to take immediate action against climate change risks.

The report finds that while the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has no evidence of financial links to fossil fuel or arms corporations in its education programmes, events, or magazine, it has a 'Very high' level of involvement with the fossil fuel industry through its investments. Approximately 31% of the 'known' investments (which represent at most 21% of the total £1.7 million portfolio) were in the fossil fuel sector. The RSS lacks an overarching environmental policy and an ethical investment policy, although it recently approved a change to invest between 5% and 15% of assets in 'global sustainable equities'.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) has implemented an ethical investment policy that excludes fossil fuel extraction and armaments sold to oppressive regimes, following pressure from its members. However, the BPS lacks a public environmental policy and maintains limited transparency regarding its £12.9 million investment portfolio, meaning investments in nuclear weapons modernisation cannot be ruled out. No direct financial links to fossil fuel or arms corporations were found through event sponsorship or advertising.

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) maintains a comprehensive environmental policy and minimal direct corporate links to fossil fuels, but lacks an ethical investment policy and transparency regarding its £8.4 million investment portfolio. Consequently, the study concludes that investments in fossil fuel and arms corporations are likely despite the organization's public commitment to sustainability.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Chemical Society's (ACS) alignment between its public sustainability policies and its financial practices. While the ACS expresses concern for climate change and provides educational toolkits, SGR highlights a lack of transparency regarding $1.22bn in securities and continuing financial links to the fossil fuel industry, specifically through the Petroleum Research Fund and sponsorship from ExxonMobil. SGR argues that these ties and the absence of carbon emission targets undermine the ACS's role as a scientific leader in the energy transition.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) examines the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) financial transparency and ethical alignment. While the AMS acknowledges the scientific consensus on climate change and has implemented some green office measures, SGR identifies indirect fossil fuel investments through mutual funds and significant sponsorship from arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. SGR argues that these financial links contradict the AMS's stated position on the urgency of the climate crisis.