Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that French life insurance companies are undermining their own climate goals by delegating investments to asset managers that support fossil fuel expansion. It highlights a gap between the climate ambitions of insurers—some of whom have stopped new bond investments in fossil fuel expansion—and the practices of managers like BlackRock and JP Morgan Asset Management. Reclaim Finance calls for the implementation of science-based selection criteria, clear deadlines for manager compliance, and more public, collective engagement to reduce financial risks associated with climate change.

The report argues that transnational corporations (TNCs) like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'global architecture of impunity' through sophisticated lobbying networks that capture international governance. It specifically highlights the role of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in influencing the UN Human Rights Council's negotiations for a binding treaty on TNCs and human rights. The document details environmental and human rights violations in the Global South, including oil pollution in Ecuador and Nigeria, and fossil fuel projects in Uganda and Mozambique, while demanding the exclusion of corporate lobbyists from treaty negotiations to ensure accountability.

The report argues that TNCs like Chevron, Total, and Shell maintain a 'system of impunity' by leveraging powerful lobbying organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), to shape international law. It documents severe human rights and environmental abuses linked to these companies in Ecuador, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, and Palestine. The document specifically critiques the current UN negotiation process for the Binding Treaty, claiming that the inclusion of corporate lobbyists as 'stakeholders' creates a conflict of interest that dilutes accountability mechanisms and prioritizes corporate profit over human rights and planetary health.

Reclaim Finance reports that asset managers are bypassing European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) guidelines on ESG fund naming to continue investing in fossil fuel developers. Analysis of 190 French-domiciled or managed funds shows nearly half changed names to avoid regulatory constraints. The document attributes these loopholes to lobbying by firms like BlackRock and Amundi and warns that similar gaps may be introduced into the revised Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

The guide outlines five ways employees can drive climate action at work: reducing office food waste to mitigate methane emissions, engaging clients and customers in sustainability discussions, vetting service providers to avoid supporting high-emitting industries, advocating for fossil-fuel-free retirement plans, and developing internal department-specific climate action guides.

Reclaim Finance argues that the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) lacks credibility in its responsible investment strategy due to its continued support for oil and gas expansion. The organization highlights that the CDC's 2024 responsible investment report fails to end new investments in fossil fuel developers, such as TotalEnergies, and relies on an ineffective shareholder dialogue process. Reclaim Finance urges the CDC to cease new investments in these companies, vote against their management, and implement stricter climate criteria for its external asset managers, who manage 10 billion euros of its portfolio.

The document examines the role of faith, particularly Christianity, in driving climate action. It notes that while a vast majority of Christian leaders believe in human-caused climate change, few discuss it with their congregations. It also highlights the systemic influence of faith-based organizations through land ownership, financial investments, and initiatives like the Laudato Si’ Action Platform and the World Council of Churches' efforts to hold fossil fuel financiers accountable.

The Private Equity Stakeholder Project argues against the University of California (UC) potentially reversing its 2020 decision to divest from fossil fuels. The letter asserts that fossil fuel investments are financially risky, citing the underperformance of fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios and the volatility of the LNG market. It further highlights the material threats of climate change to California, including astronomical wildfire costs, and warns that demand forecasts for data center power may be overstated, potentially misleading investors.

The Caisse des Dépôts rejects Reclaim Finance's criticisms, asserting that its investment approach balances ecological transformation with national sovereignty. It highlights a commitment to mobilize 100 billion euros for ecological and energy transformation between 2024 and 2028, while defending its decision to keep specific holdings confidential to maintain constructive shareholder dialogue. The institution disputes Reclaim Finance's estimate of its fossil fuel exposure, stating its actual exposure is below 5 billion euros and that it applies strict exclusion criteria for unconventional fossils and coal.

Reclaim Finance calls on investors to vote against strategic resolutions at 2025 annual general meetings for major oil and gas companies, arguing that traditional shareholder engagement has failed to align these firms with a 1.5°C trajectory. The document highlights that 95% of oil and gas companies continue developing new projects and that some majors, such as BP, TotalEnergies, Eni, and Equinor, are increasing production or weakening climate targets. It advocates for using opposition votes as an effective lever to signal that climate priorities must be integrated into corporate strategy.

The report examines the insurance crisis in California following devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, highlighting how private insurers like State Farm have restricted coverage or exited the market, pushing risk onto the state-supported FAIR Plan. It contends that insurers are complicit in the climate crisis due to over $500 billion in fossil fuel-related assets and argues for the adoption of legislation, such as SB222, to force fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-driven losses through the right of subrogation.

The document argues that traditional corporate climate leadership, focused on 'net zero' and offsets, is insufficient to address the climate crisis. It introduces the 'Drawdown-Aligned Business Framework,' which urges employees to advocate for comprehensive changes across eight leverage points: emissions reductions, stakeholder engagement, procurement, investments, disclosures, policy advocacy, business model transformation, and long-term thinking. The guide emphasizes that every job must become a 'climate job' and that companies must prioritize climate justice and the elimination of fossil fuel dependencies to achieve drawdown—the point when atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations begin to steadily decline.

The document criticizes Blackrock and Vanguard for temporarily halting engagement activities with companies after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced new reporting requirements for investors holding more than 5% of a US company. Reclaim Finance asserts that these transparency rules are not a legal barrier to engagement and that the asset managers' reactions reflect a broader retreat from ESG commitments. The text highlights the firms' continued investment in fossil fuels and their withdrawal from international climate alliances, urging clients to demand stronger climate engagement or switch managers to protect their portfolios from systemic climate risks.

The 2025 F-List identifies 1,217 fossil fuel contracts held by 709 advertising and PR agencies. It introduces the Fossil Fuel Income Risk Exposure (FFIRE) index, which finds that Edelman has the highest financial vulnerability to fossil fuel revenue at 5.64%. The report highlights a conflict of interest regarding Edelman's role in the COP30 UN Climate Talks and notes that Omnicom Advertising Group now holds the most contracts on the list following its merger with IPG, being the only network with contracts across all 10 oil and gas majors.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's methodology for the Social and Sustainability Bond Dataset (SSBD) establishes a rigorous screening process to identify credible social and sustainability bonds. To be included, instruments must be self-labelled debt, provide adequate public disclosure, and allocate 100% of net proceeds to social or environmental projects, with at least 90% meeting specific eligibility criteria. The framework emphasizes ex-ante impact confirmation for target populations and employs a strict list of absolute exclusions, including fossil fuel exploration and weapons production. Bonds are classified as aligned, non-aligned, or pending based on their adherence to these standards, with a two-year lookback period used for complex assessments.

South Africa's 2025 G20 presidency focuses on four key priorities: disaster resilience, debt sustainability for low-income countries, financing just energy transitions, and critical minerals for sustainable development. The presidency aims to elevate 'country platforms' like South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and bring African climate finance concerns to the forefront. The Sustainable Finance Working Group (SFWG) for 2025 is tasked with strengthening the global sustainable finance architecture, scaling up adaptation and just transition finance, and unlocking carbon market potential. The report highlights opportunities for South Africa to enhance follow-up mechanisms for G20 commitments, engage African Union (AU) structures, and coordinate with Brazil ahead of COP30. However, the report notes diplomatic challenges regarding the US presidency's approach to climate multilateralism and the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that climate ambition among public development banks (PDBs) is plateauing and highly polarized. While some institutions have adopted comprehensive Paris alignment and net-zero targets, over half of the 170 tracked PDBs show limited-to-no ambition. This divergence is closely linked to enabling factors: high-ambition PDBs typically benefit from supportive government policies, developed financial systems, and active membership in multi-institutional networks. Conversely, minimally ambitious PDBs often operate in contexts with weak policy support and underdeveloped investment pipelines. The report concludes that ambitious PDBs generate higher volumes of climate finance as a share of assets and recommends leveraging multi-institutional networks to lift less ambitious banks toward leading standards.

The report proposes a two-step assessment approach to link financial institutions' net zero strategies to real-world impacts. It emphasizes tracking investments in new assets rather than existing portfolios to avoid the 'divestment' loophole where assets are transferred without reducing emissions. The methodology uses a multi-level ownership tree (up to Level 2) to attribute finance to indirect investors based on equity and debt weightings, utilizing data from sources like Bloomberg Terminal and CPI's Global Landscape of Climate Finance.

The report finds a positive trend in European pension funds' commitment to sustainable investing, with significant growth in the adoption of mitigation targets and climate risk management. However, a persistent gap remains between these commitments and actual real-economy impact, as pension funds rarely invest directly in projects and often hold fragmented indirect ownership. The analysis highlights that larger funds, those in net-zero coalitions, and funds in countries with strong regulatory frameworks—such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and France—are leading the transition. Key challenges include the gap between asset ownership and management, the difficulty of transitioning passive investments, and limited capital flow to emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).

The 2024 Private Equity Climate Risks Scorecard reveals that 21 analyzed private equity firms are responsible for an estimated 1.17 gigatons of annual emissions from upstream operations, LNG terminals, and coal plants. The report argues that the industry's lack of transparency and continued investment in fossil fuels obstruct the global transition to a 1.5°C warming scenario. It ranks firms from 'B' to 'F', with EIG Global Energy Partners receiving the lowest grade due to its high emissions and low alignment with climate demands. The authors call for mandatory disclosures and a just transition for workers and impacted communities.