Search Climate Insights Directory

The CSDDD requires large companies to ensure their operations do not have disproportionate impacts on the climate, environment, biodiversity, and human rights. However, the document highlights a critical gap: financial services are excluded from due diligence requirements, meaning financial actors are only responsible for their non-financial activities (e.g., office supplies) rather than their investments in harmful projects. While the directive mandates climate transition plans for all covered entities, including financial actors, the document warns that relying on CSRD reporting standards may result in low-quality, non-prescriptive plans that fail to stop fossil fuel expansion.

The document highlights a recent increase in global coal capacity and a slowdown in the adoption of coal-restrictive policies by private financial institutions, calling for urgent regulatory action and the implementation of the Coal Transition Accelerator.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's Climate Plan for failing to commit to a non-expansion of fossil fuels, specifically noting LNG contracts extending beyond 2040. The analysis argues that ENGIE's reliance on technologies like hydrogen and CCUS, combined with insufficient renewable energy growth, risks locking the company into fossil infrastructure and missing net-zero targets before 2045.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ENGIE's Climate Plan for failing to align with a 1.5°C trajectory, citing continued gas expansion, reliance on unproven technologies like CCUS and hydrogen, and a net-zero target date of 2045 that lags behind IEA recommendations.

Reclaim Finance assesses ENGIE's 2025 climate plan, finding it insufficient for a 1.5°C pathway. The analysis highlights that nearly half of ENGIE's capacity remains fossil gas-based, with no specific exit dates or asset-by-asset strategies. While renewable targets increased to 95 GW by 2030, the company continues gas expansion through new plants and LNG contracts. The briefing recommends that financial institutions demand a halt to gas infrastructure and that shareholders vote against the 'Say on Climate' proposal and the reappointment of CEO Catherine MacGregor.

The briefing criticizes ENGIE's 2025 climate plan for lacking a phase-out date for fossil gas and continuing expansion through new plants and long-term LNG contracts. While noting a slight increase in renewable energy targets to 95 GW by 2030, the author argues that ENGIE remains on a 'well below 2°C' trajectory rather than 1.5°C, citing a decarbonization goal of 2045 that contradicts IEA Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenarios. The document also highlights that CAPEX for fossil technologies remains nearly stable between the 2024-2026 and 2025-2027 periods and warns that reliance on 'green gases' and carbon credits may perpetuate fossil systems.

Reclaim Finance calls on ENGIE shareholders to oppose the company's continued investment in fossil gas, arguing that its strategy is incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and its own 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The organization specifically highlights the planned gas power plant in Nijmegen, Netherlands, and long-term US shale gas contracts as evidence of misalignment with climate science. It advocates for voting against the re-election of directors and executive pay at the April 30 general meeting to force a strategic shift away from gas and uncertain technologies like CCUS and biomethane.

Reclaim Finance argues that ENGIE's continued investment in fossil gas is incompatible with a 1.5°C warming limit and its own 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The organization calls on shareholders to vote against key strategic resolutions to sanction the board for failing to align capital expenditure with decarbonization goals.

Reclaim Finance has called on Lloyd's of London managing agents to stop providing stamp capacity for new thermal and metallurgical coal mines, thermal power stations, oil and gas fields, and LNG terminals by January 1, 2025. The organization argues that current commitments are "insufficient" and that continued support for fossil fuel expansion contradicts the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Net Zero Emissions Scenario, which requires a halt to new fossil fuel developments and a ten-fold increase in energy transition investments relative to fossil fuel spending by 2030.

Reclaim Finance criticizes a statement released by the SBTi Board of Trustees on April 9, 2024, which suggested extending the use of environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 emissions abatement. The organization asserts that this move contradicts existing SBTi policy, which limits carbon credits to long-term net-zero targets for residual emissions (up to 10%), and was made without consulting the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) or Scientific Advisory Group (SAG). Reclaim Finance warns that this decision threatens the scientific integrity of science-based targets and could facilitate greenwashing.

Reclaim Finance argues that ArcelorMittal is hindering the transition from coal by investing in new and existing blast furnaces, including a joint venture in India with Nippon Steel. The organization highlights that less than half of the company's decarbonization projects can produce steel without fossil fuels and notes that the company's Head of European Operations has described green hydrogen as too expensive despite receiving subsidies. Reclaim Finance calls on shareholders to hold the board and management accountable by integrating climate considerations into strategic routine votes, such as director re-election and remuneration, to oppose metallurgical coal-based activities.

Reclaim Finance calls on ArcelorMittal shareholders to use the April 30, 2024, annual general meeting to oppose the company's continued investment in coal-based blast furnaces and its lack of a clear decarbonization strategy. The organization highlights that ArcelorMittal continues to extend the life of existing coal furnaces and invest in new ones, specifically in India via a joint venture with Nippon Steel. It further notes that less than half of the company's decarbonization projects can produce steel without fossil fuels, and expresses concern over the viability of green hydrogen projects in Europe due to cost. Reclaim Finance recommends that investors integrate climate concerns into routine strategic votes, including director re-election and executive remuneration, to hold management accountable for fossil-fuel-based plans.

Reclaim Finance calls for a radical change in investor engagement with the oil and gas industry, arguing that current practices have failed to align the sector with a 1.5°C trajectory. The organization recommends that investors suspend new investments and use strategic routine votes—such as those for director re-election, remuneration, financial accounts, and dividends—to sanction companies continuing fossil fuel expansion. It specifically targets proxy advisors like ISS and Glass Lewis for failing to support climate action and suggests that dividends should be opposed unless 50% of capital expenditure is dedicated to sustainable energy.

Reclaim Finance argues that traditional shareholder engagement has failed to align the oil and gas sector with a 1.5°C trajectory, noting that 96% of these companies continue fossil fuel expansion. The organization recommends that investors suspend all new investments, particularly bonds, and integrate climate criteria into routine strategic votes. Specifically, it advises voting against the reelection of directors, executive remuneration, financial accounts, and dividends unless companies allocate 50% of capital expenditure to sustainable energy. Reclaim Finance also criticizes proxy advisors like ISS and Glass Lewis for failing to support climate resolutions.

The document criticizes the European Central Bank (ECB) for allowing assets from fossil fuel developers to serve as collateral for bank liquidity, arguing that current 'greening' efforts are insufficient. It highlights that 32 fossil fuel developers and two coal companies without exit dates were eligible for collateral between July 2023 and January 2024. The author contends that companies can circumvent emission limits via financial subsidiaries and that haircuts for companies like TotalEnergies and Shell are too low, failing to reflect environmental and financial risks.

The statement criticizes the European Central Bank (ECB) for continuing to allow assets from fossil fuel developers to serve as collateral for bank liquidity. It highlights that 32 fossil fuel developers were eligible for collateral between July 2023 and January 2024, including coal companies without exit dates. The author argues that current limits on high-emitting securities are easily bypassed via financial subsidiaries and that haircuts for companies like TotalEnergies and Shell are insufficiently low (down to 1%) given their continued exploration of new oil and gas fields.

The document examines the gap between the public's desire for climate action and the reality of their savings often financing fossil fuels. It proposes a systemic shift in the financial sector to make sustainable savings the default and transparent choice, suggesting tools like an 'eco-score' for financial products and the removal of barriers to switching between funds.

The report finds that 84% of analyzed employee savings funds invest in fossil fuel expansion, with Amundi and Natixis Investment Managers dominating the market. It highlights a lack of transparency, the prevalence of 'greenwashed' funds, and the inefficiency of supervisory boards in protecting employees' climate interests.

The report finds that BP's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over climate solutions, with 2023 investments in oil and gas being 11.6 times higher than those in low-carbon energy. BP has revised its 2030 oil and gas production targets upward and reduced its scope 3 decarbonization targets, leading to a projected 2030 production level 26% above NZE alignment. While BP aims for 10 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, it will still produce 23 times more energy from fossil fuels than from renewables. The report also highlights BP's continued development of gas power and reliance on bioenergy and hydrogen, which may not be sustainable.

The report finds that Eni's investment strategy prioritizes oil and gas expansion and shareholder returns over renewable energy, leading to projected 2030 production levels that significantly exceed NZE requirements. While Eni is diversifying into renewables and bioenergy, these remain marginal compared to its fossil fuel core, and its decarbonization plan relies heavily on unproven carbon capture and offset technologies.