Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that climate targets adopted by 83 global investors are largely insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the real economy, citing a lack of targets, poor quality, and limited scope. It argues that without science-based sectoral targets and regulatory oversight, these goals amount to greenwashing and fail to manage systemic climate risk.

The Savings and Investment Union (SIU) aims to bridge the gap between household savings and productive investments to address an annual financing gap of €750–800 billion by 2030. However, the author contends that the SIU lacks mechanisms to channel funds specifically toward EU priorities or the ecological transition, meaning it could facilitate lending to heavily polluting activities. The document highlights that the initiative is likely to benefit highly concentrated asset management firms, particularly US-based BlackRock and Vanguard, which are identified as major investors in fossil fuel bonds and supporters of fossil fuel company governance.

The European Savings and Investment Union (UEI), proposed by the European Commission to fund EU priorities, is criticized for failing to direct investments toward climate goals. The document asserts that the initiative may primarily benefit large asset managers, specifically naming Blackrock and Vanguard, who are described as having highly damaging climate practices.

The report assesses the use of the Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) by global banks to measure sustainable power financing relative to fossil fuels. While six banks have now published or committed to this indicator, the analysis reveals a regional divide: European banks (BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Groupe BPCE) often use narrow fossil fuel definitions and omit underwriting, while North American banks (Citi, JPMorgan Chase, RBC) include broader financing instruments but inflate sustainable ratios by including fossil-related technologies like carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen.

The report examines the Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR), a metric used to compare bank financing of sustainable energy versus fossil fuels. While adoption is increasing due to shareholder pressure, the author argues that current methodologies are often flawed. European banks like BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole set ambitious targets but use narrow definitions of fossil fuel activities and omit bond/equity financing. Conversely, North American banks like Citi and JPMorgan Chase provide more comprehensive coverage of the fossil fuel value chain but artificially inflate their 'low carbon' figures by including fossil-based hydrogen, carbon capture, and non-energy sectors.

The report finds that investor climate targets are often opaque, lack ambition, and are poorly linked to real-world emission reductions. Analysis of 83 global investors reveals that many targets rely on volatile financial metrics, exclude scope 3 emissions, and are frequently reported as achieved long before their deadlines. The document recommends that investors adopt science-based sectoral targets, increase transparency in reporting, and align climate solutions investments with established taxonomies.

Reclaim Finance advocates for a revised SFDR framework (SFDR 2) to address confusion and greenwashing caused by the original 2019 regulation. The organization supports the exclusion of fossil fuel developers from sustainable and transition categories, calls for clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and identifies inconsistencies in the European Commission's proposal regarding reporting obligations and fund claims.

The document argues that the original SFDR created confusion and enabled greenwashing due to a lack of clear minimum guarantees. It proposes that the revised 'SFDR 2' should exclude fossil fuel developers from all categories, establish stricter and clearer criteria for 'transition' assets, and resolve inconsistencies regarding reporting obligations for non-categorized funds to restore investor trust.

The document details a multi-component methodology to evaluate 30 major asset managers from the US and Europe. It assesses their policies on restricting new fossil fuel investments, their holdings in bonds issued by fossil fuel developers between January 2024 and June 2025, and their 2025 proxy voting behavior at annual general meetings. The methodology employs a color-coded system (Red, Orange/Yellow, Light Green, Green) to categorize the level of commitment and alignment with climate goals across five specific criteria, including board re-elections and executive remuneration votes.

The report identifies a significant pipeline of planned coal capacity in South and Southeast Asia, primarily driven by a small group of parent companies and funded by a concentrated network of Asian and international banks. It argues that existing bank policies are largely superficial, focusing on project-level restrictions while allowing corporate finance to continue flowing to coal developers.

The complaint argues that the Papua LNG project, a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, lacks necessary climate and human rights assessments, fails to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Indigenous Peoples, and threatens critical biodiversity. It specifically targets MUFG bank, claiming it may be misleading other financial institutions about the project's compliance with the Equator Principles.

Reclaim Finance and 19 youth and student organizations have issued an open letter to Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites, urging them to stop funding the development of coal, oil, and gas. The signatories argue that continued investment in fossil fuel companies, such as TotalEnergies and BP, and the use of asset managers like BlackRock, contradicts scientific goals to limit global warming to 1.5°C and threatens the future stability, health, and security of young people.

Reclaim Finance criticizes AXA for insuring the Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana, arguing that this contradicts AXA's stated commitments to reduce support for shale gas. The document highlights the terminal's significant local pollution, its role in global methane emissions, and the contradiction in AXA's policy of refusing to insure shale gas production while insuring the export terminals that process it.

Reclaim Finance reports that the vast majority of TotalEnergies' top shareholders voted in favor of management resolutions at the 2025 general assembly, including the re-election of directors and CEO remuneration. This support persists despite the company's decision to stop 'Say on Climate' votes and its increased investment in oil and gas projects, which Reclaim Finance describes as a 'climaticide' strategy that ignores IPCC and IEA recommendations for a 1.5°C trajectory.

Reclaim Finance reports that the vast majority of TotalEnergies' top global, European, and French shareholders approved management resolutions at the 2025 annual meeting, including CEO remuneration and director re-election. The analysis highlights a disconnect between these votes and science-based climate recommendations, noting that TotalEnergies remains the 6th largest oil and gas field developer globally as of 2024 and has increased planned oil and gas production. While a few shareholders like Union Investment and Ofi Invest AM voted against specific strategic resolutions, the overall average approval rate for management proposals was 94.8%. Reclaim Finance criticizes shareholders for prioritizing short-term financial returns, such as dividends and share buybacks, over the energy transition.

Reclaim Finance reports a 'double discourse' within the Crédit Agricole group regarding climate commitments. While Crédit Agricole CIB announced in May 2024 that it would no longer participate in conventional bond issuances for fossil fuel companies, its subsidiary Amundi continues to provide capital to the sector. Between 2024 and 2025, Amundi invested 300 million euros in 80 bonds from companies expanding coal, oil, and gas projects, including significant holdings in Glencore, Saudi Aramco, TotalEnergies, and BP. The report contrasts this with BNP Paribas, which extended similar restrictions to its asset management and insurance arms. Reclaim Finance asserts that this inconsistency undermines the group's climate credibility and calls for an immediate alignment of Amundi's policies with the group's stated transition goals.

Reclaim Finance identifies a 'double discourse' within the Crédit Agricole group, noting that while the parent bank has committed to ending oil and gas expansion, its subsidiary Amundi continues to invest in bonds issued by fossil fuel companies such as TotalEnergies, BP, Saudi Aramco, and Glencore in 2024 and 2025.

Reclaim Finance criticizes Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites (FRR) for employing BlackRock, an asset manager it claims actively supports fossil fuel expansion. The organization highlights BlackRock's $431 billion in holdings in companies developing new fossil projects as of May 2024 and its declining support for environmental shareholder resolutions. Reclaim Finance urges these French institutions to adopt science-based climate criteria for selecting managers and to publicly oppose BlackRock's practices, noting that other European pension funds, such as the Dutch PFZW, have already withdrawn mandates from the firm.

The report highlights that French companies hold over 1,000 billion euros in cash, a resource largely managed by financial institutions that continue to fund fossil fuel expansion and ecosystem destruction. Focusing on 20 CAC 40 companies with 162 billion euros in combined cash, the analysis reveals a significant gap in CSR policies: while companies apply ESG criteria to suppliers, they rarely do so for their financial partners. The authors argue that corporate cash is a powerful but underused tool for decarbonization and recommend integrating ESG criteria into the selection of financial partners, setting specific CSR targets for cash management, and establishing structured dialogues with banks and asset managers to end support for unsustainable projects.

Analysis of the Lloyd's insurance market reveals that while its sustainable energy business grew by 18% annually from 2020 to 2024, its fossil fuel business grew by 2.4% per year, contrasting with a 2.8% decline in the wider global insurance market. Lloyd's remains the world's largest center for fossil fuel insurance, capturing an estimated 9% of the global market and one dollar in every eight of global oil and gas premiums. The report identifies Hiscox Syndicates as a significant outlier among managing agents for its high reliance on fossil fuel premiums. Furthermore, it highlights a growing talent crisis, noting that two-thirds of students who would consider the insurance sector would only apply to companies that do not insure fossil fuel projects or have commitments to reduce such underwriting.