Fact examine: In December 2020, a gaggle of huge gamers in worldwide finance launched the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. They dedicated their corporations to “supporting the purpose of net-zero greenhouse gasoline emissions by 2050 or earlier, in step with international efforts to restrict warming to 1.5°C”. They deliberate to do that by directing investments towards sustainable companies which might be serving to to chop the emissions chargeable for the local weather disaster.
Context: Article 2c of the Paris Climate Agreement referred to as for monetary flows to be per “a pathway in direction of greenhouse gas-emission-resilient growth”. Over 230 international banks and asset-management corporations subsequently signed as much as the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, launched in 2020 with the goal of “supporting the purpose of net-zero greenhouse gasoline emissions by 2050 or earlier”. Alas, these corporations’ investments inform a special story.
Launched in 2020, the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative dedicated its members to “supporting the purpose of net-zero greenhouse gasoline emissions by 2050 or sooner, in step with international efforts to restrict warming to 1.5°C”. Over 230 corporations signed as much as it, together with European ones similar to Germany’s DWS, the Netherlands’ Robeco, France’s AXA, and Italy’s Eurizon. Some of those we’ve lined in earlier reporting attributable to their ostensibly “inexperienced” investments within the fossil-fuel business.
NZAM carried the institutional imprimatur of the United Nations, within the type of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment. UN PRI signatories commit, amongst different targets, to incorporating “ESG [environmental, social and governance] points into funding evaluation and decision-making processes”. Specific ESG standards are used to evaluate the sustainability and moral affect of an funding.
Receive the very best of European journalism straight to your inbox each Thursday
Net Zero Asset Managers has obtained important media protection, giving the impression that it’s a pressure for change. In November 2022, as an example, the specialist journal ESG Today headlined, “Net Zero Asset Managers reaches $66 trillion in belongings underneath administration”. The article defined that the signatories have been dedicated to “progressively remodeling their funding portfolios to align them with the purpose of net-zero greenhouse gasoline emissions by 2050″. NZAM was lined on the UN’s web site in an April 2021 article titled “Biggest monetary gamers again internet zero”.
NZAM’s media profile has allowed its signatories to flaunt their dedication to the Paris local weather accord and to market themselves as being conscious of sustainability.
That dedication was short-lived. In January 2025, signatories together with BlackRock and JP Morgan withdrew from NZAM, prompting the suspension of its actions. The NZAM secretariat indicated on its web site that the challenge was present process a assessment, “to make sure it stays match for goal within the new international context”.
During the lifetime of Net Zero Asset Managers, how far did the signatories reside as much as their very own much-fanfared dedication to “Net Zero”?
Our analysis reveals that, on the excessive level of NZAM’s exercise within the final quarter of 2023, its members held the equal of $25 billion in fossil-fuel shares of their “inexperienced” funding portfolios. Moreover, that sum included corporations chargeable for so-called “carbon bombs”, a time period coined in 2022 by Kjell Kuhne, a campaigner at Leave it within the Ground (Lingo), to check with hydrocarbons tasks that generate a couple of gigatonne of CO₂ over their lifetime. Specialists say that the sort of challenge must be shuttered as shortly as attainable if the Paris Agreement timetable is to be saved.
Investments in fossil fuels by net-zero asset managers
Using information from the London Stock Exchange Data & Analytics, we recognized funds categorised as “inexperienced” underneath the European Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), in pressure since 2021. Articles 8 and 9 of the regulation govern the necessities to be met for advertising merchandise as, respectively, having “environmental or social” targets or being “sustainable investments”. The NZAM signatories which might be most uncovered to hydrocarbons accounted for 54 p.c of all NZAM investments on this sector.
They embody DWS (a German agency), JP Morgan, BlackRock, Northern Trust and AllianceBernstein (all American), France’s Amundi, the Netherlands’ Robeco, Norway’s Storebrand and Italy’s Eurizon. Together they held a stake of simply over $14 billion within the oil and gasoline business.
In 2023, many of those corporations used phrases similar to “sustainability” and “innovation” to explain funds that held stakes in well-known oil giants. For instance, the US agency State Street employed the phrases “Sustainable Climate” to market a fund that held a $7 million share in Exxon. Another fund, “Europe Climate Action”, marketed by Amundi, held $18 million of stakes in Aker, BP, Equinor, and TotalEnergies.
In the previous yr, new pointers have set clear limits on the usage of sustainability-related phrases within the names of funds that spend money on fossil fuels.
However, as we confirmed in earlier articles on this collection, quite a few asset managers proceed to spend money on soiled hydrocarbons whereas declaring their assist for sustainability and ESG of their prospectuses to buyers.
Overall, of the ten NZAM members which have made the most important share of “inexperienced” investments, the stakes concerned complete $18 billion. They embody 82 extraction tasks outlined as “carbon bombs” by Kjell Kuhne of Lingo. According to Kuhne, “the quantity of emissions generated [by carbon bombs] is larger than that emitted in a yr by the entire of Germany, a extremely industrialized nation that’s closely depending on fossil fuels”.
The investments made by the Net Zero Asset Managers have clearly not helped to persuade their Big Oil beneficiaries to place a cease to those 82 “carbon bombs”. This regardless of the declare usually made by asset managers that they will push the business in direction of transition by way of their participation in firm conferences and the votes they solid there. Furthermore, all ten corporations talked about are additionally signatories to the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment, regardless of persevering with to spend money on fossil fuels.
In a report revealed in November 2024, the UN PRI Association writes that policymakers ought to instruct monetary corporations to implement “sturdy carbon pricing and market-based mechanisms, accelerating the complete and equitable section out of fossil-fuel subsidies and establishing clear plans and targets for phasing out unabated fossil fuels in step with credible 1.5°C pathways”.
Kuhne, of Leave it within the Ground, is acerbic: ”These corporations are actively creating these new CO2 bombs. When the local weather is already in peril and spiraling uncontrolled, not creating new carbon bombs needs to be the highest precedence.”
“A inexperienced funding mustn’t present any cash to corporations concerned within the fossil-fuel provide chain“, he concludes. ”It needs to be ‘fossil-free’, and for me this can be a elementary criterion for with the ability to name oneself inexperienced, sustainable, and climate-friendly. Today, these corporations are the most important impediment to progress in direction of sustainability. If you have been promoting a inexperienced fund whereas investing in Exxon, you have been merely deceiving your clients.”
We requested Net Zero Asset Managers for touch upon our findings however didn’t obtain a response up to now.
🤝 This article is revealed in collaboration with IrpiMedia; it’s a part of Voxeurop‘s investigation into inexperienced finance and was produced with the assist of the European Media Information Fund (EMIF)
The sole accountability for any content material supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the creator(s) and it might not essentially mirror the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
