- AXA IM announced new exclusion criteria for unconventional oil and companies, following its parent company. Our research based on the GOGEL database shows the criteria don’t cover companies responsible for more than half of all planned oil and gas expansion.
- AXA IM’s engagement policy now sets a time-bound engagement period for “climate laggards”. However, is it unclear what are the “clear demands” that will be made and if any red lines have been defined to avoid leaving three full years to the most polluting companies.
For Lara Cuvelier, sustainable investments campaigner at Reclaim Finance:
“AXA IM has previously shown climate leadership, as one of the only Net Zero Asset Manager Initiative (NZAMI) members to have adopted a robust coal exit policy. Now, after reiterating last week its commitment to become “net zero” by 2050, AXA IM is now tackling the oil and gas issue, with mixed results. AXA IM took a step forward today with new exclusion criteria for unconventional oil & gas, following the steps of its parent company AXA. Unfortunately, however, the asset manager has failed to follow IEA guidelines and stop supporting fossil fuel expansion: AXA IM can still support the companies responsible for more than 56% of currently planned oil and gas expansion. “
“Beyond these new criteria, it’s positive that AXA IM reaffirms that engagement should be coupled with divestment, and thus that all oil and gas companies will be subject to the threat of divestment. But the three-year engagement period for climate laggards is too long and details of red lines for exclusions are hazy. What will be the “clear demands” made to these companies? Have they been defined? The correct answer is hiding in plain sight: AXA IM should exclude companies opening new oil and gas fields.”