Insurance certificates reveal the central role that Lloyd’s of London insurers, including Hiscox’s ‘ESG’ sub-syndicate, play in underwriting the massive expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in the US Gulf South. This raises greenwashing concerns and highlights the glaring lack of adequate fossil fuel policies, including on LNG, from Lloyd’s and Hiscox.
‘ESG’ syndicate supporting new LNG
Woodside Louisiana LNG (also known as Louisiana LNG) is an LNG export terminal under construction in Calcasieu, Louisiana, owned by Woodside Energy. It is planned to be completed by the end of 2029 and has the fourth-largest capacity of LNG terminals currently under construction globally. (1)
A liability insurance certificate covering Woodside Louisiana LNG between October 8th 2024 and 1st May 2025 (2), obtained by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) through open record requests, reveals the involvement of 14 different Lloyd’s syndicates (3) – most notably Hiscox’s ESG sub-syndicate 3033, alongside others including Beazley, Tokio Marine Kiln and Talbot. A new certificate covering 2025/26 has been obtained which confirms Lloyd’s syndicates are still underwriting the project, though does not list them (4).
LNG expansion: a major threat to the net zero goal
According to the latest figures from the International Gas Union from May 2025, gas companies continue to focus on developing new LNG production capacity: if they obtain final investment decisions for their new terminals, LNG production capacity could triple in the coming years (5). These dangerous expansion plans run counter to the projections of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario, in which the sharp decrease in global natural gas demand means that many of the LNG projects currently under construction are no longer necessary. (6)
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)’s Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard (FINZ) also makes it clear that insurers continuing to underwrite new fossil fuel projects, including new LNG terminals, cannot be considered to be aligned with the goal of reaching net zero. (7)
Woodside LNG far from being an ‘ESG’ worthy project
There are also concerns specifically about the Woodside LNG terminal and questions as to how it could be meeting ESG criteria. One of these is its impacts on health: according to the US Department of Energy, “pollutants such as methane, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and others lead to higher mortality rates in communities where oil and gas are extracted and processed – a problem that, absent regulatory intervention, will only get worse, if volumes of LNG exports continue to dramatically increase”. (8)
LNG export terminals have also had severe impacts on commercial fishing in Southwest Louisiana, on which many local communities depend. (9)
Meanwhile Woodside Energy, the Australian company behind the project, has come under criticism by labour unions for a series of safety incidents at its sites in Australia – in 2024 the company had a ‘total recordable injury rate’ triple the average for the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. (10)
Hiscox’s ESG 3033 sub-syndicate claims that it provides “insurance capacity exclusively awarded to businesses delivering exceptional ESG performance” against ESG criteria “assessed externally by independent experts” (11). But the facts highlighted above raise serious concerns about greenwashing for a so-called ‘ESG syndicate’.
“ESG” syndicates at Lloyd’s: real action or greenwash?
Lloyd’s has been keen to position itself as an active player in the sustainable energy transition with its ‘Insuring the transition’ roadmap and though chairing the Sustainable Markets Initiative’s Insurance Task Force (12). Various ‘ESG’ or ‘Green’ syndicates have been set up, including Hiscox’s ESG syndicate 3033, Beazley’s ESG syndicate 4321 and Ariel Green. Yet without consistent and transparent fossil fuel policies, these syndicates raise greenwashing concerns.
In addition, Lloyd’s has failed to take even the first steps in the transition away from fossil fuels. It has no market-wide mandatory policies on even the dirtiest fuels like coal, tar sands and Arctic oil and gas. This places Lloyd’s as an outlier in Europe, with all major European (re)insurers excluding risks related to new and expanded coal mines, coal power plants and upstream oil and gas. (13)
Lloyd’s promises to support the transition must be accompanied by real action to end the market’s support for new and expanded fossil fuel infrastructure, including LNG terminals. Finally, without a stronger commitment from Hiscox to cease the underwriting of new and expanded oil and gas projects, including LNG terminals, its ESG syndicate remains a hollow attempt to green its brand while continuing business as usual.
