In March 2021, Eurizon, the asset management division of Intesa SanPaolo Group, finally <\/span>published a coal exclusion policy<\/a><\/span>. This is very good news, considering how poorly this major asset manager in Europe, with \u20ac354 bln of assets under management and at least $387mn invested in the coal industry (1), <\/span>performed compared to its competitors on coal-related policies<\/span><\/a>. Or is it? Indeed, despite numerous requests for information from NGOs and the press (2) since March, Eurizon has failed to provide any details on the content of the policy, currently very vague, and has said it is \u201cworking to provide an answer\u201d. Beyond the flagrant lack of transparency, this raises concerns about the reality behind the March statement.<\/span> Eurizon declares in its new \u2018sustainability policy\u2019 that it will exclude \u201ccompanies characterized by a clear direct involvement in thermal coal\u201d. Yet, a crucial question remains unanswered: how is \u00ab\u00a0clear direct involvement\u00a0\u00bb defined? Unless ambitious exclusion thresholds – both relative and absolute – are used (3), as well as the right database to identify coal companies (4), Eurizon\u2019s policy could be nothing more than hot air.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it is also unclear if the entire coal value chain – coal mining, power and infrastructure companies – is covered by the criteria and if the exclusion only concerns new investments, or whether Eurizon will divest from certain coal companies.<\/p>\n What is beyond doubt is that Eurizon’s sustainability policy completely ignores the specific need to have zero tolerance for companies with coal expansion plans<\/strong>, contrary to its parent company Intesa SanPaolo, which at least excludes companies that plan to build new coal mines. Over 500 GW of new coal-fired capacity are still in the pipeline<\/a><\/span>: 437 of the 935 companies featured in the GCEL<\/a><\/span> are planning either new coal plants, new coal mines or new coal transport infrastructure. Any of them would be a blatant slap to the Paris Agreement\u2019s climate targets.<\/p>\n Moreover, the policy would unfortunately only apply to a part of actively managed assets<\/strong> – pooled products and not mandates – and would not cover index or \u201cLTE\u201d (limited tracking error) funds. It is unclear what percentage of total current assets is out of scope. While solutions would need to be found to cover existing mandates, Eurizon would need to at least apply the coal exclusion criteria by default to all new mandates to maintain a credible policy.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> It is high time that Intesa SanPaolo\u2019s asset management arm provides more information about its coal policy if it doesn\u2019t want its stakeholders to take it for a mirage. This could be an opportunity to also scale up its exclusion criteria. <\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>