TotalEnergies’ investor days are being held today and tomorrow, in a context marked by the energy crisis and the debates on \u201csuperprofits\u201d. On this occasion, Reclaim Finance and Climate Votes (1)<\/b> reveal which of Total\u2019s shareholders approved its \u00ab\u00a0climate\u00a0\u00bb plan in May, which includes the development of many new oil and gas projects and thus goes against the recommendations to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C. The French major is also facing legal action (2)<\/b> for failing to meet its climate due diligence obligations and was targeted in a European Parliament resolution this month for human rights violations in relation to its EACOP and Tilenga projects in East Africa (3)<\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Reclaim Finance and Climate Votes accessed information from the Insightia database, which aggregates votes at shareholders’ meetings and voting justifications (4). As not all investors publish this information, the data available through Insightia remains partial. However, it is sufficient to identify trends. The following conclusions are drawn from an analysis of 221 investors.<\/p>\n<\/div> Among the largest investors, a minority, including LGIM, Nordea and Schroders, voted against TotalEnergies’ climate plan at the last AGM. Meanwhile, the majority of shareholders (5), including Amundi, AXA IM, BNP Paribas AM and BlackRock (6), approved the plan, despite their commitment to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C.<\/p>\n As a reminder, TotalEnergies is the 7th company in the world to plan the largest number of new oil and gas projects (7). Far from bringing investors closer to their climate objectives, this vote goes against what is expected of them as Net Zero Asset Manager Initiative (NZAM) (8) members: namely, to adopt a transition plan by June 2023 with guarantees on how they support the end of fossil fuel expansion and work towards a fossil fuel phase out (9).<\/p>\n Among the few that abstained, two other major investors appear: Aviva Investors and DWS.<\/p>\n<\/div> *For the majority of their assets under management.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Common concerns emerge among shareholders who abstained or voted against TotalEnergies’ climate plan. We summarized them:<\/p>\n TotalEnergies’ most controversial project, EACOP, is the tip of the iceberg of the company’s expansion plans. The major\u2019s strategy, which some investors believe is ahead of its European peers, is nevertheless the one that plans the most new oil and gas supply projects. These new projects mean that the share of renewables in its energy mix will be limited to less than 15% by 2030. Investors are also rightly concerned that TotalEnergies’ commitments are not science-based and will not contribute to limiting warming to 1.5\u00b0C. In the short term, more than 70% of the company’s investments are focused on oil and gas. As a result, TotalEnergies will have emitted 31.8% more GHG than its share of the remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C (10).<\/p>\n<\/div> On the other side of the picture, investors who voted for the \u00ab\u00a0climate\u00a0\u00bb plan justified their vote via one of these reasons:<\/p>\n These justifications, and in particular the first three, show that investors almost automatically endorse oil and gas majors\u2019 climate plans, even when they are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5\u00b0C.\u00a0 Indeed:<\/p>\n As for reason 4, one can only deplore the double talk of shareholders who make such a statement when their collective analysis of TotalEnergies’ commitments concludes that the French major’s strategy is not aligned (11). As a reminder, Amundi, BlackRock, and BNP AM have committed to reducing their emissions by 50% by 2030, while TotalEnergies is only planning to reduce its emissions by 6 to 7% by 2030.<\/p>\n<\/div> As the dual inflationary and energy crisis urges us to organize a fossil fuel phase out, the investors that blindly support TotalEnergies today may tomorrow be held accountable for their responsibility in climate chaos and resulting social and economic injustices.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Largest TotalEnergies\u2019 shareholders vote against climate<\/h1><\/span>
Sample of TotalEnergies shareholder votes:<\/h1><\/span>
\n\n
\n \nAsset managers<\/th>\n Votes on TotalEnergies’ climate plan
(\u00ab\u00a0For\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0Against\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0Abstain\u00a0\u00bb)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n Allianz Global Investors<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Amundi<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n AXA<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n BlackRock Inc.<\/td>\n For*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n BNP Paribas Asset Management<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Capital Group<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n DWS Investement GmbH<\/td>\n Abstain*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n HSBC Global Asset Management<\/td>\n For*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Legal & General Investment Management<\/td>\n Against<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Nordea Bank Oyj<\/td>\n Against<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Schroders PLC<\/td>\n Against<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc<\/td>\n For<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n UBS Asset Management<\/td>\n For*<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Votes \u2018against\u2019: using voting power to drive climate action<\/h1><\/span>
\n
Votes \u2018for\u2019: breaching net-zero commitments for more dividends<\/h1><\/span>
\n
\n