{"id":38648,"date":"2025-12-09T00:01:24","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T23:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/?p=38648"},"modified":"2025-12-31T12:34:43","modified_gmt":"2025-12-31T11:34:43","slug":"asset-managers-off-the-rails-on-climate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/en\/2025\/12\/09\/asset-managers-off-the-rails-on-climate\/","title":{"rendered":"Asset managers off the rails on climate"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a new publication, Reclaim Finance shows that most major asset managers still overwhelmingly support companies pursuing fossil fuel expansion, and that some are even increasingly investing and voting in favor of big fossil fuel developers. The asset managers assessed hold at least 16.9 billion dollars in bonds recently issued by the largest fossil fuel developers, and their votes have once again approved 81% of resolutions validating the actions of these companies’ boards of directors this year. These practices threaten the long-term interests of their clients, who are exposed to systemic climate-related risks. Reclaim Finance urges institutional investors to strengthen their dialogue with their managers and to make asset manager selection conditional on compliance with climate science-based requirements.<\/p>\n<\/div>

Reclaim Finance has published a new analysis<\/a><\/span> that exposes the climate practices of 30 major European and US asset managers, assessing their support for the 75 largest thermal coal developers and the 75 largest oil and gas upstream developers. The assessment evaluates their investments and voting policies, as well as their actual votes and fossil bond investments. The analysis focuses specifically on fossil fuel expansion, which climate science has clearly established as incompatible with a credible 1.5\u00b0C trajectory. (1)<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Massive and persistent investments in fossil fuel expansion<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

The asset managers assessed collectively hold at least 16.9 billion dollars in 157 bonds issued by the largest fossil fuel developers between the 1st of January 2024 and the 30th June 2025. Vanguard and BlackRock remain the two largest fossil fuel investors, with 4.2 billion and 2.9 billion dollars respectively.<\/p>\n

Some asset managers are yet to move away from thermal coal. For instance, Amundi still holds recent bonds from Glencore; and AXA IM from China Energy Investment Corporation. (2) In total, the asset managers in scope hold at least 1.2 billion dollars in newly issued bonds from thermal coal developers.<\/p>\n

Among the 30 players assessed, only Ostrum Asset Management stands out by not holding any recent bonds issued by the largest fossil fuel developers. Aviva Investors, BNP Paribas AM (3), Generali AM, and Nordea AM also invested to a lesser extent in fossil fuel developers, with less than 30 million dollars held in these bonds.<\/p>\n

And these bond investments, which are one of the main financing sources for fossil fuel developers, (4) could continue or even increase. 20 of the 30 asset managers assessed have no investments restrictions regarding coal developers. (5) In the oil and gas sector, only BNP Paribas AM and Nordea AM partially exclude developers. In particular, the expansion of liquefied natural gas export terminals is never excluded by policies assessment.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Votes largely in favor of the management of fossil fuel developers<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Major asset managers still overwhelmingly approve the actions of the boards of directors of the largest fossil fuel developers. Overall, they vote in favor of 81% of director re-elections and board discharges, (6) thereby endorsing the fossil fuel expansion strategies that are pursued by these companies. Among the biggest supporters are US managers: State Street Investment Management, Fidelity Investments, BlackRock, and Vanguard. Only Amundi (opposing 55% of resolutions) and BNP Paribas AM (44%) stand out slightly, (7) but remain far behind Union Investment, which demonstrates an almost systematic opposition (95%).<\/p>\n

Most asset managers assessed also continue to approve the remuneration of fossil fuel developers’ top executives. In total, they vote in favor of 69% of remuneration-related resolutions.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that some asset managers, like Swiss Life AM or Eurizon AM, do not publish their rationales, (8) while those who do often do not mention climate-related reasons. LGIM and AXA IM are the asset managers that most often explain their opposition to the actions of the board of directors by climate-related rationales.<\/p>\n

Finally, almost all asset managers assessed (26 out of 30) have no voting guidelines to oppose fossil fuel developers. Only Union Investment has made a strong commitment to penalize these companies, even though the manager continues to hold significant investments in the companies sanctioned by these votes. (9)<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

A trend towards strengthened supports for fossil fuel expansion<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Compared to last year, investment and voting policies have remained almost unchanged: only Nordea AM has improved its investment policy by introducing partial exclusions in the coal and oil and gas sectors.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the analysis reveals an explosion in bond investments issued by oil and gas developers in 2025, with a 78% increase in investments held by the 25 managers assessed over the two consecutive years. (10) Almost all managers show a sharp increase in their investments held in recent oil and gas bonds, notably BlackRock (+54%), Janus Henderson (+307%), AXA IM (+250%), Amundi (+150%), and LGIM (+123%). On the contrary, some asset managers show that choosing a downward investment trajectory is possible: Aberdeen (-26%), Allianz Global Investors (-58%), Fidelity International (-32%) et Schroders (-38%).<\/p>\n

The voting practices of most asset managers assessed last year have not improved in 2025, with the overall level of opposition remaining broadly similar.(11) For some managers, however, there has been a decline in voting practices for key companies.\u202fFor example, regarding Shell, Amundi voted against 4 members of the board of directors and the \u201cSay on Climate\u201d resolution (12) in 2024, compared to only 1 director in 2025. Similarly, regarding ExxonMobil, DWS voted against the re-election of 11 directors in 2024, compared to only 4 in 2025.<\/p>\n<\/div>

Given the persistence of dangerous climate practices by major asset managers, it is time for their clients, institutional investor, to sanction asset managers that do not protect their portfolios from growing climate-related financial risks.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>

See full assessment<\/span><\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Notes:<\/h3><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
    \n
  1. The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that any new fossil fuel project threatens our chances of limiting global warming to 1.5\u00b0C. And projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, shows that it is possible to meet global energy needs and stay within the 1.5\u00b0C target. This requires halting in particular new thermal coal projects, new oil and gas fields, and new liquefied natural gas export terminals.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. China Energy Investment Corporation is held by a joint venture in which AXA IM is involved.<\/li>\n
  3. The fossil fuel bonds identified for BNP Paribas AM were bought on the secondary market. They illustrate the weaknesses of the manager\u2019s oil and gas policy: by focusing on bonds on the primary market, BNP Paribas AM still allows itself to buy and thus hold obligations from the secondary market, and provied this support to oil and gas developers.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. In 2024 and 2023, according to the <\/span>Banking On Climate Chaos report<\/a><\/span>, bonds issuances represented 51% of the financing sources of companies involved in fossil fuel expansion, for a total amount of 391 billions of dollars.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Some managers do not have any sector policies on coal. This applies to Capital Group, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs AM, Janus Henderson, Loomis Sayles, PIMCO, State Street IM, and Vanguard.<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. The discharge of the board of directors is a decision approved by shareholders that acknowledges the good management of the company by the members of board of directors for a designated time period.<\/span><\/li>\n
  7. Also, Aegon AM, Loomis Sayles and Swiss Life AM only disclose or exercise voting rights for a limited number of resolutions, while they could use their voting rights to sanction fossil fuel expansion strategies.<\/span><\/li>\n
  8. In this article, we consider both \u201cAgainst\u201d and \u201cWithhold\u201d votes as opposition votes.<\/span>\u202f<\/span><\/li>\n
  9. At the beginning of October 2025, Union Investment held 138 million dollars in investments in fossil fuel developers such as TotalEnergies, BP, Eni, and Saudi Aramco.<\/span><\/li>\n
  10. This percentage was calculated based only on 25 asset managers, because the other five managers assessed were added this year and were not assessed in last year \u2018s analysis.<\/span><\/li>\n
  11. However, the comparison remains limited because Reclaim Finance’s scope of analysis was changed slightly this year to now include thermal coal mine developers.<\/span>\u202f<\/span><\/li>\n
  12. \u201cSay on Climate\u201d resolutions are resolutions proposed by a company with the aim of submitting their climate strategy to a shareholder vote, which is mostly non-binding.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

    Read also<\/h2><\/div>
    <\/div><\/div>