{"id":39255,"date":"2026-02-17T08:00:50","date_gmt":"2026-02-17T07:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/?p=39255"},"modified":"2026-02-17T09:45:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T08:45:36","slug":"erafps-new-climate-commitments-progress-or-window-dressing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/en\/2026\/02\/17\/erafps-new-climate-commitments-progress-or-window-dressing\/","title":{"rendered":"ERAFP’s new climate commitments: progress or window dressing?"},"content":{"rendered":"

When updating its fossil fuel policy at the end of January (1), the French pension body \u00c9tablissement de Retraite Additionnelle de la Fonction Publique (ERAFP) missed an opportunity to break truly with fossil fuel expansion. While the institution is ending bond investments for most developers of new oil and gas fields, exceptions remain for some of them, notably TotalEnergies. The measures adopted also omit two major issues: liquefied natural gas and climate selection of external asset managers. Reclaim Finance welcomes ERAFP’s new commitments but calls on the institution to cease all supports for fossil fuel expansion in order to protect civil servants’ pensions from the impacts of climate change.<\/p>\n<\/div>

ERAFP is the public institution that manages the supplementary pension scheme for permanent civil servants in the state, local\u00a0<\/span>authorities<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>and hospital<\/span>s<\/span>, as well as magistrates. At the end of 2024,\u00a0<\/span>ERAFP<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>manage<\/span>d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>EUR\u00a0<\/span>48 billion in assets invested in the financial markets. In 2025, Reclaim Finance revealed in a\u00a0<\/span><\/span>report<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0that ERAFP and other\u00a0<\/span>key\u00a0<\/span>French pension<\/span>\u00a0bodies<\/span>\u00a0continued to support the development of fossil fuels through their investments, votes, and choice of asset managers.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

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

A partial halt to oil and gas bond investments<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

ERAFP announced that it will stop investing in bonds issued by companies developing new oil and gas fields in 2026, rather than 2030 as originally planned. This is a welcome move, as it\u00a0covers\u00a0the vast majority of oil and gas producers and developers. However, ERAFP can still invest in companies that are harmful to the climate, as an exception is provided until 2030 for European companies whose capital expenditures\u00a0aligned with the European green taxonomy\u00a0represent\u00a0at least 25% on average over the last three years.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In\u00a0practical\u00a0terms, ERAFP will be able to invest until 2030 in\u00a0bonds issued by companies\u00a0such as\u00a0<\/span>TotalEnergies\u00a0(2)\u00a0and Repsol,<\/span>\u00a0even though these financial products are one of their main sources of financing (3) and these companies are among the largest oil and gas producers in the world (4).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The geographical exception is not consistent with the IPCC scenarios and the\u00a0<\/span>Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) scenario of the International Energy Agency<\/a><\/span>, which emphasize the global need to halt the development of new oil and gas fields\u00a0in order to\u00a0limit global warming to 1.5\u00b0C, the target set by ERAFP\u00a0itself\u00a0(5).\u00a0To guarantee energy security (6), as the institution aims to do, it is urgent to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the vast majority of which are imported.\u00a0To achieve this, investment in sustainable energy is necessary but cannot be based solely on\u00a0Taxonomy-aligned\u00a0investments: it must be directed towards sustainable activities and not granted to companies that use\u00a0bonds\u00a0to finance their fossil fuel activities.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, ERAFP’s new commitments do not cover\u00a0midstream\u00a0oil and gas, including new liquefied natural gas export terminals, even though\u00a0<\/span>their expansion threatens the climate, biodiversity, and the health of local communities<\/a><\/span>. Conversely,\u00a0Ircantec, another\u00a0French\u00a0pension\u00a0body, no longer invests in the developers of these terminals, and\u00a0<\/span>several\u00a0French\u00a0life insurers<\/a><\/span>\u00a0have also made the same\u00a0commitment\u00a0for their bond investments.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

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

External asset managers with climate-wrecking practices<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

ERAFP delegates the management of 70% of its investments to external asset managers.\u00a0<\/span>Some of these managers engage in particularly dangerous practices<\/a><\/span>, such as\u00a0<\/span>BlackRock<\/a><\/span>, a staunch supporter of the fossil fuel industry, also known for its climate\u00a0backtracking\u00a0(7). Their practices undermine ERAFP’s climate efforts and\u00a0exacerbate\u00a0the systemic climate-related financial risks that threaten the global economy, portfolios, and future pensions.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, ERAFP’s new policy does not include any criteria for selecting external managers based on their support for fossil fuels. ERAFP recently joined a coalition of institutional investors engaging their managers on climate issues (8), but\u00a0still does not have\u00a0a structured approach to selecting and engaging its\u00a0external\u00a0managers on climate issues\u00a0and does not demand them to\u00a0end\u00a0new\u00a0investments in fossil fuel expansion.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Several\u00a0asset owners\u00a0are already\u00a0taking action. For example, Dutch pension funds PFZW and PME withdrew mandates from BlackRock for sustainability reasons at the end of 2025. More recently,\u00a0Pr\u00e9fon,\u00a0another French pension body, delisted 13 funds from its life insurance product, including a BlackRock fund, because of their insufficient sustainability practices.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

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

The great uncertainty surrounding shareholder dialogue and voting<\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

Despite the adoption of new restrictive measures representing progress (9), ERAFP deliberately maintains some oil and gas companies in its equity portfolio without defining a clear engagement strategy to halt their fossil fuel expansion.<\/p>\n

ERAFP still does not have a robust voting policy for companies pursuing fossil fuel expansion, such as systematically voting against the re-election of directors and executive compensation (10). The institution therefore risks inconsistency by supporting the management of companies in which it currently refuses to invest. Nor does the institution adopt an escalation strategy with specific actions and deadlines to engage these companies.<\/p>\n

ERAFP’s new commitments are a step in the right direction, but there is still some way to go before the institution ends all support for fossil fuel expansion. To protect current and future civil servant pensions, ERAFP must take robust measures regarding its investments, votes, and choice of external managers.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

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

Notes:<\/h3><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
    \n
  1. E<\/span>RAFP, 28\u00a0January\u00a02025,\u00a0press\u00a0release,\u00a0<\/span>L\u2019ERAFP actualise sa politique fossiles<\/a><\/span>\u00a0(in French\u00a0only)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. TotalEnergies publishes two calculation methods for its green taxonomic investments, one allowing it to comply with the threshold imposed by ERAFP and the other not. ERAFP does not indicate in its policy which method is used, but when asked by Reclaim Finance, the institution stated that it favors the method that still allows it to invest in the company although letting asset manager decide which methodolody to use.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. For more information, you can consult the <\/span>report Banking On Climate Chaos<\/a><\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Urgewald, <\/span>Global Oil and Gas Exit List<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. In its climate policy published in 2024, the institution states: \u201cERAFP has adopted a climate policy that is integrated into its responsible investment policy, in order to finance an economy that is compatible with scenarios limiting global warming to 1.5\u00b0C by 2100 with little or no overshoot.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. The NZE scenario addresses the issue of energy security. It is the only IEA scenario that allows global warming to be limited to 1.5\u00b0C while meeting global energy demand, and this requires halting the development of new oil and gas fields.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  7. BlackRock left in January 2025 the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, an alliance of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Between July 2023 and June 2024, BlackRock supported only 4% of shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues, a figure that has been declining for several years.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  8. Net Zero Investor, October 20\u00a02025,\u00a0<\/span>Eight new asset owners sign statement outlining asset manager climate expectations<\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  9. ERAFP has reduced its eligibility threshold for equity investments in unconventional oil and gas companies to 15% of\u00a0turnover, and\u00a0has frozen its equity exposure to oil and gas producers.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>The pension body also lowered\u00a0the\u00a0eligibility\u00a0threshold\u00a0for\u00a0companies\u00a0involved\u00a0in thermal\u00a0coal\u00a0from\u00a05% to 1% of turnover.\u00a0However, no\u00a0commitment\u00a0has been made for\u00a0companies\u00a0involved\u00a0in\u00a0metallurgical\u00a0coal,\u00a0even\u00a0though\u00a0<\/span>it\u00a0poses\u00a0a\u00a0major\u00a0climate\u00a0risk\u00a0and\u00a0decarbonization\u00a0technologies are\u00a0now\u00a0available<\/a><\/span>.\u202f<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  10. These resolutions are present at every annual general meeting, unlike shareholder resolutions and Say-on-Climate votes, which are rare and even declining. Furthermore, according to academic research, votes on these strategic resolutions motivated by climate considerations are an effective lever for influencing corporate strategy and governance. For more information, see the following papers from the Cambridge University: <\/span>Evidence-based climate impact: A financial product framework<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u202fand\u202f<\/span>Universal Ownership in Practice: A Practical Investment Framework for Asset Owners<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

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