An investigative report has unveiled that European investment funds marketed as “green” are holding over $33 billion in major fossil fuel companies, contradicting the very principles they claim to uphold. This paradox raises critical questions about the integrity and effectiveness of sustainable investing. Notably, funds branded with titles like Sustainable Global Stars and Europe Climate Pathway have come under scrutiny for their substantial investments in the very industries driving the climate crisis.
The investigation, conducted by Voxeurop and The Guardian, highlighted that more than $18 billion is channelled into the five largest polluters: TotalEnergies, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP, which dominate the 2023 Carbon Majors rankings. In addition to these giants, the funds also include stakes in US-based fracking operations like Devon Energy and Canadian tar sands developer Suncor. This alarming revelation has amplified criticism from environmental advocates who argue that such investments not only contravene the spirit of sustainable finance but also facilitate greenwashing—a term describing the deceptive practice of presenting an environmentally responsible image while engaging in environmentally harmful activities.
Asset managers contend that holding shares in these firms enables them to exert influence and guide these corporations toward greener practices. However, recent findings from Carbon Tracker suggest otherwise. Their April report indicated that no major oil and gas producer is currently aligned with international climate targets and many firms have weakened their commitments over the past year.
Prominent investment firms, including JP Morgan, BlackRock, and DWS in Germany, have been identified as the largest stakeholders in these “green” investments. While they have not violated the EU's Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)—which does not explicitly prohibit fossil fuel holdings in certain fund classifications—the narrative that accompanies their sustainable branding has come under fire. Giorgia Ranzato, sustainable finance manager at Transport & Environment, stated that “for a fund claiming to be ‘green’, holding investments in major fossil fuel companies should be a red line.” She emphasised that investing in firms that do not make substantial contributions to the energy transition undermines the legitimacy of green finance.
Despite the findings, some asset managers maintain that they manage their funds according to regulatory guidelines and funnel investments towards decarbonisation. A spokesperson for BlackRock noted, “Our sustainable funds are managed in line with applicable regulations governing sustainable investing.” In contrast, the investigation found that a potential rebranding of certain funds is underway; asset manager Robeco announced it would remove “sustainable” from its fund title after being contacted by The Guardian.
This discourse is amplified by a backdrop of evolving regulatory frameworks. The ESMA has recently called for stricter guidelines and has proposed measures that would require funds to demonstrate their environmental commitments more explicitly, particularly as they relate to investments in coal and oil. Effective from May 2025, these recommendations aim to mitigate greenwashing practices, compelling funds to reassess their portfolios. The measures have sparked debate; many stakeholders, including Paul Schreiber from Reclaim Finance, advocate for outright prohibitions on fossil fuel investments within any ESG-related fund.
The complexities of green finance are further exacerbated by differing national regulations. For instance, France has established stringent guidelines that could enforce divestments from fossil fuels for funds displaying its socially responsible (ISR) label. These developments point to a burgeoning divergence in sustainability standards across Europe, potentially complicating compliance for funds operating in multiple jurisdictions.
Compounding the issue, an analysis of approximately 14,000 European funds has revealed that around 5,000 are engaged in fossil fuel investments, totalling over €123 billion. This staggering amount underscores the challenge facing regulators who seek to define and enforce genuine sustainable investment practices amid accusations that the ESG label has been diluted by inconsistent interpretations and applications.
The impending deadline for the ESMA’s new guidelines, along with growing scrutiny from advocacy groups and regulatory bodies, suggests that the landscape of sustainable investing in Europe might soon witness a significant transformation. However, sceptics remain wary, asserting that without more stringent enforcement and a clear delineation between genuinely green investments and those that merely project an eco-conscious facade, the promise of sustainable finance may remain unfulfilled.
As the world grapples with escalating climate crises, the urgency for transparent, accountable investment practices has never been clearer. Stakeholders are increasingly calling for meaningful commitment and actionable policies to drive real change, aligning financial practices with the imperatives of sustainability and ethical investing.
Reference Map
- All paragraphs
- Paragraphs 2, 3, 8
- Paragraphs 7, 10
- Paragraphs 9, 10
- Paragraphs 5, 10
- Paragraphs 3, 6, 10
- Paragraphs 4, 6, 9
Source: Noah Wire Services