Job Title: Operations Administrator (Finance)
Salary: £31,200 pro rata FTE
Hours: 21 hours per week (3 days)
Place of work: Remote
Contract type: Permanent
Application closing date: Tuesday 4th April (midnight)
Interview date: Thursday 13th April
Start date (negotiable): 12th June
Coal Action Network is seeking an experienced operations administrator, with a particular focus on finance, to support a small but growing flat-structured staff team following our transition to a formalised employer status with PAYE.
As well as carrying out daily tasks to maintain the organisation's finances and legal compliance as an employer, you will be empowered to improve, design, and implement systems to make the organisation function optimally.
As part of a non hierarchical organisation you will have equal agency as other members of CAN in key decisions affecting the organisation . Upon passing probationary period, you will have the option to become a Co-Director of the organisation.
Please read Recruitment pack Operations Administrator (Finance) before applying for this role. This includes Role Responsibilities and Person Specification, and more details on the application process.
The application closing date is Tuesday 4th April (midnight)
Job Title: Campaigner: Fossil Fuel Insurance (UK)
Salary: £31,200 pro rata FTE
Hours: 21 hours per week (3 days)
Place of work: Remote
Contract type: Permanent
Application closing date: Tuesday 18th April (midnight)
Interview date: Thursday 27th April
Start date (negotiable): 26th June
You will play a key role in ending insurance cover for fossil fuel projects by challenging the world’s biggest energy insurer, Lloyd’s of London, and its members. This new unique role will also leverage CAN’s insurance campaigning capacities to win critical fights against UK coal mines. Your work will centre frontline communities impacted by coal and fossil fuel projects and amplify their voices.
You will work in a team alongside three other insurance campaigners, liaising as necessary with CAN’s UK coal campaigning team. In our non-hierarchical structure you will hold equal agency in decisions affecting the organisation, and, after your probationary period is passed, you will have the option to become a voluntary Co-Director, sharing legal responsibility for the organisation.
If aspects of the Role Description are unfamiliar to you, please see the 'Non-essential' section of the Person Specification for details of what you can learn on the job.
Please read Recruitment pack Fossil Fuel Finance Campaigner (UK)-3 before applying for the role.
This includes Role Responsibilities and Person Specification, a background to the role plus further information on the application process.
Deadline for applications is midnight Tuesday 18th April 2023
Today we delivered Coedie's message and thousands others from around the world in the form of 6ft tall talking valentines cards, to all three of Probitas 1492's UK offices: Lloyds of London, Lime Street (London), and Manchester.
We want to make sure they can't ignore indigenous communities, and people all over the planet who will be impacted by this climate bomb. Check out some pictures from our action, your messages, and how to get involved in keeping the pressure on Probitas.
Printed inside the card: a lot of love for the planet and for the community resistance - not a lot of love for Probitas.
We need to show Probitas that the global movement against Adani won’t let them get away with their involvement. Will you join us and ramp up the pressure we’re placing on them?
We're asking our supporters to sign up to take regular action, emailing staff at Probitas over their companies role in enabling this carbon bomb. We'll be sending you new contact details at every few days – no two people will be receiving the same staff to contact. This tactic means that together we can contact more staff, and be as effective as possible in turning up the heat. Let's convince them to stop insuring climate breakdown.
As always, we'll be providing you with example emails to use & help along the way.
When we’ve taken action together, the #StopAdani movement has won against insurers and brokers again and again - now the industry knows it's one of the most controversial projects in the world. We need to make sure this climate-wrecking project has nowhere left to go.
Let’s make sure Probitas knows what it’s getting into: send your message today.
Analysing 30 leading primary insurers and reinsurers, assessing their policies on insuring and investing in coal, oil, gas, the 6th Annual Scorecard cuts through the greenwash and sorts the meanest from the greenest. The report highlights progress and loopholes, calls out leaders and laggards, and identifies challenges and opportunities for the year ahead.
The number of coal exit policies has grown from 35 to 41 this past year, with major US insurers known for their role in fossil fuels AIG and Travelers finally getting on board. The market share of insurers with coal exclusions has reached 62% in the reinsurance and 39% in the primary insurance markets.
In terms of new power stations, this is good news: according to the report many of the key laggards that are continuing to underwrite new coal projects lack the capacity and expertise involved in insuring complex large-scale new coal power plants.
There is still a lot of work to do: many companies still have no policies excluding coal, and some of those that do extend only to power stations and thermal coal mines, not coking coal mines. Meanwhile Lloyds of London's coal exclusion guideleines are non-mandatory, and they take on 40% of the global energy market.
Insurance company restrictions on oil and gas are only just starting to catch up with those on coal. The new report shows 13 companies have adopted oil and gas restrictions, compared with 41 on coal.
Be it in the IPCC’s 1.5°C report, the IEA’s Net Zero Roadmap or the One Earth Climate Model, climate scientists are clear that there is no space for any new coal, oil or gas projects in credible pathways to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Yet most insurance companies have not taken this scientific evidence on board and continue to offer support to projects and companies expanding oil and gas production
Some insurers like Liberty Mutual, Chubb and Tokio Marine have adopted some restrictions on coal but actively insure the expansion of the oil and gas industry.
For the second year running, companies were ranked on their policies of Free, Prior and Informed consent: i.e. do they support projects that are in conflict with communities, and respect the right of communities to say no?
In summary, very few of them commit to anything like this.
While Allianz and Swiss Re mention of the right to Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) in their policies, AXIS Capital was the first insurer to adopt an explicit policy “to not provide insurance coverage on projects undertaken on indigenous territories without FPIC” in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The policy marks an important breakthrough for the recognition of Indigenous rights and other insurers should emulate it.
“So far, there hasn’t been real regulatory pressure. And there hasn’t been market pressure … as in the short term, it’s still a profitable business. So we think public pressure has really made an essential difference”
- Lindsay Keenan, Insure Our Future (the Guardian)
Not only does this make the pipeline harder to finance, it also informs insurance companies about the damaging impacts of oil and gas pipelines, and is part of the movement to shift the whole industry away from fossil fuels.Sign up here to commit taking regular action with us - it's easy to do from home!
Along with our partners in the #StopEACOP coalition, Coal Action Network has been targetting insurers to turn the tide on fossil fuel insurance. This month, QBE, Suncorp, Generali, Aspen and Helvetia stated that they will not be providing insurance support to the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
They follow five other insurance companies who ruled out the project in recent months, making 18 insurance companies who have ruled it out overall. QBE and Suncorp are two of Australia's biggest insurers. Generali is Italy's biggest insurer.
In addition, Italy’s largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo, Germany’s second largest bank DZ Bank, as well as Natixis from France, have joined the growing list of banks that have ruled out direct finance for the EACOP project, bringing the total to 24. Spanish bank Santander is also understood not to be financing the project, which would be precluded as part of the bank's Environmental, Social and Climate Change Risk Management Policy.
Is the EACOP project looking less and less viable? There are now no French banks backing EACOP (Total Energies being a French company), and these refusals are coming from the company's former backers.
“With so many of Total’s financiers out of the running to join the $2.5 billion project loan the EACOP needs to proceed, the pressure is growing on those few that remain. This includes South Africa’s Standard Bank, Japan’s SMBC and MUFG, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China, as well as UK’s Standard Chartered, which as chair of the Net Zero Banking Alliance should not be going anywhere near new oil projects of any kind, especially not one as mired in human rights and environmental damage as this.”
-Ryan Brightwell, Campaign Lead Banks and Human Rights at BankTrack
EACOP has been condemned by the European parliament for its associated human rights abuses in Uganda and Tanzania. The pipeline and associated Tilenga oil field are expected to displace almost 118,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania, and since last week nine peaceful protestors were arrested following a student-led peaceful demonstration against EACOP in Kampala, Uganda.
“Lending or underwriting to projects that are mired in human rights violations, lacking in free prior and informed consent is wrong, shameful and unacceptable. The (re)insurers and banks that are still considering or are committed to underwriting EACOP cannot claim innocence, they are on the side of the human rights violators and this therefore makes them complicit.”
-Omar Elmawi, co-ordinator of the StopEACOP
Many of the insurance companies which have failed to rule out insurance for EACOP have syndicates at Lloyd’s of London, where the companies behind EACOP have reportedly been looking for insurance cover. These include Arch, AIG, and Chubb to name a few. These insurers must rule out EACOP immediately, to stand against the human rights abuses that are taking place in the name of this climate-wrecking pipeline. Lloyd’s Council urgently needs to commit the marketplace to policies ruling out new fossil fuel projects in alignment with the science on keeping global temperatures below 1.5C warming.
Companies who have not responded to the campaign's requests for comment are:
Aegis London, AIG, Arch, Brit, Canopius, Chaucer, Chubb, Cincinnati, Liberty Mutual, Lancashire Syndicates and Tokio Marine Kiln.
All of these have syndicates at Lloyds of London. The Lloyds council is responsible for regulating the Lloyds Marketplace (see Lloyds explainer here), and could bring in measures to stop fossil fuel projects, and those with human rights abuses, from being targetted.
We can see these tactics are working. But we need all insurance companies to rule out EACOP, and stop the toxic pipeline at its source. Next, we want Arch insurance to rule it out, and we know that constant pressure works.
Sign up here to commit taking regular action with us - it's easy to do from home!
Latin America's biggest coal mine, Cerrejón, is being blocked by protesting members of communities which have been displaced and polluted by coal mining.
The mining multinational Glencore, has not complied with their commitments including to provide clean water for displaced indigenous and afro-descendant communities.
In La Guajira, a remote region in northern Colombia, community defenders are endangering their lives by stepping into a non-violent confrontation with the mining company; activists here are routinely targetted with violence. We must show that the world is watching and that we support the coal-affected communities' demands.
Three actions you can take in solidarity with the communities:
1. Add your voice to demand Glencore respects protestors and meets their demands
2. Attend the blockade via facebook as a show of international solidarity, organised by Colombia Solidarity Campaign
3. Tweet @Glencore so they hear the communities demands:
- Meet with the communities represented at the Cerrejón blockade and return to dialogue with them
- Comply with the government order to provide safe drinking water for communities displaced by Cerrejon and to stop polluting the lands of nearby communities
- Ensure the safety of the community defenders
The defenders will not back down until they get an audience with Glencore. They are asking for international solidarity to get the company's attention and to stay safe.
The communities south of Cerrejón have been impeding the progress of Latin America's biggest coal mine for over 30 years through the courts and local government. Now they are taking non-violent action to stand their ground.
We all owe them our suppoort for their decades long struggle to keep fossil fuels in the ground while safeguarding their right to territorial lands from European colonisation.
Talanx, Germany's third largest insurer, is the latest (re)insurance company to confirm to the #StopEACOP Coalition that they will not (re)insure the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). They join 11 other (re)insurers, including 4 of the world’s biggest (re)insurance companies - Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, and SCOR.
Talanx follows fast in the steps of three other (re)insurers (Argo Group, Axis Capital and RSA Group), who last week also confirmed they would not be involved in underwriting EACOP.
In an email to a member of the StopEACOP campaign, Talanx's Group Strategy and Sustainability Manager, Dr. Jan-Philippe Lüdtke, stated:
"I can now confirm that there is and will be no involvement in EACOP by Talanx or any of its subsidiaries."
This statement implies that Talanx subsidiary, Lloyd’s of London member Argenta Insurance, will also stay away from the controversial EACOP project.
The total number of (re)insurers who have confirmed they would stay away from EACOP is currently 13.
Despite recent media reports claiming that the EACOP has been fully insured through a local consortium, the #StopEACOP Campaign maintains that the project needs substantial international insurance and reinsurance to proceed. See the full statement here.
“More and more (re)insurers are learning about the many problems that EACOP is bringing to the people of Uganda and Tanzania and the health, social, and climate impacts that the pipeline will leave in its wake, and they are wisely distancing themselves from the project. It is time for other (re)insurance companies to follow suit and refuse to be accomplices to such dreadful projects that are premised to only benefit the oil companies Total and China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) at the expense of everyone else,”
- Samuel Okulony, Chief Executive Officer, of Ugandan-based Environment Governance Institute (EGI).
The EACOP project is a climate bomb. Its direction depends on the decisions (re)insurers make today. They have the power to save humanity, to rescue the thousands of people being displaced in Africa, to save the source of the longest river in the world, to save biodiversity that is on the verge of extinction which includes elephants, chimpanzees, giraffes, birds, insects, reptiles, forests, game reserves, rivers and waterfalls that people pay to visit in Africa. All these and more are at their mercy,”
- Hilda Flavia Nakabuye, climate activist and founder of Fridays For Future- Uganda.
“We now have 20 banks, 4 export credit agencies and 13 (re)insurance companies that have confirmed to us that they will not give project financing or underwrite EACOP. The other insurers and banks still considering any involvement in EACOP, like Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Standard Bank-South Africa, and Sumimoto Mitsui Banking Corporation, are putting corporate needs and profits before people’s lives, nature and climate. It is time they choose sides. The whole world is watching and hoping they do what’s right – which is putting people’s lives before corporate greed.”
- Omar Elmawi, Coordinator of the #StopEACOP Coalition
Now Talanx CEO Torsten Leue must adopt a more comprehensive policy that excludes not just EACOP but all other new oil and gas projects. Talanx currently lags behind not just its major rival Allianz but also its own subsidiary Hannover Re, both of which adopted more comprehensive policies earlier this year.
“It is good to see Talanx HDI finally join the growing group of insurers who are snubbing EACOP. However, it is also imperative for the company to produce a sensible, comprehensive oil and gas policy that goes beyond oil sands alone. Instead of publicly advertising its expertise as an insurer of onshore and offshore fossil fuel extraction, Talanx HDI ought to swiftly exclude the complete unconventional sector, and in general, all new projects along the oil & gas value chain to then decisively phase out fossil fuels in line with climate science.”
- Regine Richter, Finance and Insurance Campaigner at Urgewald
Insurance providers Argo Group and Axis Capital, both Lloyd’s of London members, and RSA Insurance Group Limited, a leading UK insurer, have informed the #StopEACOP coalition that they will not be involved in underwriting the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project.
The decision by the three firms brings to 11 the total number of (re)insurers who have committed not to provide insurance coverage for the EACOP project. This is significant because the project needs substantial levels of international (re)insurance to proceed. The firms cite the EACOP project’s potential impact on people, nature and climate as among the reasons for their refusal to underwrite the project.
“We are able to confirm that providing insurance for the EACOP project, its construction, contractors, infrastructure or operation is not within our risk appetite. Therefore, we have not and will not provide insurance services associated with this project.”
- Alex Hindson, Chief Risk & Sustainability Officer, Argo Group
RSA Insurance Group Limited officially communicated that “our underwriters follow our Climate Change and Low Carbon Policy, which means we would not provide cover to the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline.”
Axis Capital noted the insurance firm “…do[es] not support the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline” and also confirmed that they “...do not envisage supporting EACOP in the future,” in email correspondence with Coal Action Network.
The EACOP and the associated Tilenga and Kingfisher oil fields are faced with widespread resistance locally in Uganda and Tanzania and globally, with over 1 million people signing a global petition against the projects. The planned pipeline is displacing tens of thousands of households in Uganda and Tanzania.
“TotalEnergies insists on forging ahead with the EACOP project even in the face of substantial local and global opposition. The company downplays the negative impacts of the project while arguing that the project is good for Uganda’s economic development. The truth is that the project is only good for Total and its shareholders and not the frontline communities facing displacement and human rights violations that have harmed their livelihoods. Financial institutions that are serious about protecting human rights and avoiding climate breakdown should rule out supporting the EACOP.”
- Diana Nabiruma of Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Uganda
The EACOP, its associated upstream oil projects and related infrastructure such as roads, pose a threat to livelihoods, local cultures, sensitive ecosystems and wildlife, including endangered species in the Lake Victoria basin, Budongo forest, Murchison Falls National Park, Biharamulo Game Reserve and others.
The news comes against the backdrop of a worldwide concern that oil companies are making a killing by harming the environment and leaving communities where their projects exist languishing in poverty.
“As oil companies continue their operations in Africa, raking in huge profits, local communities are left to deal with the negative socio-economic and environmental impacts of these exploits. We welcome the move by Argo Group, Axis Capital and RSA not to offer (re)insurance coverage to the EACOP project, a project that not only comes at a huge cost to people, nature and climate but also jeopardizes key sectors that employ the majority of people in Uganda and Tanzania such as agriculture, tourism and fisheries. We call on other financial institutions that are yet to distance themselves from EACOP to do so and seal the fate of this harmful project.”
- Omar Elmawi, Coordinator of the #StopEACOP Coalition
These commitments illustrate the growing level of rejection of the project by international (re)insurers. EACOP can not proceed without international (re)insurance. RSA is a leading UK insurer, while Argo and Axis are members of Lloyd’s of London, the world's largest (re)insurance market. This adds to the pressure on the other Lloyd’s members and the wider insurance market also to reject EACOP. We also call on insurers as investors to proactively support renewable energy projects in Uganda, Tanzania and throughout Africa, where such projects are not in conflict with communities or ecosystems.
In addition to the 11 (re)insurers that have distanced themselves, 20 banks and 4 export credit agencies have committed not to provide project financing for the EACOP project.A recent report noted that the EACOP presents various violations of the IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles in terms of both human rights and climate impacts.
Utilities are struggling to find insurance to build new coal power outside China, finds a report released today by the Insure Our Future campaign and Korean non-profit Solutions for Our Climate, which have obtained documents providing a rare snapshot of the state of the industry.
The insurance contracts for KEPCO, Korea’s national power utility, also reveal that it is having to turn to smaller, inexperienced companies to secure cover for coal power plants that are already in operation as growing numbers of mainstream insurers withdraw from the sector.
“Major international insurers have withdrawn from coal projects and been replaced by a haphazard coalition of the willing, consisting of a few global climate laggards, small speciality insurers and assorted companies from the Global South. Our report exposes Starr, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway, Allied World and Lloyd's of London as the coal industry’s last lifeline."
When KEPCO insured the construction of Nghi Son 2 in March 2018, most international insurers had yet to adopt coal exit policies. The project was underwritten by numerous large multiline and speciality insurers and reinsurers, led by Germany’s Allianz with $1.1 billion.
By October 2021, when KEPCO insured the construction of the 1.2GW Vung Ang 2 plant in Vietnam for a total $4.4 billion, most large international insurers had withdrawn from the coal market. Asian insurers provided 55% of total capacity, led by Japan’s MS&AD with $1.2 billion of cover, North American insurers provided 38% and European insurers 7%.
Half (53%) of the insurance capacity provided to Vung Ang in October 2021 has now been withdrawn from the market with MS&AD, Sompo and Tokio Marine in Japan, Hiscox in the UK and AIG in the US announcing that they will no longer insure new coal projects. China also announced in September 2021 that it will no longer build coal power projects overseas and Chinese insurers are expected to exit the international market.
Five “insurers of last resort” now provide 72% of the capacity for Vung Ang 2 which is still available for new coal projects: US companies Starr, Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual (the only insurer with a coal exit policy that allows it to continue covering new projects); Allied World in Bermuda; and eight other insurers operating in the Lloyd’s market. 5
Lloyd’s of London insurers, which include Allied World and two Liberty Mutual subsidiaries, now provide 37% of the capacity still available to the market. In December 2020, Lloyd’s ruled out insuring new coal projects from 2022 but has since made clear that it will not require insurers in its market to follow the policy.
"These findings make clear that the Lloyd's market, Starr, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway and Allied World are the world’s coal insurers of last resort. At a time when we urgently need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, their reckless support for new coal projects drives us ever closer to unmanageable climate breakdown."
The replacement of large, experienced international insurers with a wide variety of smaller actors also affects the operation of existing coal power plants. In June 2021, KEPCO had to find 24 different insurers to provide $556 million of cover for the operation of its small 206MW Cebu Naga power plant in the Philippines. Eleven were not insuring any other KEPCO projects and one, New India Insurance, lacks the A-credit rating that project financiers typically expect insurers to provide.
Global insurance broker Willis Towers Watson warned as early as January 2019 that “the exodus of many international insurers from the market for coal risks complicates securing property coverage” and “this reduction in available capacity will invariably see upward pressure on rates and coverages.” 6
However, the report also shows that many insurers with coal exit policies are continuing to provide cover for companies such as KEPCO that have no credible plans to phase out coal production. They include leading brands Hannover Re, which only plans to phase out insurance for the biggest coal companies by 2025, SCOR and QBE, which have a 2030 target, and Helvetia, which has no phase-out target.
“KEPCO and other power utilities need to rapidly phase out their coal power fleets in line with global climate targets, and insurance companies should stop insuring power utilities which have no credible phase-out plans. Power utilities and their insurers need to urgently move beyond a pathway which is projected to take the planet to a catastrophic 2.7°C of global warming by the end of the century.”
Only 37% of OECD coal power capacity (100GW) is scheduled to close by 2030 and 6% of non-OECD capacity (100GW) by 2050. 7
The report says that for insurers to align with the Paris target they must:
1 One Earth Climate Model, Sectoral Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions, 18-5-22
2 IEA, Coal power’s sharp rebound is taking it to a new record in 2021, threatening net zero goals, 17-12-21
3 UN, Secretary-General’s closing remarks to Insurance Development Forum, 18-6-21
4 Global Energy Monitor, Global Coal Plant Tracker: Coal-fired Power Capacity By Region, January 2022
5 Beazley, Chaucer, Canopius, Markel, Antares, Cincinnati, AEGIS and W.R. Berkley.
6 Willis Towers Watson, Ready and Waiting? Power and Renewable Energy Market Review 2019
7 Global Energy Monitor, Boom and Bust Coal, April 2022
Lloyd’s of London published its 2021 Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report two days ahead of its Annual General Meeting on May 19.
Lloyd’s second ESG report is a document almost completely lacking in substance which does more to obscure the climate destroying actions of its members than to shed light on how it intends to reach its often stated net-zero by 2050 ambition. It has almost no information on concrete climate action and raises many serious questions about Lloyd’s.
Most notably, Lloyd’s second ESG report says nothing about the outcomes of the climate commitments it made in its first ESG report released at the end of 2020. Previously, Lloyd’s stated it was asking its managing agents to not provide any new cover for coal-fired plants, coal mines, oil sands and Arctic energy exploration from 1st January 2022. Yet, its current report fails to report on whether or not its members are fulfilling this commitment.
Whilst Lloyd’s ESG report doesn’t tell us, we already know from other sources that not all members of Lloyd’s market have stopped providing new insurance cover for new coal projects.
For example, a recent public report by London based insurance broker Alesco, noted that while many Lloyd’s members have adopted the policy, others continue to accept new coal business.
Why has Lloyd’s, which knows these facts, not been open or honest about them in this report? Which Lloyd’s members are ignoring Lloyd’s stated ambitions? What action is Lloyd’s taking to bring those members into line? What value do Lloyd’s stated climate ambitions and targets have when they are so plainly ignored by some of its members with no consequence?
Instead of addressing these obvious questions Lloyd’s is trying to cover up its failure to deliver on its climate commitments. In other words, Lloyd’s 2021 ESG report is greenwash.
Whilst avoiding mention of its failure to have all members exclude the very worst fossil fuel projects, this report goes much further in the wrong direction. Lloyd’s doubles-down on requiring its members to continue to insure what it terms the “harder-to-abate sectors”, by which it presumably means it plans to adopt no restrictions on new oil and gas exploration. Lloyd’s completely ignores the IPCC, the IEA and others which make clear that no new oil and gas projects are compatible with staying within 1.5C global warming, and that existing production needs to be phased down.
One example of concrete climate action Lloyd’s trumpets is appointing its first Sustainability Director. The ESG report fails to mention that Lloyd’s management gave the role to one of its Senior Public Relations Officers, who had no previous sustainability-related experience. Is that an example of bringing in a great communicator to an important new priority role? Or a classic example of treating ESG as more of a public relations exercise than a substantive issue? What is clear is that the quantity and quality of largely substance free public relations materials from Lloyd’s about sustainability has increased significantly in the last 12 months.
Lloyd’s Council Chair Bruce Carnegie-Brown and its CEO John Neal sign off the report saying:
“We hope this report equips you with a helpful and comprehensive summary of our ESG activity – and we look forward to working with you to build the braver world it imagines.”
In a climate crisis that presents an existential threat to life on earth, Lloyd’s is stuck in its PR bubble talking about sharing risks to create a braver world, when in reality its members provide the insurance cover for, and invest in, climate and human-rights destroying fossil fuel projects and companies.
Lloyd’s new ESG report exemplifies many of the worst aspects of corporate greenwashing. Saying it is committed to net-zero by 2050, but not having detailed targets and not enforcing the targets it does express is not a climate science aligned policy, it is greenwash. Lloyd’s Council, led by its Chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown, needs to start taking genuine climate action by ensuring Lloyd’s members stop insuring and investing in new fossil fuels and phase out existing investments and insurance in-line with climate science. Nothing less will do.
Finally, there are a few words in the report that I do agree with:
Rebekah Clement Lloyd’s new Sustainability Director: “The work is nowhere near done…”
David Sansom Lloyd’s Chief Risk officer: “We have much more to do…”
Alesco Energy Update 2022. Page 21: “1 January 2022 saw the introduction of the new Lloyd’s directive as regards to coal; with the initially proposed stance being that no new coal business was to be underwritten from that date. However, in light of subsequent discussions between various parties, there has been a subtle change of emphasis with each syndicate now having a more individual responsibility towards their attitude to the new coal business. Many have chosen to remain with the existing policy of not putting any new coal accounts onto their books; but others have adopted a policy of accepting new business where the client can demonstrate a clear approach to working towards an orderly transition to renewable energy”.