OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Reclaim Finance

RF

Reclaim Finance is a non-governmental organization pushing the financial system to support environmental protection.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Pascal Canfin (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Nov 2025 · SFDR

Meeting with Nora Mebarek (Member of the European Parliament) and BLOOM Association and Amis de la Terre France

20 Nov 2025 · Devoir de vigileance des entreprises

Reclaim Finance urges stricter energy standards in EU taxonomy

19 Nov 2025
Topic — The initiative reviews technical screening criteria for activities within the EU taxonomy.
Message — The organization calls for the reduction of GHG thresholds and the removal of fossil gas. They also recommend excluding bioenergy for power generation altogether.123
Why — Stricter criteria would ensure the taxonomy effectively contributes to meaningful GHG reductions.45
Impact — Fossil gas and bioenergy companies would be excluded from sustainable investment classification.67
Read full response

Response to Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness

28 Oct 2025

We welcome the Commissions will to adopt a strategy on intergenerational fairness to help ensure that todays decisions do not harm future generations and to promote stronger solidarity and engagement between people of all ages. Yet, we regret that recent Commission actions directly go against this goal. The current deregulation drive severely weakens if not erases key protections for social and environmental rights, necessary to ensure a fair and sustainable future. The CSDDD and CSRD are essential to ensure companies are transparent on their social and environmental impact, prevent harm to people and nature, and align with climate goals. The drastic reduction of their scope and of the level of obligation they require impairs the shift to a more sustainable economy and severely increases the risk of social and human rights violations. Delays on the EU deforestation directive and other so-called simplification packages (environment, energy automotive...) could significantly worsen this movement and contribute to unsustainable levels of global warming and nature degradation. We stress that, as surveys have demonstrated, this movement goes against the will of a large majority of Europeans that want companies to be transparent about their socio-environmental impact and accountable for negative consequences all along their value chain. In fact, studies have shown that most companies do not support the Omnibus I. Concretely, the deregulation drive mainly satisfies a handful of powerful companies and non-EU powers, at the expense of EU citizens trust in EU institutions and of the democratic nature of EU decision making. The EU is not on track to meet its climate objectives, and a massive financing gap persists. It operates while planetary boundaries are being passed, and the planet like the EU itself is facing a major biodiversity crisis with potentially devastating consequences on our societies and especially on the most vulnerable. In such a context, a prerequisite to intergenerational fairness is for the Commission to consider how to go faster and further in mitigating climate change and protecting nature. This entails both safeguarding pre-existing regulations that contribute to these goals (CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, methane regulation) but also activating all levers to redirect financial flows toward sustainable activities and climate action needs. Here, beyond the deregulation drive, we note that recent proposals from the Commission have almost systematically sidelined the issue of climate change and nature preservation. This is the case in recent proposals to fund EU priorities, where climate is mentioned, but no specific measures aim at funding relevant activities. For example, the Savings and Investment Union (SIU) project and the proposal to boost EU securitization are likely to contribute to fund all activities and EU companies, and not specifically the ones that are necessary to reduce emissions and build a sustainable economy. Worst, any attempts to lower or cut the climate-related risk obligations of financial institutions including the adoption and implementation of risk-based transition plans would simultaneously impair the transformation of the sector to meet climate funding needs and expose future EU citizens to heightened financial risk. Providing the above elements, we urge the Commission to ensure the highest level of protection for nature and social and human rights and to take all measures to mitigate climate change. This requires both (i) ending the deregulation drive and holding companies fully accountable for their actions and their consequences, and, (ii) integrating the climate dimension to all the proposals made regarding the economy, and notably to the one regarding the financial sector. If the EU continues in the same direction, then generations will be left behind and will be the ones to cope with the consequences of todays Commission Agenda.
Read full response

Meeting with Didier Millerot (Head of Unit Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

23 Oct 2025 · SFDR review

Reclaim Finance urges higher capital requirements for fossil fuel assets

2 Sept 2025
Topic — The initiative reviews technical prudential rules for the EU insurance and reinsurance sector.
Message — Reclaim Finance calls for higher capital requirements for fossil fuel assets and insurance underwriting. They request that any freed-up capital be strictly directed toward sustainable activities. The group also urges the Commission to align insurers' investments with EU climate goals.123
Why — These measures would protect the financial system from risks associated with climate-disrupting assets.4
Impact — The insurance sector would lose the financial windfall provided by the current regulatory proposals.5
Read full response

Reclaim Finance: Savings products must exclude fossil fuel investments

2 Jul 2025
Topic — The European Commission is creating a blueprint for EU-wide savings and investment accounts.
Message — Reclaim Finance demands that investment products exclude fossil fuel developers and improve sustainability transparency. They want tax incentives restricted to climate-aligned funds and stronger rights for retail shareholders.123
Why — This policy would help mobilize retail savings to close the European Union's climate funding gap.4
Impact — Fossil fuel developers and international asset managers would lose access to public tax subsidies.56
Read full response

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and ActionAid and

22 May 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (Member of the European Parliament)

21 May 2025 · Omnibus I

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament) and ActionAid and

21 May 2025 · Omnibus Simplification

Reclaim Finance Urges Fossil Fuel Ban in Sustainable Funds

19 May 2025
Topic — Reviewing EU sustainable finance rules to improve usability and prevent misleading greenwashing.
Message — The organization requests excluding fossil fuel developers from all funds making environmental or social claims. They advocate setting minimal requirements for ESG messaging and aligning transparency with advisory obligations.12
Why — These reforms would simplify regulations and ensure investments align with environmental goals.3
Impact — Asset managers lose the flexibility to self-label fossil-heavy funds as sustainable investments.4
Read full response

Meeting with Bas Eickhout (Member of the European Parliament)

6 May 2025 · Collateral Framework ECB

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur for opinion) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

29 Apr 2025 · Omnibus I

Reclaim Finance warns EU Taxonomy changes hide environmental impacts

27 Feb 2025
Topic — The Commission proposes simplifying sustainability reporting rules to reduce costs and administrative burdens.
Message — The group urges the Commission to remove the 1000-employee reporting threshold and maintain full transparency on environmental risks. They demand that companies provide information on all mandatory indicators to prevent selective reporting. They also call for keeping current rules for investment spending.123
Why — Stricter reporting would ensure that private capital is accurately guided toward necessary climate transition activities.4
Impact — Large industrial groups and financial firms would lose the cost-saving benefits of simpler reporting requirements.5
Read full response

Reclaim Finance warns securitisation could fund fossil fuel expansion

27 Feb 2025
Topic — A holistic review of the European securitisation framework and prudential requirements.
Message — The organization proposes mandatory rules for green securitizations where financing capacity goes exclusively to green activities. They also demand environmental safeguards to avoid securitization being used for fossil fuel assets.12
Why — The proposed rules would prevent the financial sector from using securitisation to fund polluting activities.3
Impact — Fossil fuel companies would lose access to a cheaper, alternative source of financing.4
Read full response

Response to Savings and Investments Union

12 Feb 2025

The European Commission estimates that the EU would need an additional 620bn euros each year until 2030 to reach our 2030 climate target. The European Court of Auditors raised this figure to an additional trillion each year. Major investments, both from the public and private sectors are thus needed to finance the transition. The Letta and Draghi reports argue the development of a Capital Market Union (CMU) is a prerequisite to solving the EUs main financing issues. They stress that a large amount of the European savings are invested in companies outside of the European markets. This money is considered lost to greater markets. Ending this trend is presented as one of the main avenue to meet climate finance needs. Reclaim Finance agrees we must solve the climate financing gap and much more could be done with European savings to finance the green transition. However, we challenge the view that the creation of the CMU as detailed in the Letta report and currently discussed at the European level would help achieve this. While the CMU promises to increase capital volumes and streamline financing for small capitalizations and unlisted companies, its impact is not limited to green activities or entities. In fact, the CMUs benefits would extend to all sectors, including those with the highest carbon footprints. Indeed, the currently proposed CMU lacks concrete mechanisms to channel investments towards sustainable activities and is focused on boosting economic activities no matter their environmental impact. With it, the union is likely to support both eco-friendly and polluting industries, leading to a net rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, key measures proposed under the CMU involve relaxing current prudential standards and supervisory mandates. This regulatory easing is proposed without adequate consideration of growing climate risks and raises questions about long-term financial stability. In a not-unlikely worst-case scenario, the CMU would increase climate-related risks with rising financing to high carbon activities and simultaneously weaken the prudential safeguards set to absorb them. The CMU package includes a greater use of securitization, a method used to bundle illiquid securities, sell them and/or transfer the associated risks on the financial market. Securitization could help banks increase their lending capacity and reduce risk exposure, but this increased capacity would not necessarily benefit green investments and could just as much facilitate lending to heavily polluting activities. It could also partly hide the risks stemming from financing high emitting activities. In fact, only a subset of securitizations could help mobilize private finance for the transition. Such green securitizations are not clearly defined today, they should notably ensure additional financing capacity goes exclusively to green activities, and securitized assets do not originate from companies developing fossil fuel production. In parallel, securitization in general should not be used to finance fossil fuel development. To conclude, the currently envisioned CMU structure does not prioritize the green transition. CMUs undifferentiated measures would contribute to finance all economic activities, and are likely to increase emissions. At the same time, the CMUs emphasis on prudential weakening raises risks. For the CMU to be a useful contributor to the EU transition, measures must be targeted and safeguards must be installed. For example, securitization should not be made easier without a clear definition of green securitization and barriers to avoid supporting polluting activities.
Read full response

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

30 Jan 2025 · Omnibus, Monetary policy, sustainable finance, SIU

Meeting with Jussi Saramo (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Dec 2024 · Finance Regulation

Meeting with Marie Toussaint (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Oct 2024 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

16 Oct 2024 · Cooperation on LIBE related matters

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Oct 2024 · Integrating the ecological dimension in ECON

Meeting with Jussi Saramo (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Oct 2024 · Direction of the new legislature

Response to Postponement of deadlines within the Accounting Directive for the adoption of certain ESRS

6 Dec 2023

Regarding the proposal, Reclaim Finance underlines that: 1) The development and adoption of sector-specific standards for high impact sectors must be prioritised in order to provide clarity for companies in these industries on what must be reported for their particular risks and impacts. The sector-agnostic standard already require companies to provide further sector-specific information on difficult issues such as decarbonisation, biodiversity or human rights issues in the value chain. 2) Sector-specific standards are even more needed because the EU Commission removed the mandatory baseline in the first level of sector-agnostic standards for all ESG topics (including climate change, biodiversity or own workforce) against the technical advice submitted originally by EFRAG. 3) The proposed delay is excessive. EFRAG has already identified 20 high-impact sectors, and prioritised 10 for the development of sector-specific standards. By the end of 2024, the standards of the 4 high-impact sectors already under development could already be adopted. Reclaim Finance urges the European Commission to: 1) By the end of 2024, guarantee the adoption of the high impact sector standards that have been already worked on by EFRAG (notably on Oil and Gas, Mining, Road Transport and Textiles). 2) Provide a clear mandate for EFRAGs Sustainability Reporting Pillar to prioritise the development of proposals and consultation for the rest of sector-specific standards. The standards must be developed as soon as possible, as already from 2024, companies must start applying sector-agnostic reporting requirements which include requirements to report sector-specific information. 3) By 2026, cover all high-impact sectors already identified by EFRAG.
Read full response

Reclaim Finance warns against cutting environmental reporting requirements

13 Nov 2023
Topic — The European Commission seeks to reduce company reporting requirements by 25 percent.
Message — Reclaim Finance demands that no further cuts be made to environmental reporting standards. They propose limiting reductions to duplicate requirements while improving data for climate targets. The NGO suggests making reporting fit for purpose rather than reducing it.123
Why — Maintaining these standards ensures the NGO has the data needed for environmental accountability.4
Impact — Investors and public authorities lose the transparency required to manage environmental risks.5
Read full response

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme and Climate Action Network Europe

7 Nov 2023 · Prospective européenne

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

12 Sept 2023 · ESG rating

Reclaim Finance urges strict standards to prevent ESG greenwashing

24 Aug 2023
Topic — The consultation focuses on improving the transparency and reliability of ESG investment ratings.
Message — The organization calls for harmonized methodologies and baseline standards to make ratings greenwashing-proof. They recommend disaggregating scores so users can evaluate environmental and social impacts separately. They also propose mandatory weightings, requiring environmental factors to represent at least one third of ratings.123
Why — Harmonized rules would prevent greenwashing and ensure ratings accurately reflect climate transition risks.4
Impact — Fossil fuel developers would see their scores drop under stricter environmental criteria.5
Read full response

Reclaim Finance demands mandatory reporting and strict 1.5°C standards

22 Jun 2023
Topic — The European Commission is consulting on the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).
Message — The organization calls for the removal of materiality assessments and urges the Commission to keep all sustainability disclosures mandatory. They also recommend narrowing the 1.5°C climate scenarios to those with no or low temperature overshoot and minimal reliance on negative emissions.123
Why — These changes would prevent corporate greenwashing and ensure that financial data remains comparable for environmental advocacy.45
Impact — Industry lobbies lose the flexibility to decide which environmental impacts they report, potentially increasing their compliance burden.67
Read full response