Financial firms dropped terms like “ESG” (Environmental, Social and Governance) and “sustainable” from the names of hundreds of their funds in the year before new European Union rules to clamp down on greenwashing came into force in late May, new analysis shows.
The rules from the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) say that funds with certain sustainability or environmental-related terms in their names cannot invest in companies that get more than a certain share of their revenue from coal, oil, gas or particularly polluting electricity generation.
Those funds now also have to show that 80% of their investments meet the ESG objectives referred to in their titles.
Before the new regulation was introduced, the fund managers that dropped environmental and other sustainability terms from the highest percentage of their fund names were State Street, UBS and Northern Trust, the analysis said. It estimates that around 674 funds have done this overall.
Alison Schultz, an analyst at the German campaign group Finanzwende who conducted the research, said fund managers had earlier betrayed investors’ trust by labelling their funds wrongly and misdirecting money that should have helped to advance the green transition towards supporting business as usual.
“Consumers bought the funds because they wanted to invest sustainably,” she said, adding that “renaming [them] instead of divesting undermines the credibility of a market that depends on financial products being what they claim to be”.
Many fund managers have replaced ESG terminology in the titles of their funds with alternative words like “screened”, “selection” or “committed”, according to research by Finanzwende, Urgewald and Facing Finance and a separate analysis from Morningstar Analytics, which sells research and information to investors.
For example, Invesco changed its “Sustainable Eurozone Equity Fund” into the “Transition Eurozone Equity Fund” in March. Fund documents show that in April 2025 it had investments in Italy’s Enel and Germany’s E.ON, two utilities that sell gas and fossil-fuel electricity.
“Screened” and “transition” funds
Funds with words like “screened” or “transition” in their name can continue to invest as much as they want in oil, gas and coal businesses under the new EU regulations. Hortense Bioy, head of sustainable investing research at Morningstar, told Climate Home the use of words like this suggests fund managers “are still keen to offer products that signal ESG characteristics in the name”.
According to earlier research on the same topic released in March by Urgewald and Facing Finance, more than half of the funds that have dropped environmental-related terms from their names held shares in large fossil fuel companies – with the investments worth around €14bn ($16bn). The name changes mean that they can keep those investments.
While some have gone down this path, Morningstar analysis suggests others have done the opposite – ditching fossil fuels investments and keeping their green names. Leading global fund managers like US-based BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have taken a varied approach across their portfolios.
An email BlackRock sent to clients on March 18, which it shared with Climate Home, said it had responded to the ESMA naming guidelines by changing the names of 56 funds worth $51bn to drop sustainability terms. An example it gave was dropping “ESG” from the BSF Systematic ESG World Equity Fund.
On the other hand, the email said it had kept the ESG names of another 60 funds worth $92bn, “enhancing the sustainable characteristics”.
Funds drop Total, Galp and Eni
Morningstar found that ESG funds which did not rebrand themselves as less green were investing less in fossil fuel companies like TotalEnergies, Galp and Eni in March this year compared to May 2024.
“It is fair to assume that part of the decline can be attributed to stock divestments made to comply with the ESMA guidelines,” their analysis said.
While State Street renamed the highest percentage of these funds, other firms – like BlackRock and Amundi – have lots of sustainability-related funds that were grouped under broad EU green financial disclosure categories but never had these now-regulated terms in their names.
Cobalt and nickel-free electric car batteries boom in “good news” for rainforests
Last July, Climate Home revealed that EU-based funds like Blackrock’s, which claimed to be environmentally friendly, held shares worth at least $65 million in major coal companies. Under the new rules, they can continue as long as they don’t have “environmental” or “sustainable” terms in their name.
While funds with what the ESMA calls environmental, impact or sustainability related terms cannot invest in companies with fossil fuel revenues above a certain threshold (see chart above), funds with transition-related terms still can. These words include “transition”, “improve”, “progress”, “evolution”, “transformation” and “net zero”.
BlackRock also said it had either changed the names or investment methodologies of 18 funds worth $42bn for a “clearer alignment to transition” in response to the new rules.
Investors notified
Fund managers are required to notify investors of the name changes, usually in prospectuses sent to professional investment managers.
Bioy of Morningstar said she had seen many of these notifications and, in some of them, fund managers told investors they were lowering their sustainable investment allocations. “Some of them are not as ESG as they used to be,” she said. “They’ve become almost like traditional funds.”
But she said that firms that have renamed their funds cannot necessarily be accused of greenwashing before because there were “no rules” over what terms like ESG and sustainable meant. Investors now need to be educated on what these terms legally mean according to the new rules, she added.
The rules only affect funds marketed in EU countries but, according to Bioy, that is the vast majority of the world’s funds that make green claims, even though they make up a small proportion of the total.
Asked to comment, a BlackRock spokesperson told Climate Home the investment objectives of its funds “are clearly disclosed in each fund’s prospectus and on BlackRock’s website”.
Funds “are managed in line with applicable regulations governing sustainable investing”, they said, adding that “for investors that have decarbonization investment objectives we offer a range of products that provide such exposure”.
At the time of publication, State Street, UBS, Northern Trust and Invesco had not responded to requests for comment.
The post As EU acts to stop greenwash, funds drop climate claims from their names appeared first on Climate Home News.
As EU acts to stop greenwash, funds drop climate claims from their names
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits