Gresham House Energy Storage Fund

Does the core business genuinely avoid or reduce emissions, or build climate resilience? Share of revenue that is actually 'green'. Fossil-dependent models score low.

Deploying >1 GW of operational BESS capacity that stores excess renewable energy and reduces reliance on fossil-fuel peaking plants is a structurally significant and genuine climate contribution, though the fund itself does not publish independently verified avoided-emissions figures.

Credible, science-based targets (SBTi), a real net-zero plan with progress to date, and CDP disclosure — not just a dated press release.

No SBTi-validated targets and no CDP disclosure found; Gresham House references TCFD adoption and a Sustainable Investment Policy but these are process commitments, not quantified science-based climate targets, and no net-zero pathway with measurable interim milestones has been independently validated.

Operational footprint, labour and social practices, and governance quality across the company's own operations and supply chain.

The fund holds an LSE Green Economy Mark and applies a ten-theme Sustainable Investment Framework with pre- and post-investment ESG monitoring, but supply-chain risks around battery mineral sourcing are acknowledged as still evolving, labour/social practices at project level are not publicly disclosed in detail, and the manager's ESG processes are audited internally rather than by a fully independent third party.

Quality of disclosure, independent third-party verification, and how much hard data backs the company's claims.

Annual Reports include TCFD disclosures, MW/MWh capacity metrics verified against grid-connection agreements, and a Sustainable Investment Report, but quantified avoided-emissions figures are based on a single carbon-intensity methodology without independent third-party assurance, and there is no CDP questionnaire submission or audited sustainability KPI set.

Controversies, litigation, pollution, fossil-fuel lobbying, conflict-zone involvement and governance scandals. Higher means cleaner.

No pollution incidents, fossil-fuel lobbying, or governance scandals found; the principal controversy is financial — a sustained share-price discount to NAV (>30%), suspended dividends in 2024, a £110 million swing to a net loss in 2023, and a three-year recovery plan underway — which reflects operational and market risk rather than ethical misconduct.