Munich Re

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.

Munich Re's core business is not itself a low-carbon activity, but it materially enables climate adaptation by pricing and transferring nat-cat risk and is phasing out underwriting of new oil/gas fields and some LNG — a meaningful shift — while still covering substantial existing fossil-fuel infrastructure and lacking downstream gas targets.

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

Munich Re holds a self-declared 2050 net-zero ambition for underwriting and investments, has met its 2025 interim investment-portfolio emissions target (-29% vs 2019), and is developing new 2030 goals, but no targets have been independently validated by SBTi, and underwriting emissions targets for oil-and-gas midstream/downstream remain absent.

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

Munich Re publishes detailed sustainability reports and applies ISS ESG data for investment screening, maintains Arctic drilling exclusions, and prohibits oil-sands equity investment above 10% revenue threshold; governance is broadly sound for a DAX-listed firm, but the June 2025 exit from the NZAOA and other net-zero coalitions signals a retreat from peer accountability structures.

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

Munich Re discloses fossil-fuel policy frameworks publicly with quantitative thresholds (10% oil-sands revenue, 20% coal revenue triggers) and reports on portfolio emissions progress, but underwriting-portfolio emissions accounting remains opaque and no SBTi or equivalent third-party target validation is in place, limiting independent verification.

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

Munich Re's June 2025 exit from the NZAOA and other major net-zero coalitions drew sharp criticism and raised questions about backsliding; environmental NGOs have repeatedly flagged loopholes in its coal and gas policies (late coal action, gas-infrastructure coverage gaps, no midstream/downstream targets), and the 'directly and exclusively' LNG carve-out is seen as intentionally narrow by campaign groups.