In response to our request for a more structured presentation of its climate pathway, Siemens developed a visual roadmap to 2030 and beyond to 2050. At our 2025 meeting, Siemens confirmed that our previous feedback had led to the inclusion of this roadmap.

Siemens’ updated sustainability report also provides more detail in several areas raised in our engagement, including the treatment of offsetting and the narrative around scope 3. At the 2025 meeting, Siemens’ representatives explained why its reported scope 3 emissions from the use of sold products are high: the company counts the full electricity used by its motors and drives over their lifetime, while many peers count only the small share of energy lost as heat. Siemens noted that if it used the peer approach, its reported scope 3 emissions would fall by around 70%. We also discussed progress within Siemens Financial Services, including how the business is addressing financed emissions and limiting exposure to coal-related activities while supporting energy-transition projects.

Finally, Siemens acknowledged that some trade associations do not fully reflect its climate policy and said it is open to improving communication about how it seeks alignment.

Across these areas, Siemens has responded constructively to engagement, with improve­ments in transparency, ambition and presentation that allow for clearer investor assessment of its transition plan.

The representatives described how the bank uses this framework in sectors such as steel, shipping and aviation, where progress remains uneven and where changes in technology, regulation and market conditions affect the pace at which clients can progress. We also discussed the bank’s transition-support programmes for smaller companies, designed to help small and medium enterprises adopt lower-carbon solutions and begin shifting their business models.

We additionally explored how DBS Group applies its policies to companies involved in fossil-fuel expansion, and the bank clarified the scope of its current exclusions and how risk assessments influence lending terms across different parts of the energy sector. DBS Group reiterated that its exposure to thermal coal is already low and restated its intention to reach zero exposure by 2039, with timing dependent on wider financing conditions and practical opportunities to support early retirement of assets.

While the discussion improved transparency on how DBS Group interprets its climate framework, it did not reveal significant signs of improvement in the bank’s approach to fossil-fuel expansion (specifically oil and gas). The exchange nonetheless offered a clearer understanding of the constraints the bank faces and how regional market conditions shape its decisions, providing a more informed picture of its current direction.

During 2025, we participated in the group’s discussions, and reviewed and provided feedback on draft consultation responses prepared by the IIGCC. These covered a wide range of topics, including a proposed UK green taxonomy, principles for developing sector decarbonisation roadmaps, written evidence to the Treasury Select Committee’s inquiry on the National Wealth Fund (NWF), analysis of European Commission papers on the steel and metals sector transition, and the response to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) consultation on amendments to the SASB Standards. We also supported the IIGCC’s consultation responses on UK transition plan requirements (led by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) and the development of the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (led by the Department of Business and Trade).

Since our engagement, both the Treasury Select Committee’s report on the NWF and the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards exposure drafts have been published. HM Treasury has also confirmed that it will not proceed with a UK green taxonomy at this stage. This outcome reflects themes raised in the IIGCC’s response, including the need to prioritise real-economy policy and the resource demands of maintaining a taxonomy.

Taken together, these outputs address issues highlighted through the IIGCC’s policy work, such as the importance of catalytic investment through the NWF and the role of ISSB standards in UK sustainability reporting.

In 2024, we co-filed a shareholder resolution (led by BNP Paribas Asset Management) requesting a public assessment of the company’s biodiversity impacts, dependencies and risks. Following dialogue with investors, McDonald’s agreed to hold two meetings with its chief sustainability officer on deforestation and regenerative agriculture and to conduct a water risk assessment. The proposal was withdrawn on this basis.

McDonald’s clarified how several of its internal policies apply in practice, including the use of free, prior and informed consent requirements and the treatment of high-carbon-stock areas. It recognised gaps in verification and described ongoing work to strengthen oversight and supplier engagement, including preparations for the EU Deforestation Regulation.

The company also explained how wider nature-related risks and dependencies are under review, and how it is working towards more consistent processes for managing these issues across its operations and supply chain. McDonald’s confirmed that updates on this work will be shared with investors as it progresses.

Investors welcomed the increased transparency and the company’s openness throughout the two meetings held with senior sustainability leadership. These discussions have helped to establish a more constructive and regular dialogue and have supported clearer communication of how McDonald’s is strengthening its approach to nature-related risks. Nevertheless, significant work remains to produce a full biodiversity assessment.