Why we filed a shareholder proposal with insurance giant Great-West Lifeco
In 2021, Great-West Lifeco (GWL) committed to achieving net-zero emissions within its General Account (GA) by 2050, a significant pledge. Since then, GWL has set a 2030 financed emissions reduction target and improved its financed emissions reporting. These steps are welcome, but fall short of what’s needed for a credible, actionable transition plan.
What’s at stake: GWL’s General Account and long-term liabilities
This proposal focuses exclusively on GWL’s General Account— client premiums invested to ensure future liabilities—where GWL has committed to reaching net zero by 2050.
As a life and health insurer, GWL faces not only transition and physical climate risks that threaten the long-term value of its investments—but also reputational and mission risks, as it invests in industries that actively harm the life and health of its current and future clients. The Geneva Association, an insurance industry think tank, has been blunt: fossil fuel use contributes to millions of deaths annually through air pollution and is a key driver of climate impacts that affect human health and safety. Their warning: “[C]limate change will exert a huge toll on human health, via direct fatalities from extreme weather events as well as adverse effects on morbidity.”
Fossil fuels still dominate GWL’s investment portfolio
Despite its net-zero pledge, GWL holds a particularly carbon-intensive portfolio: over 10% of its General Account—$25 billion—is invested in fossil fuels. Yet, GWL has not disclosed any actions to reduce this exposure, ensure these companies are mitigating climate risk, or increase allocation to climate solutions. In contrast, GWL holds just $7.8 billion in renewable energy investments, about 3% of its GA. That’s nearly the inverse of the 4:1 clean-to-fossil fuel ratio recommended by BloombergNEF for net-zero alignment.
It’s hard to square this investment profile with the values and obligations of a life insurer. GWL’s business depends on a stable climate, healthy populations, and predictable risk. Continuing to finance fossil fuels puts all of that at risk—and ultimately, undermines shareholder value and public trust.
Peers are advancing. GWL is falling behind.
Peer institutions are already moving. Allianz has set investment targets for climate solutions. AXA and Manulife have fossil fuel policies. Generali escalates engagement with carbon-intensive companies and outlines clear expectations and consequences. Aviva publicly advocates for economy-wide policy change. GWL, by contrast, has disclosed no comparable steps—raising red flags not only about strategic direction, but potential noncompliance with OSFI’s Climate Risk Management Guidelines.
Course correcting
Without a credible transition plan—including near-term actions to reduce fossil fuel exposure—GWL risks falling behind peers, violating emerging regulatory expectations, and eroding the trust of its clients and shareholders. That’s why we co-filed this resolution: to demand clarity, accountability, and alignment between GWL’s investments and its long-term commitments. Investors have a choice—support continued opacity, or vote for a safer, smarter path forward.
Read our investor brief here.
