Candriam Faces 'Greenwashing' Accusations Over Investment in Grenfell Fire Company Kingspan
Candriam, a Luxembourg-based financial firm managing over $150 billion in assets, has been accused by an industry insider of "greenwashing" after they revealed the company has continued to invest in Kingspan, the Irish firm linked to the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire that claimed 72 lives.
The Grenfell Inquiry's final report heavily criticised Kingspan, outlining a "complete disregard for fire safety" and "deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty" in how it marketed one of its insulation products, used on the building.
Despite this, Candriam included Kingspan in its "sustainable" investment portfolios, raising concerns about the firm's commitment to ethical investing. Sources argue that Candriam falsely presented its investments as adhering to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, even though Kingspan's safety record and role in the Grenfell fire were clear.
Candriam's Ethical Claims Challenged
One source told Byline Times that the company kept Kingspan in its sustainable portfolios, justifying the decision by focusing on engaging with the company on governance and board diversity issues rather than addressing the more serious safety concerns tied to Kingspan's products. "If asset managers were genuinely interested in improving ESG credentials of investee companies, the system would have been totally different," they said.
At the heart of the complaint are allegations of "greenwashing" - the practice of exaggerating or falsely claiming environmental and ethical credentials. Candriam's decision to continue to include Kingspan in its Article 9 funds, which are intended for investments that prioritise sustainability, was particularly raised.
According to ESG principles, these funds should avoid causing harm to social or environmental objectives. Candriam's continued investment in Kingspan seems to contradict this.
Related reading: No Lessons Learned: Peers Condemn Culture of Brushing Damning Inquiry Findings Under the Carpet
Candriam responded to their former employer's claims by stating: "Candriam has engaged actively with Kingspan since the tragic events surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire, focusing on improving governance, risk management, and safety practices. We have seen progress in Kingspan's governance, which has been outlined in a detailed case study that we have published on this matter."
Kingspan's Role in the Grenfell Fire
The Inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire exposed serious corporate failings, and Kingspan's K15 insulation boards, though only accounting for 5% of the insulation used on the tower, have been heavily scrutinised.
Kingspan claimed that its product met fire safety standards for high-rise buildings, but internal tests from 2007 and 2008 showed the opposite. Despite this, the Inquiry found that the company continued to market K15, relying on a fire safety certificate obtained in 2009 that contained false information.
The second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry, published in September 2024, concluded that Kingspan "knowingly created a false market" for its K15 insulation. Rather than withdrawing the product, the company manipulated regulatory processes to maintain its market position.
Related reading: Five Years on From Grenfell: A Community Betrayed
The report decided that Kingspan had misled the British Board of Agrément (BBA), the body responsible for certifying product safety, by hiding crucial details about K15's fire safety performance.
A Kingspan spokesperson defended the company, telling Byline Times: "The report explains clearly and unambiguously that the type of insulation (whether combustible or non-combustible) was immaterial, and that the principal reason for the fire spread was the PE ACM cladding, which was not made by Kingspan."
While Kingspan has acknowledged failings in its UK insulation business, it maintains that these were not the cause of the Grenfell disaster.
Candriam's Investment Strategy Under Scrut
The Grenfell Inquiry's final report heavily criticised Kingspan, outlining a "complete disregard for fire safety" and "deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty" in how it marketed one of its insulation products, used on the building.
Despite this, Candriam included Kingspan in its "sustainable" investment portfolios, raising concerns about the firm's commitment to ethical investing. Sources argue that Candriam falsely presented its investments as adhering to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, even though Kingspan's safety record and role in the Grenfell fire were clear.
Candriam's Ethical Claims Challenged
One source told Byline Times that the company kept Kingspan in its sustainable portfolios, justifying the decision by focusing on engaging with the company on governance and board diversity issues rather than addressing the more serious safety concerns tied to Kingspan's products. "If asset managers were genuinely interested in improving ESG credentials of investee companies, the system would have been totally different," they said.
At the heart of the complaint are allegations of "greenwashing" - the practice of exaggerating or falsely claiming environmental and ethical credentials. Candriam's decision to continue to include Kingspan in its Article 9 funds, which are intended for investments that prioritise sustainability, was particularly raised.
According to ESG principles, these funds should avoid causing harm to social or environmental objectives. Candriam's continued investment in Kingspan seems to contradict this.
Related reading: No Lessons Learned: Peers Condemn Culture of Brushing Damning Inquiry Findings Under the Carpet
Candriam responded to their former employer's claims by stating: "Candriam has engaged actively with Kingspan since the tragic events surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire, focusing on improving governance, risk management, and safety practices. We have seen progress in Kingspan's governance, which has been outlined in a detailed case study that we have published on this matter."
Kingspan's Role in the Grenfell Fire
The Inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire exposed serious corporate failings, and Kingspan's K15 insulation boards, though only accounting for 5% of the insulation used on the tower, have been heavily scrutinised.
Kingspan claimed that its product met fire safety standards for high-rise buildings, but internal tests from 2007 and 2008 showed the opposite. Despite this, the Inquiry found that the company continued to market K15, relying on a fire safety certificate obtained in 2009 that contained false information.
The second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry, published in September 2024, concluded that Kingspan "knowingly created a false market" for its K15 insulation. Rather than withdrawing the product, the company manipulated regulatory processes to maintain its market position.
Related reading: Five Years on From Grenfell: A Community Betrayed
The report decided that Kingspan had misled the British Board of Agrément (BBA), the body responsible for certifying product safety, by hiding crucial details about K15's fire safety performance.
A Kingspan spokesperson defended the company, telling Byline Times: "The report explains clearly and unambiguously that the type of insulation (whether combustible or non-combustible) was immaterial, and that the principal reason for the fire spread was the PE ACM cladding, which was not made by Kingspan."
While Kingspan has acknowledged failings in its UK insulation business, it maintains that these were not the cause of the Grenfell disaster.
Candriam's Investment Strategy Under Scrut
Activity