How Effective Is the Fossil‐Fuel Divestment Movement? A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

The fossil‐fuel divestment movement (FFDM) emerged after the failed 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, catalyzed by frustration with political inaction to withdraw financial support from fossil‐fuel industry. FFDM claims as victories 1731 divestment commitments from institutions managing over US$40 trillion. Yet global emissions continue to rise, fossil‐fuel financing persists, and the industry's reputation rebounded amid geopolitical instability and renewed climate denialism. This paper investigates how FFDM effectiveness has been conceptualized in academic literature and implications for research and practice. A systematic review of 69 peer‐reviewed articles reveals significant gaps in how effectiveness is defined, measured, and evaluated. FFDM objectives are diverse, shifting, and often beyond its direct influence, hindering assessments and creating a mismatch between global and local scale. Our analysis identified six themes and 22 sub‐themes through which the literature discusses effectiveness: social‐license erosion, discourse framings, empowerment, financial consequences, public awareness, and legal mechanisms. Building on these insights, the paper proposes the FFDM Effectiveness Assessment Framework, which presents effectiveness as a dynamic and multifaceted concept. The framework disentangles the six themes into three orders of impact: (1) changing public narrative; (2) agenda‐setting capacity; and (3) contestation of institutional norms. In the context of the FFDM's vulnerability to geopolitical and social trends, we also argue for a fourth‐order of impact focused on restrictive legislation. This paper contributes to a multidimensional and dynamic conceptualization of the FFDM effectiveness and offers a practical framework to guide evaluation and planning. As the global energy transition unfolds, FFDM can reinforce its credibility, expand its transformative potential, and serve as a model for the broader climate‐justice movement.

This article is categorized under:

Climate Economics > Economics and Climate Change