FinanceMap scores this financial institution in the following areas. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis
FinanceMap assesses these portfolios for this financial institution. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis.
Fossil fuel production companies are defined as those with primary sector of operations in the up-, mid-, and/or downstream segments of fossil fuel production. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portion of AUM Assessed: $4.63T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 7.2% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 6.2% |
| Vistra Corp | 5.7% |
| AES Corp | 4.4% |
| Exelon Corp | 4.3% |
| Southern Co | 4.3% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 3.9% |
| Entergy Corp | 3.9% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 3.2% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 17.2% |
| Ford Motor Co | 16.5% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 10.9% |
| Stellantis NV | 6.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 5.7% |
| Volkswagen AG | 5.5% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 3.7% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 3.5% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 3.5% |
| Tesla Inc | 3.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 22.1% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 19.5% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 15.3% |
| Coal India Ltd | 10.6% |
| Glencore PLC | 8.3% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 5.3% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 2.9% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 2.6% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 2.5% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 2.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 13.0% |
| Chevron Corp | 8.3% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 6.7% |
| Conocophillips | 5.9% |
| Novatek PAO | 5.3% |
| EQT Corp | 4.6% |
| BP PLC | 4.3% |
| Shell PLC | 3.8% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 3.1% |
| Occidental Petroleum Corp | 2.7% |
Vanguard does not appear to be firmly engaging with companies on climate. It has a framework informing its climate engagement strategy, for example, it listed oversight of strategy and risk including climate risk as one of its stewardship pillars, stating it looks for companies to exhibit sound climate change risk management. The asset manager states it develops engagement objectives and tracks engagement activity and progress, and may set milestones, but details on these processes lack granularity. Vanguard appears to have a limited escalation strategy and has demonstrated escalation responses following poor climate performance but it is unclear how it related to its wider engagement program.
The asset manager’s engagements on climate issues are primarily focused around upcoming climate-related shareholder resolutions. For example, it engaged with S&P Global to discuss a Say on Climate proposal to ratify the company’s emissions reduction plan and engaged with Bank of Montreal around a shareholder proposal asking the company adopt a policy to ensure its financing activities would not contribute to new fossil fuel supplies consistent with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions scenario. However, the asset manager states it does not seek to dictate a company’s strategy. Vanguard appears to have engaged with companies on climate policy influence, engaging with Glencore about its concerns regarding clarity of the company’s lobbying activities which appeared to contradict its stated commitments. Evidence suggests Vanguard is not collaboratively engaging around climate, withdrawing from NZAM in December 2022.
Vanguard has described its stewardship governance structure and has referenced how it assesses the effectiveness of stewardship policies and activities. It is transparent about engagements, providing numerous case studies in its stewardship reporting. Additionally, it is transparent about its voting record and has disclosed voting rationale for a sample of climate-related shareholder proposals.
The asset manager does not appear to have used its shareholder authority to drive companies to transition on climate.
Insightia data suggests that Vanguard has overwhelmingly opposed AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 1.8% in 2019 and 10.8% in 2020. Its support slightly increased in 2021 at 28.6% but decreased in 2022 at 4.5%.
FinanceMap's methodology to measure the engagement process on climate was developed in consultation with several of the world's leading asset managers and uses key aspects of the UK Financial Reporting Council's 2020 Stewardship Code . The Stewardship Code was chosen to benchmark engagement quality as it provides an ambitious framework and detailed definitions of what constitutes effective engagement. FinanceMap defines the term ‘engagement’ as referring to all investor actions undertaken to influence the management strategy of the companies they own including private communications with corporate management and appointed advisors; questions at AGMs/other company meetings; comments on the company in the media; escalation and the shareholder resolution process (filing, voting behavior). FinanceMap’s methodology breaks the engagement process down into a set of sub-activities and looks for evidence associated with these across publicly available data sources.
Climate-relevance categorization of shareholder resolutions is based on the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C and its concluded need for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.” FinanceMap scored voting on any resolution where the intent and likely outcome is consistent with this IPCC stated need. The voting data is drawn from asset managers' disclosures to the US Security Exchange Commission (SEC), asset manager websites (including third-party websites they link to), directly from the asset managers, and through specialist voting data provider Insightia. The full list of resolutions assessed is available here.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess asset managers' corporate engagement programs. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
Vanguard has stated some top-line support for sustainable finance while taking more mixed positions on specific sustainable finance policies.
In 2021 Vanguard joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. In December 2022, however, Vanguard withdrew from the initiative. Vanguard has stated some support for government action to address climate-related financial risks.
Vanguard appears broadly supportive of the need for regulated corporate ESG disclosure, while taking more mixed positions on specific disclosure proposals. In its 2021 Investment Stewardship semiannual report Vanguard voiced support for Hong Kong Stock Exchange rules that would enhance ESG reporting requirements for listed companies, and in a 2021 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Vanguard stated support for regulated corporate ESG disclosure and called for aligning frameworks with the TCFD. However, in 2022 comments on the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule, Vanguard voiced concern that some aspects of the proposal were “overburdensome,” including Scope 3 disclosure requirements. Vanguard expressed similar concerns about Scope 3 disclosure requirements in comments on the International Sustainability Standards Board’s Sustainability and Climate Disclosure drafts in 2022.
In comments to the SEC in 2020, Vanguard did not support extending the Names Rule and its 80% investment policy to funds with ESG-related names but did support a requirement for these funds to explain the terms used in fund names to investors. Vanguard does not appear to have commented on the Commission’s 2022 proposed amendments to the Names Rule. In comments to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2022, Vanguard welcomed efforts to introduce an investment product labeling system but did not support the introduction of a ‘not promoted as sustainable’ label, as “investors might recognize this label negatively.”
Vanguard took mixed positions on Trump administration rollbacks to sustainable investing. In comments submitted to the SEC in 2020, Vanguard voiced support for a rule that would limit shareholder rights and increase the participation threshold. However, it opposed Department of Labor rules that would limit fiduciaries’ ESG investing and voting on ESG issues, and in 2021 supported the Biden administration’s proposed reversal of the rules.
In response to the European Commission in 2020, Vanguard supported weaker policy around disclosure on investor ESG impacts under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). In 2022 comments to the FCA, Vanguard stated support for harmonization of the UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) with the SFDR, but cautioned against an overly prescriptive disclosure framework. In separate comments to the FCA in 2022, Vanguard did not support including ESG funds as a default option for pension funds.
Vanguard has not disclosed its membership to trade associations or any details of indirect influence governance.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on sustainable finance policy closely follows InfluenceMap’s established methodology on climate policy engagement, which is used extensively by investors, including via the Climate Action 100+ investor engagement process. Our full methodology can be found here.
Under our assessment of sustainable finance lobbying, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate and/or other sustainability issues. The analysis takes into account both the engagement of the financial institution and the activities of industry associations they hold membership of.
InfluenceMap’s methodology covers seven publicly available data sources, searching for evidence of engagement and corporate positioning since 2017. To determine the policy issues within the scope of the analysis, InfluenceMap breaks down sustainable finance policy engagement into a series of subcategories, or 'queries'. These are designed to cover high-level issues relating to the importance of sustainable finance, as well as more specific areas of sustainable finance policymaking. InfluenceMap’s research process searches for evidence of an organization's engagement with each sustainable finance policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions’ sustainable finance policy engagement. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party.
In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mortimer Buckley is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
Mortimer J. "Tim" Buckley (Chairman and CEO, Vanguard)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mortimer Buckley is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
Mortimer J. "Tim" Buckley (Chairman and CEO, Vanguard)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard Asset Management is a member of the Investment Association
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sean Hagerty is a board member at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Sean Hagerty (Managing Director - Vanguard Europe)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard Asset Management is a member of the Investment Association
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sean Hagerty is a board member at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Sean Hagerty (Managing Director - Vanguard Europe)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard Asset Management Ltd is a member of the ABI (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Vanguard Asset Management Ltd is a member of the ABI (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source