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 companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. 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: $30.4B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Iberdrola SA | 39.1% |
| Enel SpA | 22.0% |
| SSE PLC | 7.9% |
| EDP SA | 4.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.6% |
| Engie SA | 4.2% |
| National Grid PLC | 2.9% |
| E.ON SE | 2.8% |
| ERG SpA | 2.6% |
| AES Corp | 2.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 40.1% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 11.2% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 8.5% |
| Subaru Corp | 6.3% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 4.6% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.3% |
| Ford Motor Co | 4.2% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 3.5% |
| Kia Corp | 3.3% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Banpu PCL | 38.0% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 28.5% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 22.8% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 10.6% |
| New Hope Corporation Ltd | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Eni SpA | 30.4% |
| BP PLC | 16.3% |
| Shell PLC | 8.5% |
| Energean PLC | 6.8% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 6.6% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 4.2% |
| Inpex Corp | 3.5% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 3.1% |
| Chevron Corp | 2.8% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 2.1% |
AXA Investment Managers (AXA) appears to be a leading engager with companies around climate. The asset manager has a clear climate engagement framework including expectations for investee companies on climate and has announced a new focus list for engagements with climate and transition ‘laggards’. It also uses a defined structure for tracking engagement progress including clear objectives and timelines. The asset manager has defined penalties based on engagement outcomes as well as a ‘three strikes’ policy for companies labeled climate laggards.
AXA is actively engaging with companies to transition in line with the Paris Agreement. It has engaged with companies in the oil and gas sector and with coal exposure on developing credible transition plans using SBTs. The asset manager appears to be engaging with companies on climate lobbying. Additionally, it is a member of several climate-related investor initiatives such as NZAOA, NZAMI, and CA100+, and is a lead engager for CA100+ at two companies: Saudi Aramco and Renault.
AXA has provided strong details on its various stewardship governance committees as well as its stewardship review processes. The asset manager is fully transparent about its engagements, providing a full list of companies engaged with as well as several named case studies and outcomes. It also discloses its full proxy voting record as well as voting rationale when it has voted against management.
AXA has demonstrated willingness to use shareholder authority on climate and announced it would support a vote of no confidence at Chevron against directors and a vote against the chairman on climate grounds.
Insightia data suggests that AXA has mixed support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 58.7% in 2019, 58.6% in 2020 and improving its voting support in 2021 to 79.1%. However, its voting support decreased in 2022 to 60.3%.
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: AXA and its subsidiary, AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM), appear to have been actively engaged on climate-related finance policy, with mostly positive positions.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: AXA has advocated for action to limit global temperatures to 1.5C by 2050 in a 2023 website article and has expressed support for reform of the financial sector to address short-termism in markets in its 2023 Public Affairs Charter. AXA stated support for the EU’s Action Plan on Sustainable Finance in its 2022 Climate and Biodiversity Report, its 2023 Public Affairs Charter, and a position supported by AXA IM in its 2021 Stewardship Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In its 2022 Stewardship Report AXA IM advocated for ambitious climate (or ESG) reporting requirements, a position mirrored by AXA in its 2022 Climate and Biodiversity Report. AXA IM has stated support for the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) on its website and co-signed an investor statement urging EU policymakers to increase the ambition of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in 2021. Although the company expressed an unclear position on CSRD in its 2023 Climate and Biodiversity Report, it supported the European Sustainability Reporting Standards in a 2023 meeting with the European Commission obtained via Freedom of Information request.
Position on Taxonomies: In its 2022 Stewardship Report, AXA IM supported a taxonomy with science-based criteria. In 2023, Rosyln Stein, Group Head of Climate and Biodiversity, appeared to support EU Taxonomy Regulation’s treatment of green products in its oral evidence to the UK Environmental Audit Committee. In its 2022 Climate and Biodiversity Report, the company advocated for the extension of the taxonomy to include ‘transition’ efforts, although it is not exactly clear which activities would be considered “transition.” In a media article in 2021, AXA’s CEO Thomas Buberl appeared to endorse the possibility of the taxonomy criteria to include nuclear energy as ‘green’. However, in 2022, Euractiv reported that AXA was opposing this weakening of the criteria.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investment Duties: In its 2021 Article 173/TCFD report, AXA IM stated broad support for the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). AXA broadly supported SFDR in its 2022 Stewardship Report and appeared to support improvements to the SRD II regulation to facilitate the exercise of shareholder voting rights.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: AXA supported the integration of climate-related risks into insurers’ Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA) under Solvency II in its 2023 Climate and Biodiversity Report. In addition, it supported incorporating sustainability in risk management practices in its 2023 Public Affairs Charter. AXA IM signed an Investor Agenda statement in 2022 which called for mandatory climate risk disclosure and prudential risk supervision.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: AXA expressed generalised support for the EU Emissions Trading System in its 2022 Climate and Biodiversity Report. It also supported Energy Performance Certificates under the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) in the same report, and supported the need for other energy efficiency policies as a signatory to a 2023 WEF joint letter.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transition: AXA has broadly supported regulation to decarbonize the economy in its 2023 Climate and Biodiversity Report, while AXA XL expressed broad support for the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) in its efforts to decarbonize the economy in a 2024 website article. AXA also supported renewable energy legislation and targets, and the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies as a signatory to a 2023 WEF joint letter.
Industry Association Governance AXA has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships but with no further details on the position of industry associations on climate-related policies. AXA also appears to exclude more than 3 industry associations that are actively engaged on sustainable finance policy including Insurance Europe, the Association of British Insurers, and the American Council of Life Insurers. AXA Investment Management states that it engages with industry associations but gives no further details on this engagement.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q2 2024.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on climate 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 lobbying assessment, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate issues, as well as “real economy” climate change policies.
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 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 policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which InfluenceMap uses to assess financial institutions' 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.
