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: $80.3B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 31.5% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 11.0% |
| Enel SpA | 10.3% |
| Companhia Paranaense de Energia | 7.3% |
| Fortum Oyj | 6.4% |
| Eneva SA | 5.4% |
| Clearway Energy Inc | 2.8% |
| Light SA | 2.5% |
| Entergy Corp | 2.4% |
| Neoenergia SA | 1.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 33.1% |
| Volkswagen AG | 32.5% |
| General Motors Co | 14.4% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 4.8% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 3.8% |
| Ford Motor Co | 2.1% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 1.2% |
| Tesla Inc | 0.9% |
| Subaru Corp | 0.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 53.2% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 39.8% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 3.7% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.9% |
| Coal India Ltd | 0.6% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 0.2% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 0.2% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 0.1% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | <0.1% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 62.7% |
| EQT Corp | 8.0% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 5.8% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| BP PLC | 3.1% |
| Shell PLC | 2.7% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 1.5% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.3% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 1.3% |
| Chevron Corp | 1.2% |
The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) is made up of eight independently acting investment firms. In this assessment, it has been assessed independently and through scoring its largest and most relevant subsidiaries.
The online profile for Insight Investments, BNY Mellon’s largest subsidiary with USD$909bn AUM is available here. Mellon Investment Corporation (Mellon) has an AUM of USD$558bn as of September 2020 and can be found here. Finally, Newton Investment Management, a smaller but actively engaging asset manager, with an AUM of USD$105bn, can be found here.
The evidence provided below relates to BNY Mellon’s voting behavior for comparison against its subsidiaries. From 2018 to 2020 BNY Mellon supported 31%, 16.7% and 33.3% of annual general meeting (AGM) resolutions that InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement respectively. In 2021, BNY's support of climate-related resolutions increased to 51.6%. However, it split its vote on 2 resolutions. For example, voting for and against Shell to set and publish targets for GHG emissions.
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) and subsidiaries BNY Investment Management, Insight Investment, and Newton Investment Management appear to be engaged on climate-related policies in the US, EU, and UK, with mixed positions. The bulk of policy engagement appears to come from Insight, in Europe.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: In its 2022 response to the UK Green Finance Strategy Update, Insight Investment recognized the issue of short-termism in the financial system but stated that it is an “open question” as to whether financial markets can be restructured to address this. Subsidiaries Insight and Newton signed onto the Investor Agenda’s 2022 Global Investor Statement, advocating for governments to take action to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. Also in a 2022 Responsible Investor article, BNY IM appeared supportive of urgent action to tackle climate change. In its 2022 ESG Report BNY reported engaging on climate-related issues with policymakers, but details of this engagement are unclear. In 2022 comments to HM Treasury, BNY supported an update of regulatory principles for sustainable growth to reference climate change and a net-zero economy.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: BNY has taken a mixed position on climate disclosure, broadly supporting the need for disclosure but outlining objections to specifics of some policies. Insight and Newton signed on to the 2022 Global Investor Statement, calling on policymakers to mandate TCFD-aligned reporting and require disclosure of 1.5C pathway-aligned transition plans. In a 2022 release, the head of Responsible Investment for Insight welcomed the SEC’s efforts to require corporate climate disclosures. In 2022 comments on the UK Green Finance Strategy Update, Insight supported efforts to enhance climate disclosure but asserted that Scope 3 emissions disclosure should only be mandated after consistent methodologies and standards have been developed, encouraging the UK to lead this effort. In Insight’s 2024 Responsible Stewardship Report it supported the UK Transition Plan Taskforce’s transition plan disclosure framework and implementation guidance but highlighted challenges for companies operating across jurisdictions and advocated for interoperability.
Position on Climate Standards/Labels/Benchmarks: In Insight’s 2024 Responsible Stewardship Report it detailed engaging with the Australian government on its green bond framework, supporting requirements around clearly defined use-of-proceeds. In a 2022 letter Insight took a mixed position on ESMA’s efforts to introduce quantitative thresholds for funds using ESG terms in their names, supporting the 80% threshold but not supporting Paris Alignment Benchmark exclusions. According to its 2024 report, Insight wanted further changes to ESMA’s final rules, but what these changes are is unclear. BNY IM advocated for several changes to the UK FCA’s proposed investment labels in 2023 comments, raising concerns about timeline, data availability and criteria for stewardship under the “Sustainable Improvers” label, and restriction on the use of certain terms. Insight appeared supportive of the final SDR labels in its 2024 report.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In its 2022 Responsible Stewardship report, Insight supported a US Department of Labor rule that would permit fiduciaries to consider climate risks in investment decision making. However, in 2022 comments to the Department, Insight did not support a requirement for retirement plans to report on climate risks. Similarly, in 2022 comments to the UK Department for Work and Pensions Insight suggested that it was premature to require trustees to report on the Paris alignment of pension schemes. In 2023 comments BNY Mellon IM objected to proposed stewardship requirements in the FCA’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements but supported proposed consumer-facing disclosures. Also in the UK, Insight has called for more clarity around trustees’ legal obligations to facilitate increased investment in green bonds and increased use of ESG factors in investing. In the EU, Insight has objected to a number of technical elements to the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in 2023 comments and its 2024 report.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policies: In its 2024 Responsible Stewardship report Insight details engaging with the Australian government on its 2035 emissions reduction plan, though details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: BNY appears generally supportive of the energy transition. A 2022 report outlined a position on hydrogen that is aligned with IPCC guidance, suggesting hydrogen can be useful for transferring off of gas. The same report called for government action to decarbonize the economy. Insight’s 2024 Responsible Stewardship report detailed engagement with the UK government where Insight outlined concerns that the UK policy environment is not ambitious enough to meet net zero targets and opposed the government’s approval of a new coal mine in Cumbria. Additionally, in a 2023 ESG Investor article BNY appeared supportive of the climate investments in the US Inflation Reduction Act.
Industry Association Governance: BNY and its subsidiaries have disclosed membership to industry associations, but without providing details of these groups' climate-related positions or engagement activities.
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 Q1 2025.
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.
