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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $11.6B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
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: $7.29B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors in which the asset manager has shareholdings. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
|Holding Name||Contribution to Sector Production|
|Brazilian Electric Power Co||84.6%|
|Companhia Paranaense de Energia||4.0%|
|Engie Brasil Energia SA||2.6%|
|CPFL Energia SA||2.1%|
|Energy of Minas Gerais Co||2.0%|
|Omega Energia SA||1.1%|
|EDP Energias do Brasil SA||0.7%|
|Holding Name||Contribution to Sector Production|
|Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras||98.1%|
|Petro Rio SA||1.5%|
|Enauta Participacoes SA||0.4%|
All equity funds that FinanceMap has identified as being managed by this asset manager. Click through to a fund's profile page to view in-depth analysis.
Bradesco Asset Management (BRAM) does not appear to be actively engaging companies around climate change, although it has limited reporting and disclosures so it is unclear the extent of its stewardship. BRAM has listed climate change as a topic for engagement but does not appear to have a clear climate engagement framework. The asset manager does not appear to use defined milestones to track engagement progress or have an escalation response.
Due to the lack of case studies and examples in its reporting, it is unclear if BRAM is actively engaging companies on climate change. The asset manager does describe a collaborative engagement campaign with Climate Investors on Engagement Project (IPC in Portuguese) that it is involved in, although the extent of its participation is unclear. There is no evidence of engagement or expectations around indirect climate policy influence.
BRAM has described its general ESG governance structure but it is unclear how stewardship activities and review are incorporated into this structure. It is not transparent about engagement activities, only disclosing limited summary statistics, and does not disclose proxy voting record or how voting decisions are made.
There is no evidence in BRAM’s reporting that it is willing to use shareholder authority to engage companies on climate.
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 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.
Banco Bradesco does not appear to be engaged on sustainable finance policy. However, Banco Bradesco has supported the development of UNEP-FI's responsible banking principles, with the objective of strengthening the role of the financial sector in meeting the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. In its 2020 Climate Change management guideline it stated its support to TCFD-aligned ESG disclosure but it is unclear whether it is supporting policy to implement this.
Banco Bradesco lacks a dedicated, clearly identifiable disclosure of its sustainable finance-relevant policy positions and lobbying activities. It does disclose some of its trade association memberships in its 2019 and 2020 Integrated Reports but has not disclosed further details of indirect engagement 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 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.
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
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
It is unclear if Banco Bradesco is aligned with the TCFD’s recommendation regarding the governance of climate risk. The board is responsible for establishing its organizational strategy and has oversight of ESG performance. However, it does not communicate the processes by which it oversees climate-related issues, goals and targets. Although, climate-related responsibilities are assigned to various committees.
Bradesco considers physical and transition risks as well as climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending and investment business activities, but it has not defined risks it considers relevant over different time horizons.
It is transparent about how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning. For example, it is assessing the credit risks to its agri-credit portfolios posed by physical climate risks like flooding. Additionally, it has developed various products and services that support lower carbon consumption.
The organization appears to have tested the resilience of some business units' strategies using climate scenarios, however, it does not appear to have tested against a robust range of scenarios. Bradesco has developed a climate stress testing modeling tool to assess the impact of transition factors on customers; however, it is unclear how it used climate scenarios in this analysis. Additionally, it has conducted a pilot study to assess physical risks on its retail mortgage portfolio using a real estate portfolio using the IPCC 8.5 RCP scenario.
Bradesco’s reporting references its approach for assessing climate-related risks; for example, transition factors are measured using a modeling tool, and various physical risk factors are considered in assessments. However, it does not appear to have described its process to identify and prioritize these risks. Although, Bradesco is transparent about the different risk types considered in its climate risk assessments.
The organization outlines various processes to manage climate-related risks; including its Social and Environmental Risk Standard that sets out the scope of assessment for exposure to social and environmental risks. Additionally, it references ESG management processes for loans and financing, investment banking, and asset management. However, references to the processes for how it prioritizes, mitigates, transfers, accepts, or controls climate-related risks lack detail.
Bradesco appears to integrate climate-related risks into its overall risk management approach. For example, it has identified climate change as an emerging risk for the organization and integrates climate change into ESG assessments for project finance and investments.
Bradesco provides metrics on emissions in its climate change management report but does not appear to provide any detailed metrics on water, waste management, land use, etc. in its reporting. Bradesco has some disclosure around its financed emissions and the carbon intensity of select portfolios; however, this appears to cover less than 10% of its total credit exposure. It does not appear to publicly disclose other relevant metrics like expenditure, capital investment, or financing/lending towards managing climate-related risks or opportunities.
Bradesco discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 emissions data and has some relevant Scope 3 emissions, including upstream transportation and distribution, waste generated in operations, and business travel. The organization has conducted its first study of financed emissions on its real estate, energy, construction, vehicles, and agribusiness portfolios using PCAF.
The organization has outlined some climate-related targets related to supplying operations with renewables and carbon offsets. Notably, in July 2021, the bank became a member of the UN convened Net Zero Banking Alliance. It has committed to transitioning its lending and investment portfolios to align with net-zero by 2050 or sooner pathways and will set 2030 interim targets within 18 months.
Bradesco does not appear to have set exclusion criteria around financing coal mining, power generation or related infrastructure. It references conducting socio-environmental risk assessments to mining projects where it is lending over R$25 million, and to general 'energy' projects. However, it is unclear if coal mining is considered under this 'mining' policy.
Bradesco is not aligned with IPCC guidance on the role of oil and gas in the energy mix up to 2050. It has listed oil and gas prospection, exploration, production, and transportation as an activity exposed to socio-environmental risk, which are subject to risk assessments. However, the organization appears to provide financing for both sectors, given due diligence.
One of the key pillars of Bradesco’s climate strategy is providing financial solutions that support lower carbon consumption and production patterns, and it is acting through facilitating investment in renewables. In May 2021, it announced a sustainable finance target of R$250 billion by 2025 for positive social and environmental impact sectors. Additionally, it has communicated support for a net-zero economy and is supporting this through pledging to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050.
FinanceMap’s Climate Governance and Policies analysis assesses statements financial institutions (FIs) are making on how they are incorporating climate issues into their decision-making and operations using FinanceMap’s matrix methodology. This methodology is adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and guidelines, Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or equivalent Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) initiative reporting, and IPCC and IEA technology statements. The TCFD provide guidance on 11 recommendations across four areas which are reflected in our matrix: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. Additional benchmarks have been introduced to strengthen the ambition of scoring criteria in the assessment of targets, which are supplemented by guidance from the NZBA or equivalent GFANZ initiatives.
Additionally, Science-Based Policy (SBP) benchmarks are used to measure alignment of an FIs technology positions with the science of climate change. These benchmarks are applied to an FIs internal policies on technologies including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables and also assesses its engagement with broader climate and energy policy issues such as advocacy on the role and importance of different strategy types in the future energy mix.
For each TCFD recommendation and technology, FIs statements are applied to a five point scoring scale ranging from +2 to -2, measuring alignment with the relevant benchmarks. The detailed scores for this FI are displayed below within each matrix cell.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions climate governance, targets and policies. 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.