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: $2.33T
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 |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 5.0% |
| Brazilian Electric Power Co | 4.7% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.4% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 4.4% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 4.1% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| Southern Co | 2.9% |
| RWE AG | 2.7% |
| Exelon Corp | 2.6% |
| Entergy Corp | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 11.5% |
| Stellantis NV | 10.3% |
| General Motors Co | 8.7% |
| Volkswagen AG | 8.4% |
| Ford Motor Co | 7.4% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 7.4% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 4.7% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 4.7% |
| Renault SA | 4.5% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 33.4% |
| Coal India Ltd | 12.1% |
| Glencore PLC | 10.7% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 9.5% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 6.8% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 6.6% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 6.1% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 3.7% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 2.6% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 2.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 12.8% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 7.7% |
| BP PLC | 7.6% |
| Shell PLC | 6.7% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.2% |
| Novatek PAO | 5.1% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 4.0% |
| Conocophillips | 3.1% |
| Eni SpA | 2.7% |
| EQT Corp | 2.7% |
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.
BlackRock does not appear to be forcefully engaging with companies on climate change. Its framework for climate engagements appear to focus on encouraging companies to disclose in line with standards such as TCFD and SASB. In 2021, it expanded its climate focus universe to over 1000 carbon intensive companies that represent nearly 90% of global Scope 1 and 2 emissions in which it invests. Although it has clearly defined engagement expectations on climate, it is unclear whether the asset manager uses milestones to monitor engagement progress. It appears to have an escalation response, which includes voting against management if engagements and unresponsive.
It is unclear whether BlackRock is actively engaging companies to transition in line with the Paris Agreement. The asset manager has stated that it “is not in the position to dictate a company’s climate strategy or implementation”. It has engaged around climate risk reporting with various companies including Ambev and Texas Instruments as well as sustainability risk management with Central Asia Metals (CAML). Additionally, it has engaged with Adani Enterprises about the Carmichael Mine project and voted against the re-election of several directors at the company’s AGM. BlackRock has outlined expectations around climate policy influence, particularly ensuring corporate political activities are aligned with public statements and that trade association positions are monitored. However, it does not appear to have engaged on this issue directly in 2021 based on engagement case studies in its quarterly reporting. It is unclear whether the asset manager is actively collaboratively engaging on climate, it is a member of CA100+’s Asia Advisory Group but has not provided any examples in its 2021 Stewardship Report.
BlackRock has clearly described its stewardship governance structure as well as its policy review process. It is transparent about its engagements, providing a list of companies engaged with and topics discussed. The asset manager is also transparent about its voting record, providing key climate-related voting decisions made available with voting bulletins on its stewardship webpage.
BlackRock has used its shareholder authority to engage with companies on climate, including voting against director elections due to climate concerns. However, in March 2022, it stated it would support less resolutions in 2022 compared to previous years, mainly supporting resolutions calling for improved disclosure.
Insightia data suggests that BlackRock has overwhelmingly opposed AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 0% in 2019, 15.4% in 2020, 34.7% in 2021, and 11.9% in 2022.
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.
BlackRock has taken mixed positions on sustainable finance policies in the US, Europe, and globally. In general, BlackRock has stated top-line support for sustainable finance regulation while taking more mixed and negative positions when engaging with specific policies.
BlackRock has stated support for action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C and in 2021 BlackRock joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. CEO Larry Fink has advocated for urgent action on climate change in line with the Paris Agreement in opinion pieces and in his 2021 letter to CEOs, but has also argued for a continued role for greenhouse gas emission-intense investments and suggested that fossil fuels will be “with us for another 100 years.” In comments to the UK House of Commons in 2022, BlackRock appeared to oppose the IEA’s net zero scenario which calls for no new investment in fossil fuels. BlackRock has stated support for the European Commission’s Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy and the UK’s Green Finance Strategy, as well as broad efforts by policymakers to “advance sustainable finance.” In his 2022 letter to CEOs, Larry Fink called on governments to advance sustainable finance policies.
BlackRock has taken mixed positions on ESG disclosure policies, and its engagement has evolved since 2019. In consultations by the European Commission’s Technical Expert Group (TEG) and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), both in 2019, BlackRock argued against a mandatory regulatory approach. Since 2020, BlackRock has supported the need for some kind of regulated corporate ESG disclosure, while objecting to specific provisions in proposed disclosure policies.
In 2020 consultations by the FCA and the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), BlackRock supported mandatory implementation of the TCFD. In 2021 comments to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), BlackRock strongly supported mandatory climate disclosures for both public and private markets. However, after the SEC released its proposed climate disclosure rule in 2022, BlackRock expressed concern with several of the rule’s provisions including Scope 3 emissions disclosure and financial statements disclosure requirements. BlackRock also advocated for increased flexibility in climate disclosure standards, including Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements, in 2022 comments to the International Sustainability Standards Board and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. CEO Larry Fink has been vocal in his calls for regulated corporate ESG disclosure and mandatory implementation of the TCFD, advocating this position in a speech at the 2020 Green Horizon Summit, his 2021 letter to shareholders, and his 2021 and 2022 letters to CEOs.
In 2020 comments to the European Commission, BlackRock stated support for the EU Taxonomy Regulation but in a white paper from the same year, BlackRock argued against prescriptive definitions of sustainability in the Taxonomy. A media article from 2022 suggested that BlackRock would not support gas being considered “green” in the EU Taxonomy, but in other media from 2022, CEO Larry Fink stated support for the labeling of gas as “green” in the Taxonomy.
On its website BlackRock has stated top-line support for the need for policy on ESG labels and standards but has taken a more mixed position on specific policies. In feedback to the European Commission in January 2019, BlackRock suggested an unambitious threshold of 25% of green activities for a portfolio or company to be considered green. However, in May 2019, BlackRock revised this position to support the proposed 70% threshold, while still advocating for flexibility in labeling. In feedback to the TEG in March 2019, BlackRock supported many aspects of the EU Green Bond Standard including strong requirements on issuer disclosure, but in later feedback to the TEG in July 2019, BlackRock disagreed with most of the minimum proposed standards for the EU’s climate benchmarks. In 2022 comments to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, BlackRock did not support a proposed 70% sustainable asset threshold for a fund to be categorized as an ESG Fund and in comments to the SEC also in 2022, BlackRock supported narrower definitions for proposed ESG-related fund categories.
In its 2021 report detailing regulatory developments in Europe, BlackRock stated support for changes to MiFID to include ESG factors in investor duties, support for the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and support for the efforts of the DWP to require large pension schemes to integrate climate considerations into their operations. It reiterated this support in its 2022 midyear update. In its 2021 letter to IOSCO, however, BlackRock cautioned against overly prescriptive policies to integrate ESG into investor duties. In 2020, BlackRock did not support Department of Labor rules that sought to limit ESG investing and shareholder rights. BlackRock supported the 2021 reversal of these rules but asked for the language guiding ESG considerations to be made less stringent. In 2022 comments to the DWP, BlackRock supported policy on climate and investment reporting by pension trustees but advocated for a delay in implementation. In comments to the SEC, also in 2022, BlackRock outlined several concerns with the Commission’s proposed ESG disclosure requirements for investment advisers and investment companies.
BlackRock has expressed concern with efforts that seek to limit ESG investing in the US. BlackRock’s corporate website states that efforts to restrict certain investment choices are “bad for workers and retirees,” and in a 2022 letter to state attorneys general, BlackRock wrote that it was “disturbed” by emerging efforts to limit ESG investing. BlackRock has objected to anti-ESG policies in Texas and Florida, characterizing the efforts as “anti-competitive” and “jeopardiz{ing} returns.”
In the 2021 Forum on Banking Supervision, a BlackRock Managing Director stated support for incorporating ESG factors into risk management and developing methodologies and risk frameworks, but cautioned against adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. In a 2021 paper BlackRock mentioned possible future regulation to incorporate climate into risk management and regulation, but did not take a clear position.
BlackRock has disclosed some of its trade association membership but has omitted mention of other member associations including non-US associations like the Association for Financial Markets in Europe and EFAMA. BlackRock has given little detail on the sustainable finance policy positions of these associations or any actions taken to address misalignment.
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
BlackRock is a corporate member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Stéphane LAPIQUONNE is a member of the EFAMA board of directors. This does no longer appear to be the case (last checked July 2023)
Stéphane LAPIQUONNE (BlackRock Co-head Continental Europe & Head France, Belgium & Luxembourg)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
BlackRock is a corporate member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Stéphane LAPIQUONNE is a member of the EFAMA board of directors. This does no longer appear to be the case (last checked July 2023)
Stéphane LAPIQUONNE (BlackRock Co-head Continental Europe & Head France, Belgium & Luxembourg)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Dalia Blass is on the board of SIFMA
Dalia Blass (BlackRock Head of External Affairs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of SIFMA.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Dalia Blass is on the board of SIFMA
Dalia Blass (BlackRock Head of External Affairs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of SIFMA.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of ICI.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Salim Ramji is on the Board of ICI.
Salim Ramji (Senior Managing Director & Global Head of iShares and Index Instruments, BlackRock)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of ICI.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Salim Ramji is on the Board of ICI.
Salim Ramji (Senior Managing Director & Global Head of iShares and Index Instruments, BlackRock)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Stephen Cohen is a board member at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Stephen Cohen (Head of Europe, Middle East and Africa region - BlackRock)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Stephen Cohen is a board member at The Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
Stephen Cohen (Head of Europe, Middle East and Africa region - BlackRock)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sandy Boss is on the board of IIGCC (last checked September 2023).
Sandy Boss (Chief Operating Officer for BlackRock's Global Client Business)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of the IIGCC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sandy Boss is on the board of IIGCC (last checked September 2023).
Sandy Boss (Chief Operating Officer for BlackRock's Global Client Business)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of the IIGCC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of the Chamber's US-UK Business Council.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022 BlackRock is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock is a member of the Chamber's US-UK Business Council.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022 BlackRock is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Laurence D. Fink is a member of Business Roundtable.
Laurence D. Fink (Founder, Chairman and CEO, BlackRock))
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Laurence D. Fink is a member of Business Roundtable.
Laurence D. Fink (Founder, Chairman and CEO, BlackRock))
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
BlackRock Life Limited 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)
BlackRock Life Limited is a member of the ABI (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
BlackRock’s board has oversight of the long-term strategy, which includes sustainability and climate change, and board committees are responsible for overseeing, identifying, and reviewing climate-related risks as well as stewardship-related initiatives. Management-level committees and groups are assigned clear climate-related responsibilities, and there are processes to ensure senior management implement and monitor the progress of climate-related issues and initiatives.
BlackRock is transparent about the climate-related risks and opportunities in its investment business activities. In its corporate reporting, it does not define the specific risks and opportunities it considers relevant over different time horizons, beyond references to emerging regulations in the medium term. However, this is expanded on in CDP reports.
It is transparent about the climate-related risks and opportunities with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on its business, and it describes various actions taken. For example, it is enhancing engagements with carbon-intensive sectors, introducing new climate-risk tools and increasing access to sustainable investing.
BlackRock has conducted scenario analysis "from two vantage points – first, as a publicly-traded company; and second, as a fiduciary on behalf of our clients" and appears to have applied various climate scenarios, including those consistent with a 2°C or lower warming climate-scenario. In its 2021 TCFD report, BlackRock integrated its Aladdin Climate analytics to assess asset level climate-related impacts.
BlackRock references processes used for identifying portfolio companies for engagement and states its investors lead in identifying material climate-related risks and opportunities. It has developed tools to deepen portfolio manager understanding of climate risks; however, it does not clearly describe the processes used to identify and assess climate risks across all tools used.
The organization has processes in place to manage climate-related risks. For example, BlackRock has three lines of defense in managing risks in client portfolios, where portfolio managers are responsible for managing exposure to ESG risks while investment teams determine the materiality of sustainability-related topics.
It appears to integrate climate-related risks into its overall risk management approach. BlackRock has a firm-wide commitment to integrate ESG into investment processes across all portfolios. Portfolio managers are accountable for managing exposure to material ESG risks, including climate risks.
BlackRock is transparent about some metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, and it discloses various metrics in its TCFD report and Carbon Footprint report. It provides metrics on sustainable investing, emissions, electricity, and weighted carbon intensity metrics for its index funds, etc. However, while it discloses around its sustainable investments, it does not appear to have disclosed the amount or proportion of assets materially exposed to physical and transition risks.
BlackRock discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 emissions data and relevant Scope 3 emissions. It has disclosed on the weighted average carbon intensity of its investment products. However, this appears to only be available at the fund level. Additionally, in its 2021 TCFD report, BlackRock disclosed preliminary estimates of the absolute emissions and carbon footprint associated with its AUM in corporate securities and real estate, representing approximately $5.7 trillion of its AUM.
In March 2021, BlackRock joined the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and has committed to reaching net-zero by 2050 or sooner. In April 2022 it revieled that it anticipates that by 2030, 75% of its portfolio companies and sovereign issuers will have adopted science-based targets or equivalent. However, it is unclear if it plans to take further action beyond relying on its engagement practices and will set interim targets for 2030. However, it has not yet published KPIs to explain how it will achieve this. It has outlined other targets to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities in its Carbon Footprint report, including targets related to emissions reductions, increasing renewables procurement, and other operational targets.
The organization does not appear to be aligned with IPCC guidance on the role of coal in the energy mix up to 2050. BlackRock is phasing out of thermal coal from its active investment portfolios. However, it has not published clear timelines for exiting the sector that aligns with the IPCC, nor set production capacity thresholds within the 25% limit. Additionally, this policy is limited to coal producers (does not appear to include coal power generating companies) and only applies to actively managed funds.
BlackRock does not appear to be supporting a reduction of oil and gas in the global energy mix that is in line with IPCC or IEA guidelines. It has not set active investment exclusion criteria on investments in both traditional and unconventional oil and gas extraction like tar sands, projects in the Arctic, or fracking. Instead, it appears to be stressing the role of active management. Additionally, in December 2021, BlackRock Real Assets lead a consortium of investors to take a 49% equity stake in Aramco Gas Pipelines Company, which has signed a $15.5 billion, 20 year lease with Aramco on a gas pipeline network.
BlackRock has communicated support for transitioning to a net zero-carbon economy and manages one of the largest renewable power platforms in the world. As a member of the NZAMI, the organization has pledged to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050, but it has not yet aligned its energy financing portfolio with the IPCC guidance between 2020-2050.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source