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: $3.43T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 7.0% |
| Entergy Corp | 5.3% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 5.3% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.6% |
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 4.4% |
| Southern Co | 3.7% |
| Vistra Corp | 3.5% |
| Engie SA | 2.8% |
| EDP SA | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 11.2% |
| Volkswagen AG | 9.8% |
| General Motors Co | 9.4% |
| Ford Motor Co | 9.4% |
| Stellantis NV | 8.5% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 6.7% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 6.1% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.2% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 4.0% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 3.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 38.6% |
| Coal India Ltd | 18.9% |
| Glencore PLC | 12.2% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 7.4% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 3.8% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 2.1% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 1.9% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.8% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 9.9% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 9.6% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 7.6% |
| BP PLC | 6.8% |
| Shell PLC | 6.0% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.2% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 3.9% |
| ConocoPhillips | 3.8% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 3.5% |
| Eni SpA | 2.9% |
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 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: BlackRock has taken mixed positions on climate policies in the US, Europe, and globally. While BlackRock has previously stated top-line support for climate-related finance regulation, there appears to be a recent shift towards supporting less urgent action. BlackRock has expressed more mixed and negative positions when engaging with specific policies.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: BlackRock has mixed top-line messaging on its climate-related financial policy positions. While CEO Larry Fink advocated for ‘urgent change’ and stated that ‘time is running out’ in 2021, there appears to be a message shift in more recent years. In his annual letter to investors in 2024, Fink emphasized that the net-zero must be gradual and outlined the need for ‘energy pragmatism’. BlackRock has consistently stated that there is need for fossil fuels over the long-term, as seen in its 2022 response to the House of Commons inquiry and a March 2022 article, and in October 2022 Fink stated in a group interview with Handelsblatt, that that fossil fuels will be “with us for another 100 years”. BlackRock has supported the need for sustainable finance regulation in Larry Fink’s 2022 Letter to CEOs and stated support for systemic reform in order to deliver a sustainable financial system in a December 2023 Bloomberg article.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: BlackRock has consistently opposed Scope 3 disclosure requirements in climate disclosure policies. In a June 2022 website article, BlackRock objected to the SEC’s climate disclosure rules, specifically the Scope 3 emission 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 also objected to Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements in a January 2023 interview, stating “I’ve always said I don’t believe in Scope 3, because I don’t want to be the environmental police.” BlackRock has, however, supported aligning disclosure frameworks with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in May 2023 comments to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
Position on Taxonomies: BlackRock appears to support the need for a taxonomy, stating in December 2022 comments on the UK Update to Green Finance Strategy, that it could ‘give investors greater clarity on sustainability credentials of different economic activities’ but also suggesting that the EU taxonomy fails to capture transition pathways. Similarly, in a March 2023 meeting with the European Commission’s Cabinet of Executive Vice President, BlackRock outlined concerns that the EU taxonomy is too narrow and advocated for more ‘transition activities’ to be incorporated. BlackRock has been inconsistent with its interpretation of what should be included in a taxonomy. In a May 2022 article BlackRock argued that classifying fossil fuels as sustainable energy sources would be ‘nonsense’. In an October 2022 interview, however, Larry Fink advocated for the inclusion of gas in the EU green taxonomy.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: BlackRock does not appear to support policy on climate standards and labels. In January 2023 comments to the UK FCA BlackRock advocated for a less prescriptive approach to climate labels, including the broadening of the qualifying criteria and the extension of timelines for the UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR). While giving broad support to EU guidelines on funds names in a February 2023 response to ESMA, BlackRock did not support the proposed thresholds or the applications of Paris Alignment Benchmark exclusions for funds using sustainability-related names. In a December 2023 consultation on EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), BlackRock did not support policy on climate standards, including opposing minimum standards on product categories.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: BlackRock has opposed political efforts to discourage climate investing in a 2022 social media post, a 2022 letter to the Attorneys General of the States and described anti-ESG policies as “opportunistic”, “anti-competitive” and “bad for business” in an August 2022 Financial Times article. On the other hand, BlackRock has opposed efforts to introduce regulation to clarify the inclusion of climate factors into investor duties, suggesting, in May 2023 comments to the UK Financial Conduct Authority, that directing stewardship towards sustainability outcomes constrains investor choice. BlackRock has however stated support for the FCA’s guidance on anti-greenwashing regulation in January 2024, designed to promote accurate sustainability related information for financial products. Conversely, however, BlackRock did not support the proposed entity-level disclosures in a June 2024 FCA consultation regarding a proposed extension of the SDR, which would require portfolio managers to incorporate and disclose on climate factors.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: BlackRock has appeared to support the continued use of hydrocarbons in a 2022 website article and July 2022 comments on the UK Update to Green Finance Strategy. In more recent years, BlackRock appears to take a position that is not aligned with the IPCC guidance on the role of fossil fuels in the energy transition. In September 2023 Larry Fink supported permitting reform to facilitate all forms of energy infrastructure. Over the last year, Fink repeatedly emphasized concerns over the technical feasibility of a transition towards renewable energy, suggesting other energy sources are desirable, and expressed his support for “energy pragmatism”, as seen in his Annual Chairman’s Letter to Investors, a Financial Times article and on the BlackRock website.
Industry Association Governance: BlackRock has listed some of its memberships to trade associations excluding the Council of Institutional Investors, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada. BlackRock has not given details on the climate policy positions of these organizations.
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.
