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.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)’s board appears to have oversight of climate-related goals and targets, but has not detailed the processes in place for the board to monitor the climate strategy. It has assigned climate-related responsibilities to management-level positions and committees, and has some descriptions of how senior management is involved in the implementation and management of climate-related issues.
CIBC describes several climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant to its business, and uses a Carbon Risk Scoring system to consider clients’ current, medium, and long-term positioning with regards to physical and transitions risks. Additionally, it uses this risk scoring system to inform its climate heat mapping and scenario analysis.
The organization appears to consider the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on corporate strategy planning across different lines of business, including through sustainable products and service offerings.
CIBC appears to have tested the resilience of its business strategy using climate scenario analysis, in 2022 testing the resilience of its corporate and commercial lending as well as retail lending across various scenarios. In 2021 reporting, it placed an emphasis on three 30-year scenarios suggested by the Bank of Canada OSFI, including below 2C immediate, below 2C delayed, and net-zero 2050 which is a 1.5C model. However, reporting of these analyses lacks detail, and the organization has not described how it plans to respond to the impacts identified in its analyses.
CIBC has described its approach to assessing both physical and transition risks using its Carbon Risk Scoring Methodology, which includes considerations of changes in market, policy, and technology under different climate scenarios. The organization outlines some strategies it uses to manage climate-related risk, and uses its Carbon Risk Scoring Methodology to prioritize clients and inform engagement around mitigating climate risk. It appears to have fully integrated climate-related risk into its overall risk management approach. CIBC has embedded climate risk into its risk appetite statements and has integrated its climate heatmapping assessment into enterprise-wide stress testing.
The organization discloses some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including amount and percentage of assets vulnerable to physical and transition risks, top level sustainable financing metrics, and remuneration policies around climate risk management although it has not disclosed the specific weight of climate on compensation.
CIBC fully discloses Scope 1 and 2 emissions as well as some relevant Scope 3 emissions. It also has disclosed absolute financed emissions for the portfolios of some sectors, including oil and gas, power generation, and Canadian residential and commercial real estate.
In August 2021, CIBC set a Net Zero by 2050 target for its lending activities. In March 2022, it released its initial 2030 interim target for the oil and gas sector, and in September 2022 it published another interim 2030 target for the power generation sector. However, both of these reduction targets are based on emissions intensity and not absolute emissions metrics.
CIBC is not aligned with IPCC guidance on the role of coal in the energy mix up to 2050. Its policies include major exemptions, stating it will not lend to any client or project where proceeds will be primarily used for developing new coal-fired power plants, mountaintop removal coal mines, or standalone thermal coal mines, and will evaluate coal reduction efforts of any new or existing utility or power generation client with more than 60% of power generation from coal. Additionally, it has not outlined a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
Regarding natural gas and oil, the organization states that it won’t directly finance entities that are involved in exploration or development of oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It has not outlined other activities related to oil and gas in its environmental policy and thus appears to be actively financing new or expansionary projects and has not made statements surrounding the need to transition away from oil and gas in the energy mix over time.
CIBC is increasing its financing of renewables under its $300 billion sustainable finance by 2030 target, and is a leading capital markets provider for renewables.
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.
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $145B
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 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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $40.2B
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 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: $3.12B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 86.5% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 7.2% |
| TransAlta Corp | 5.7% |
| Fortis Inc | 0.3% |
| National Grid PLC | 0.2% |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | 0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 99.8% |
| Ferrari NV | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Pioneer Natural Resources Co | 24.5% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 15.5% |
| Conocophillips | 13.4% |
| Chevron Corp | 12.7% |
| Shell PLC | 10.6% |
| Equinor ASA | 9.6% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 6.0% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 3.3% |
| Woodside Energy Group Ltd | 1.7% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 1.2% |
CIBC’s engagement on sustainable finance policy is somewhat unclear, although it appears to be involved in the development of Canada’s transition taxonomy, and has engaged on climate disclosure and risk management policies.
In its 2022 Climate Report, CIBC stated support for action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C, and CEO Victor Dodig has supported urgent action to tackle climate change. CIBC has stated that it is engaging with policymakers to develop a “robust sustainable finance market.”
In its 2022 CDP response, CIBC stated that it supported, with minor exceptions, the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ (OSFI) efforts to mandate climate-related financial disclosures. In February 2022, CIBC submitted a comment on the Canadian Securities Administrators’ (CSA) proposed climate disclosure rules, but did not take a clear position on the rules, stating that it had provided input into the response submitted by the Canadian Bankers Association. CIBC Asset Management also commented on the CSA proposal, advocating for increased ambition by supporting mandatory emissions disclosure and an accelerated timeline. In its 2022 Climate Report, CIBC stated it was monitoring climate disclosure proposals at the SEC and ISSB but did not take a clear position on these policies.
In its 2022 Climate Report CIBC reported engaging with policymakers on the development of a “green” and “transition” taxonomy to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, although details of this engagement and the taxonomy are unclear.
In 2020 and 2021 CIBC signed onto joint letters, first opposing Trump-era Department of Labor rules that sought to limit ESG investing, then supporting Biden-era rules that reversed the earlier rules and permitted the use of ESG factors in fiduciaries’ decision making.
In its 2022 CDP response CIBC said that is supported, with minor exceptions, the OSFI’s “climate sensitive” prudential framework.
CIBC has not disclosed a list of its industry association membership or engagement activities.
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 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.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source