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: $1.83T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Engie SA | 16.3% |
| Entergy Corp | 15.9% |
| DTE Energy Co | 9.7% |
| Southern Co | 9.4% |
| AES Corp | 7.2% |
| Iberdrola SA | 5.1% |
| Pinnacle West Capital Corp | 4.6% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 4.5% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 2.6% |
| E.ON SE | 2.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 36.9% |
| Renault SA | 20.2% |
| General Motors Co | 12.0% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 7.6% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 7.0% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 6.5% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 4.3% |
| Tesla Inc | 3.8% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 1.1% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 100.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 18.9% |
| Cenovus Energy Inc | 11.7% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 11.7% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 7.1% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 7.0% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 7.0% |
| ConocoPhillips | 7.0% |
| BP PLC | 6.4% |
| EQT Corp | 5.0% |
| Neftyanaya Kompaniya Rosneft' PAO | 4.6% |
Capital Group does not appear to be firmly engaging with companies around climate change. The asset manager appears to center its climate engagement strategy around reporting and disclosures. It appears to monitor engagements and use broad milestones but its reporting lacks details on these milestones. It does appear to have a defined escalation response based on engagement outcomes, and has demonstrated use of escalation on climate issues at Chevron.
Capital Group has engaged with companies on climate, including with Glencore on phasing out coal mines, and with Chevron on setting emissions reduction targets and its energy transition strategy. There is no evidence that the asset manager is engaging with companies on climate policy influence, although it did vote in support of a shareholder proposal at ExxonMobil on climate lobbying disclosure. It does not appear to be an active participant in collaborative engagements, and does not provide any examples in its reporting.
Capital Group has described its stewardship governance structure, however it is unclear how it assesses the effectiveness of stewardship policies and activities. The asset manager is partially transparent about engagements, only disclosing a limited number of named case studies. It does disclose proxy voting data but does not include voting rationale.
Although Capital Group does not generally use shareholder authority to file climate-related resolutions or voice support for climate resolutions, it did vote against the re-election of four directors at ExxonMobil in 2021 on climate grounds.
Insightia data suggests that Capital Group is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 0% in 2019, 6.2% in 2020, 28% in 2021, and 18.8% 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: Capital Group appears to have had somewhat limited engagement on climate-related policies, generally supporting climate disclosure and energy transition policies while taking less supportive positions toward other climate-related finance regulations.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: In 2022, Capital Group joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. While Capital Group has disclosed that it has engaged on climate policy with a number of global regulators, it does not disclose its position on the need for climate-related finance regulation in both its 2023 Stewardship Report and its 2022 Global Citizenship and Sustainability Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Capital Group generally supported the SEC's proposed climate disclosure rule including the requirement to disclose Scope 3 emissions if material but it did assert that the proposal deviates from the traditional materiality standard in its 2022 response to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed climate disclosure regulations. Capital Group supported the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) climate disclosure standards, both in 2022 and 2023 consultation responses. Capital Group also advocated for Canada to adopt these standards in 2024 comments to Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: Capital Group has taken supportive and oppositional positions toward incorporating climate factors into investor duties. In comments to the SEC in 2022, Capital Group outlined concerns with proposed disclosure requirements for ESG investors, advocating for less ambitious disclosure requirements for “ESG integration” funds. Capital Group, in a 2023 response to the European Commission supported the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)'s objective to increase transparency around climate investing and products, but called for the removal of specific disclosure requirements.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Capital Group has expressed broad support for specific regulatory measures towards the electrification of transportation in its 2023 TCFD Report, while taking an unclear position on the energy transition in an October 2024 article.
Industry Association Governance: Capital Group provides a list of industry association membership and some details on membership roles on but failed to disclose membership to the Institute of International Finance (IIF). Capital Group has not disclosed an account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities or any actions taken to address misalignments.
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 Q2 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.
