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: $1.48T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| AES Corp | 26.0% |
| Engie SA | 12.9% |
| Entergy Corp | 12.6% |
| PG&E Corp | 5.7% |
| Enel SpA | 5.6% |
| Exelon Corp | 4.6% |
| Iberdrola SA | 3.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.4% |
| DTE Energy Co | 3.3% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 58.7% |
| Renault SA | 25.3% |
| Stellantis NV | 4.3% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 3.5% |
| Tesla Inc | 2.4% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 2.3% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 2.2% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 1.0% |
| Volkswagen AG | 0.4% |
| Ferrari NV | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 100.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 28.1% |
| Conocophillips | 8.4% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 6.9% |
| BP PLC | 6.6% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 6.2% |
| Pioneer Natural Resources Co | 5.7% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.7% |
| Tourmaline Oil Corp | 4.3% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 3.7% |
| Chesapeake Energy Corp | 3.5% |
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.
Capital Group appears to have had somewhat limited engagement on sustainable finance policies, stating top-line support for ESG disclosure but appearing cautious of other forms of regulation.
Capital Group has recognized the risks climate change poses to the financial system, but it is unclear whether it supports systemic reforms to address these risks. In 2022, Capital Group joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Capital Group has mentioned engaging with regulators on sustainable finance policies but has not described details of these engagements. In 2020, Capital Group stated opposition to “prescriptive requirements” to achieve sustainable finance goals in the EU.
Capital Group has taken mixed positions on regulated corporate ESG disclosure, supporting disclosure generally but outlining concerns with some specific policy provisions. In a 2021 paper Capital Group stated support for policymakers working to create a strong framework for company disclosure, and it has supported regulatory implementation of the TCFD. In its 2022 Global Citizenship and Sustainability Report, Capital Group stated that it actively engages with regulators to “advocate for enhanced disclosure.” In a 2021 letter to the SEC Capital Group supported regulated corporate ESG disclosure aligned with TCFD recommendations, but took a mixed position on the SEC’s proposed disclosure rule in 2022, asserting that the proposal strayed from the Commission’s traditional materiality standard. In 2020 comments on the EU’s Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy it stated support for the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). In the same comments, however, Capital Group opposed mandating disclosure of specific targets related to Paris Agreements goals, instead supporting a more “dynamic” disclosure framework. In 2022, Capital Group expressed strong support for the International Sustainability Standards Board’s proposed climate disclosure standards, which are likely to inform government policy.
Capital Group has been generally unsupportive of policy on ESG labels and standards. In 2020 comments on the EU Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy, Capital Group did not support the European Commission’s proposed policy on ESG labels for investment funds and did not support the EU taking action to create an ESG benchmark. In a 2020 consultation on the EU Green Bond Standard Capital Group supported the standard overall but advocated for a flexible and proportionate approach when extending the standard to new sectors. In comments to the SEC in August 2022, Capital Group took a mixed position on the Commission’s proposed categorization of ESG-related funds.
Capital Group has taken a mixed but overall negative position on incorporating ESG factors into investor duties. In response to the Joint European Supervisory Authorities’ consultation on standards for the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in 2020, Capital Group suggested that the proposed requirements were too prescriptive and should be more flexible. In the same comments, Capital Group did not support the inclusion of ESG impacts (negative externalities) in investor duties. Capital Group took a broadly positive position on ESG investing in response to Trump administration rollbacks in 2020; not supporting a Department of Labor rule that sought to limit shareholder rights and taking a mixed position on a proposed rule that limited ESG investing. 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 has listed membership of trade associations but has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of these organizations or any actions taken to address misalignments.
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.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital Group is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Joanna Jonsson is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
Joanna F. Jonsson (Equity Portfolio Manager, Capital Group)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital Group is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Joanna Jonsson is on the board of ICI, a member of the Executive Committee.
Joanna F. Jonsson (Equity Portfolio Manager, Capital Group)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital Group is a member of Inverco and Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), which are national association members of Insurance Europe (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Capital Group is a member of Inverco and Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), which are national association members of Insurance Europe (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source