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.
Citigroup’s (Citi) board has oversight of the organization’s approach to climate-related risks and opportunities, and the organization has integrated climate-related matters into the charter of certain board committees. Senior management across Citi are assigned clear climate-related responsibilities, including a Head of Net Zero Operations and an ESG council.
Citi has defined some of the climate-related risks it considers relevant to its business operations, however, it does not appear to have clearly disclosed which risks and opportunities it considers over different time horizons. It describes its risk identification process, as well as how it considers climate opportunities for supporting clients in their low-carbon transition across some different business activities.
It has provided various examples of how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on corporate strategy planning, such as how it is supporting the clean energy transition with transactions towards its sustainable financing goal.
The organization has undertaken comprehensive scenario analysis to test the resilience of its business strategy in previous years, including multiple scenarios for physical and transition risks, including transition analysis on the utilities sector and short and long term weather impacts on its facilities, commercial real estate, and agricultural sector. However, it did not disclose details on the results of its analysis in its 2022 TCFD Report. In 2023 Citi participated in the FRB’s pilot scenario exercise but also did not disclose results of these analyses. Additionally, it has not described the implications of its scenario analyses on its business.
Citi has clear processes for identifying and prioritizing climate-related risks, including a heatmap analysis to determine the relative significance of risk exposure by sector.
To manage climate-related risk, the organization uses a Climate Risk Assessment and Scorecard to identify client vulnerability and assess plans for adaptation and mitigation as well as an environmental and social risk policy.
Climate risk has integrated into Citi's overall risk management approach in various ways and has continued to improve integration over the years. In 2022, it re-aligned its Climate Risk team to fit within its Enterprise Risk Management structure, grew its Climate Risk team, and has developed a Climate Risk Management Framework to promote consistency across the organization.
The organization is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including proportion of assets exposed to physical and transition risks, sustainable finance metrics, and remuneration policies although it has not disclosed the amount weighted specifically by climate considerations.
Citi discloses Scope 1, Scope 2, and some comprehensive relevant Scope 3 emissions data. It has disclosed financed emissions for several sectors, including energy, power, auto manufacturing, commercial real estate, thermal coal mining, aluminum, shipping, and steel, and has begun disclosing facilitated emissions as well.
In March 2021, Citi announced a target to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Citi was previously a member of the NZBA but left the alliance in December 2024, though it remains committed to reaching net zero. Citi outlined its initial 2030 targets in its 2021 TCFD report for its energy portfolio and its power portfolio for its corporate lending activities. In 2023, it expanded its 2030 interim sector targets to four additional sectors, including auto manufacturing, commercial real estate, steel, and thermal coal mining.
Citigroup’s coal policy states that it will reduce credit exposure to companies deriving ≥25% of revenue from thermal coal mining by 50% by 2025, and to zero by 2030, and will no longer facilitate capital markets transactions or mergers and acquisitions after 2025. Additionally, the organization has a coal phase out set for coal-fired power generation but does not appear to have a phase out set for mining. After 2030, Citi will no longer provide financing for operations in OECD countries unless the share of power generation from coal-fired plants is less than 5% and the same expectations are applied for operations in non-OECD countries by 2040.
With regard to unconventional natural gas and oil, Citi has set exclusionary policies for exploration and production in the Arctic Circle. For conventional oil and gas it states it will conduct enhanced risk review for various activities but appears to otherwise actively financing new or expansionary projects. Citi has set a financed emissions reduction target for the oil and gas sector of a 29% reduction in absolute emissions by 2030.
Citi appears to have no clear position of the role of nuclear in the energy mix, but it appears to support nuclear given that clients meet essential safety standards. The organization is increasing its financing of renewables through its sustainable finance target of $1 trillion by 2030, but it is unclear how it determines the eligibility of transactions towards its financing goal.
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 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $1.16T
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 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $862B
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Citigroup (Citi) appears to have limited engagement with climate policy in the financial sector and the real economy, with broadly supportive top-line messaging on climate.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: In its 2024 Environmental and Social Policy Framework, Citi supported urgent action to respond to climate change. In 2023 Senate testimony, CEO Jane Fraser stated support for the climate transition, but asserted that energy security and affordability are important, and not “mutually exclusive” from the low-carbon transition. It is unclear whether Citi recognizes the need for climate-related financial regulation, although it reports engaging with regulators and policymakers on this type of policy in its 2021 TCFD Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In its 2024 Environmental and Social Policy Framework Citi expressed support for regulated corporate climate disclosure, but it has taken mixed positions on specific policies. In its 2022 TCFD Report Citi outlined its support, with exceptions, for the SEC’s climate disclosure rule. In its 2022 comment letter to the SEC, Citi advocated for a delay in Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. In its 2023 Climate Report Citi advocated for coordination amongst different disclosure policies including the SEC’s rule, the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and California disclosure laws, but did not take a clear position on the different policies.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: In its 2022 Environmental and Social Policy Statement Citi mentions engaging with regulators on climate risk policy, but details of this engagement are unclear. In a September 2022 House Financial Services Committee Hearing, CEO Jane Fraser appeared not to support policy to incorporate climate risk into stress testing. A March 2022 memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shows that Citi, as constituents of the Bank Policy Institute, met with the OCC to outline “challenges” to its draft principles for climate-related financial risk management. In 2022 comments to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), Citi supported efforts to develop climate-related risk management principles for financial institutions but stressed the need for a “measured, phased and incremental approach.”
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: In its 2024 Environmental and Social Policy Framework Citi states support for government action on carbon pricing. Citi has also released several research papers that describe or appear supportive of various real economy climate policies, though without clearly stating that Citi is working to convince policymakers to implement these policies. In a 2024 paper, Citi appeared supportive of the inclusion of the maritime sector in the EU emissions trading system.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: In Citi’s 2023 Climate Report it appears supportive of the need for government policy to decarbonize the economy. Citi’s research arm also appears supportive of the transition of the energy mix, in a 2024 paper broadly supporting decarbonization of hard-to-abate sectors and recognizing the need for government action to achieve this. In a 2022 paper, it supported government action to address deforestation and protect high carbon land, as well as regulation to decarbonize agriculture and food production. In another 2022 paper, Citi’s research arm communicated support for a phase out of coal in the energy mix.
Industry Association Governance: Citi, in its 2023 Climate Report, has reported on climate-related engagement with “relevant” trade associations, including the climate positions of these groups. However, Citi’s disclosure of its engagement is limited, and provides no examples of how Citi may address misalignment between its own positions and those of its member groups. Additionally, Citi’s disclosure omits some groups active on climate policy including Edison Electric Institute and the Business Council of Canada.
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 Q4 2024.
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.
