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.
Credit Agricole appears to have limited disclosure on governance of climate change. Its board and board committees appear to oversee climate-related issues, including reviewing climate and environmental policies and net zero commitments. Management level positions and committees, such as the Sustainability Executive Committee, appear to have some climate-related responsibilities, but reporting lacks granularity.
The organization appears to consider climate-related risks over different time horizons, including using a medium-term transition risk index to assess client risks, but has not defined the specific climate-related risks relevant to its business over time. Credit Agricole has provided some examples of how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities in its business planning, including how it is financing climate solutions across different lines of business.
It is unclear whether Credit Agricole is aligned with TCFD on using climate scenarios to test the resilience of its business strategy. Its 2021 and 2022 Universal Registration Document states it tested four scenarios in 2017 and that is participated in ECB’s climate stress test in 2022. In 2023 it described its in-house climate scenario analysis method, however results from its analyses lack detail. Additionally, the organization has not disclosed how it plans to respond to the implications identified in its scenario testing.
Credit Agricole has outlined some processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, for example, it uses a transition risk index and considers the relative materiality of physical and transition risks. The organization manages environmental risks through applying the Equator Principles, CSR policies, and assessment of environmental and social aspects of transactions. It additionally appears to have integrated climate risks into its overall risk management approach.
The organization discloses some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, such as its exposure to oil extraction, gas extraction, thermal coal, and low-carbon energy. With regard to its emissions disclosure, Credit Agricole fully discloses Scope 1 and 2 emissions but only has limited Scope 3 emissions. It has disclosed some Scope 3 Category 15 emissions, including the GHG emissions from the group’s investments and financing across various industries and geographic areas.
In July 2021, Credit Agricole joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance, and in June 2022, Credit Agricole announced oil and gas and automotive sector targets. The organization released updated interim targets in December 2022 for five sectors including oil and gas, power, automotive, commercial real estate, and cement. In 2023, it announced three new targets for the steel, shipping, and aviation sectors, and updated its oil and gas sector target to include further emissions reduction.
Credit Agricole has established coal financing exclusion policies, which includes a phase out policy with strict timelines by 2030 for EU and OECD countries and 2040 for the rest of the world. The entity will also not provide financing to companies planning the construction of building new coal mines and plants and has excluded companies that generate more than 25% of their turnover in the thermal coal industry and have not adopted a transition strategy consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
With regard to unconventional oil and gas, the organization has set exclusionary policies that limit financing of certain unconventional projects and companies that generate more than 30% of their activity from the extraction of non-conventional hydrocarbons. The organization has committed to not finance new oil and gas extraction or infrastructure projects, but has not committed to exclusion of companies with plans to expand oil and gas infrastructure. It has set a financed emissions target for the oil and gas sector, targeting an absolute reduction in emissions of 75% by 2030.
Crédit Agricole appears to be advocating a position that is supportive of nuclear in the energy mix and has included nuclear energy as an eligible activity for sustainable financing commitments in its green bond framework. It has communicated support for the energy transition and set a target to increase its exposure to non-carbon and low-carbon energies by 80% by 2024.
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: $382B
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: $168B
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: $328B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 17.7% |
| Iberdrola SA | 14.8% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 8.4% |
| RWE AG | 7.4% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 6.1% |
| EDP SA | 4.2% |
| E.ON SE | 3.4% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 2.5% |
| Vistra Corp | 2.4% |
| Engie SA | 2.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 34.3% |
| Renault SA | 12.9% |
| Volkswagen AG | 9.6% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 7.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 5.7% |
| General Motors Co | 4.9% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 4.7% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 3.8% |
| Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 2.4% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 38.6% |
| Coal India Ltd | 31.1% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 14.0% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 7.6% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 3.1% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 2.3% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 1.2% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 0.8% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 0.5% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 0.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | 22.1% |
| Eni SpA | 13.1% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 9.6% |
| Shell PLC | 9.4% |
| BP PLC | 6.7% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 6.0% |
| Repsol SA | 5.8% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 4.9% |
| Chevron Corp | 3.6% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 1.5% |
Credit Agricole's assessment is based on the activities of its primary asset manager subsidiary Amundi. Amundi appears to have had a positive influence on companies around climate.
Amundi has set climate change as a key priority in its engagement strategy, with a particular focus and framework centered around the energy transition. It is deepening its climate engagements with its “Ambition 2025” plan by expanding engagements on emissions reduction plans to 1000 additional companies. The asset manager appears to measure engagement progress with milestones, although the milestones lack detail in its reporting. It has a escalation strategy based on engagement outcomes that includes voting against management, public statements, etc.
Amundi appears to be actively engaging companies to transition in line with the Paris Agreement. For example, it has engaged with BHP, RWE, and the insurance sector on coal phase-outs and setting GHG emissions reduction targets. The asset manager has engaged with companies on climate policy influence, including engagements which led a Japanese automotive manufacturer to support climate policy and release a climate lobbying report. Additionally, it is an active participant in collaborative initiatives such as CA100+ and SBTi.
Amundi has described its stewardship governance and review structures as well as how it seeks input from clients to incorporate climate change into its investment products. The asset manager is partially transparent about engagements, providing some named and some anonymous case studies. It discloses its proxy voting record and outlines its proxy voting policy on climate issues.
The asset manager has demonstrated its use of shareholder authority on climate, co-filing a shareholder resolution at HSBC with ShareAction.
Insightia data suggests that Amundi is broadly supportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 64% in 2019, 77.2% in 2020, 91.9% in 2021, and 87.9% 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: Crédit Agricole appears to be actively engaged on climate policy. Crédit Agricole and its asset management subsidiary Amundi appear to be independently engaged with policy.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: Crédit Agricole stated support for the role of climate policy in reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement in its May 2024 Integrated Report. Amundi supported action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C and to reach net-zero by 2050 in its 2023 Climate and Sustainability Report. In meetings with the European Commission in 2022, Amundi further highlighted the need for financial institutions to align their actions with their targets, and supported regulatory action on climate finance in its 2023 Climate and Sustainability Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In a 2023 consultation response on the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Amundi urged the Commission to make disclosures mandatory irrespective of the materiality assessment. It also suggested removing any additional phase-ins for disclosures. However, in response to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) in 2022, on the proposal for the European Sustainability Requirement Standards (ESRS), Crédit Agricole argued against the “volume and complexity” of the disclosure requirements. In the same consultation, subsidiary Crédit Agricole Assurances similarly argued against the level of sector-agnostic disclosures and suggested some were too granular. In response to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) on the Climate and Sustainability Disclosure Drafts in 2022, Amundi advocated for further ambition including a double materiality approach. However, in a research paper in 2022, Amundi suggested there was an issue in encouraging asset owners and managers to go beyond scope 1 and 2 disclosures, highlighting challenges with disclosing scope 3 emissions and portfolio alignment.
Position on Taxonomies: In meetings with the DG FISMA and Commissioner McGuiness in 2022, Amundi recommended a “dynamic approach” to the taxonomy, which appeared to suggest the support of a weaker definition of green activities. Position on Climate Standards, Labels & Benchmarks: In a 2023 response to the European Commission regarding the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) review, Amundi supported a product labelling scheme focused on investment strategies. However, in a 2022 response to ESMA regarding ESG fund names, Amundi did not support the introduction of quantitative thresholds. In its 2023 CDP response Credit Agricole supported the EU Green Bond Standard, suggesting it would increase taxonomy-aligned investments.
Industry Association Governance:At a group level, Credit Agricole has not disclosed a list of industry association memberships, and is a member of multiple industry associations engaged on climate-related policy, including but not limited to the AFME, EFAMA, and ISDA. It has also published a partial list of its industry associations’ positions and engagement activities in its 2023 CDP response, however has excluded material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database, for example, the engagement by AFME with FCA's investor duties regulation, and the EACB's engagement on risk management. Amundi has listed its trade association memberships but has not clearly described the management of its indirect influence.
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.
