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 production companies are defined as those with primary sector of operations in the up-, mid-, and/or downstream segments of fossil fuel production. 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: $110B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors in which the asset manager has shareholdings. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 19.3% |
| Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc | 15.6% |
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 14.5% |
| Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc | 13.1% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 13.0% |
| Chubu Electric Power Co Inc | 7.3% |
| Hokkaido Electric Power Company Incorporated | 5.0% |
| Hokuriku Electric Power Co | 4.4% |
| Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc | 3.0% |
| Okinawa Electric Power Co Inc | 1.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 34.2% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 23.1% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 18.3% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 11.4% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 6.1% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.3% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 2.0% |
| General Motors Co | 0.1% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 0.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 45.7% |
| Coal India Ltd | 23.7% |
| Glencore PLC | 17.5% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 7.5% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 2.9% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 2.5% |
| Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Ltd | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Inpex Corp | 28.5% |
| Mitsui & Co Ltd | 23.1% |
| ENEOS Holdings Inc | 14.6% |
| Tokyo Gas Co Ltd | 8.8% |
| Osaka Gas Co Ltd | 4.9% |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd | 3.9% |
| Cosmo Energy Holdings Co Ltd | 2.8% |
| Japan Petroleum Exploration Co Ltd | 2.0% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 1.4% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.4% |
All equity funds that FinanceMap has identified as being managed by this asset manager. Click through to a fund's profile page to view in-depth analysis.
Daiwa does not appear to be engaging with companies substantially on climate. The asset manager has outlined its climate engagement priorities, which include engaging on GHG emissions and climate risk. It has described how different teams conduct engagement-related activities and it appears some teams use milestones to measure engagement progress, however, milestones lack detail. It is unclear whether the asset manager has a defined escalation strategy, but it has outlined divestment as an aspect of the fund management process.
Daiwa appears to be engaging with companies on climate, including on the development of decarbonization technologies and on climate scenario analysis. However, its engagement impact does not appear to go beyond improved climate risk disclosure. The organization does not appear to be advocating for companies to align political influences with the Paris Agreement. It is involved with various climate-related investor initiatives including CA100+, NZAM, and UN PRI, however its contributions to these initiatives appear limited.
Daiwa has clearly described its stewardship governance structure including roles and responsibilities and appears to regularly review stewardship related policies and activities. The asset manager has limited transparency on engagements, providing anonymous case studies in its reporting. It discloses its proxy voting record and voting policy for domestic and foreign stocks, which include descriptions of its decision-making process for proxy voting. Daiwa does not appear to be willing to use its shareholder authority to file climate-related shareholder resolutions.
Insightia data indicates that Daiwa did not meet the minimum threshold to assess support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the asset manager has not been scored on InfluenceMap's climate-relevant voting query.
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 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.
Daiwa Securities Group appears to support action to achieve zero-carbon economies. Subsidiary Daiwa Asset Management has further advocated for the role for finance in keeping global temperature rise to within 1.5C and net-zero by 2050 in joint statements to governments in 2021 and 2022. Daiwa appears to have very limited engagement with sustainable finance policy, but has advocated for increased ambition where it has engaged.
In Japan’s Financial Services Agency Disclosure Working Group meetings in 2022, Daiwa Securities did advocate for all four sections of the TCFD framework ("Governance," "Strategy," "Risk Management" and "Indicators and Targets") to be included in Japan’s mandatory disclosures, which represents an increase in ambition from the original proposal. Daiwa Asset Management has also advocated for policymakers to mandate 1.5C pathway-aligned transition plans and TCFD-aligned disclosures in joint investor statements in 2021 and 2022.
Daiwa Securities lacks a clearly identifiable, dedicated disclosure of its sustainable finance policy positions and lobbying activities. It does not appear to disclose its engagement with industry associations or related governance.
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 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.
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)
Chairman of Daiwa Securities Group, HIBINO Takashi is a member director, chair of the general affairs committee, and vice chairman of JSDA
HIBINO Takashi
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Chairman of Daiwa Securities Group, HIBINO Takashi is a member director, chair of the general affairs committee, and vice chairman of JSDA
HIBINO Takashi
Open PDF file of Data Source