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.
Deutsche Bank’s board appears to monitor climate-related issues to some extent, overseeing the organization’s ESG strategy and execution, but has not assigned clear climate-related responsibilities to the board or board committees. Management level positions and committees are assigned clear climate-related responsibilities, with the Sustainability Strategy Steering Committee meeting monthly to oversee the implementation of the bank’s sustainability strategy.
Deutsche Bank is transparent about climate-related risks and opportunities in its lending, investment, and advisory business activities and appears to consider these over different time horizons as part of its risk management process, identifying acute and chronic physical and transition risks. It has disclosed some detail on its processes used to determine which risks and opportunities it considers, including an annual materiality assessment and a Group Risk identification process.
Deutsche Bank is fully transparent about the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy and financial planning over various business areas, including investment banking, private banking, origination and advisory, and asset management.
In 2020 Deutsche Bank conducted a pilot transition scenario assessing the bank’s key carbon-intensive industries using a 2°C or lower warming climate-scenario as well as a physical scenario for parts of its German mortgage portfolio. In 2021, it stated that it was participating in the ECB’s climate risk stress test. Deutsche Bank’s 2023 report states that its scenario design was informed by the 2022 ECB climate risk stress test, though it has not disclosed the implications of its scenario analysis on its strategy and business model.
The organization has processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, describing its materiality assessment of climate risk drivers impact on different risk types. Additionally, it incorporates climate-related risks into its risk assessments of credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk.
Deutsche Bank has described some of its risk management activities by risk type, and uses an enhanced due diligence framework for environmental risks, guided by the Equator Principles. The organization clearly integrates climate-related risk into its overall risk management approach, considering climate and environmental risks as drivers of existing risk types within the Group’s risk taxonomy.
Deutsche Bank is fully transparent about key metrics related to climate risks and opportunities, including sustainable financing metrics, loan exposure to carbon-intensive sectors, and incorporation of climate-related risks into remuneration policies. The organization is transparent about Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions data. Additionally, it reports financed emissions from clients’ Scope 1 and 2 emissions for its entire corporate lending book, and includes Scope 3 emissions for its coal mining, oil and gas upstream, and light duty automotive emissions intensity measurement.
In April 2021, Deutsche Bank set a net-zero by 2050 target and was a founding member of the Net Zero banking Alliance. In October 2022, it released its initial 2030 interim targets for 4 sectors including: oil and gas, power generation, automotive, and steel. In 2023, Deutsche Bank set three additional interim targets for coal mining, cement, and shipping. Only its oil and gas and coal mining targets are in absolute emissions metrics, while the rest of the sector targets are in emissions intensity metrics.
Deutsche Bank will not finance projects related to creating new or expanding thermal coal mines or coal-fired power plants, and requires companies with more than 30% of revenue from thermal coal to adopt a credible transition plan by 2025. The organization has set a coal phase out policy as well, but it includes large exceptions, stating it will end financing for companies whose revenue is more than 50% dependent on thermal coal which have no credible plan to reduce coal dependency to below 50% by 2025 in OECD countries or below 30% in non-OECD countries. Deutsche Bank has also set an interim financed emissions target of 49% reduction in Scope 3 absolute emissions from coal mining by 2030.
With regard to natural gas and oil, Deutsche Bank has set financing exclusion policies that apply to certain unconventional activities, including hydraulic fracturing in water-stressed countries, new projects in the Arctic, and oil sands. However, the organization appears to otherwise participate in unabated natural gas and oil financing. It has set a financed emissions reduction target for the oil and gas sector, committing to reduce Scope 3 upstream financed emissions by 23% by 2030.
It will finance nuclear energy projects if strict country and project safety criteria are met. Additionally, the organization appears to be increasing its financing of renewable energy, and in 2022 surpassed its sustainable finance commitment of 200 billion Euros by 2025, which includes financing for renewables technology.
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: $514B
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: $417B
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: $303B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 17.6% |
| E.ON SE | 7.8% |
| Iberdrola SA | 7.5% |
| RWE AG | 7.4% |
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 6.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 6.6% |
| Engie SA | 3.2% |
| WEC Energy Group Inc | 2.7% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 2.6% |
| Entergy Corp | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 22.9% |
| Volkswagen AG | 22.5% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 10.2% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 7.6% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 7.2% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 5.7% |
| General Motors Co | 4.5% |
| Renault SA | 3.3% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.6% |
| Ford Motor Co | 2.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 46.4% |
| Glencore PLC | 13.5% |
| Coal India Ltd | 13.4% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 12.6% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 7.5% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 2.0% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 1.3% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 1.1% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 0.8% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | 16.7% |
| Shell PLC | 14.9% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 6.9% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 6.5% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 5.4% |
| Eni SpA | 5.3% |
| BP PLC | 4.4% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 3.2% |
| ConocoPhillips | 3.1% |
| Chevron Corp | 3.0% |
Deutsche Bank, assessed through its Asset and Wealth Management arm DWS, appears to be a positive engager on climate. DWS was publicly listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange in 2018. Currently, Deutsche Bank remain the majority shareholder of DWS with 80% of shares.
DWS has a clear framework for prioritizing climate engagements based on several criteria. The asset manager has a milestone system for following the progress of engagements although milestones lack detail. It has an overarching escalation response, as well as specific penalties in response to non-compliance with its request for net zero transition plans.
DWS is actively engaging with companies on climate. In 2021 it sent a Net Zero Letter to climate-relevant investee companies setting expectations for companies to set net zero commitments, and it has engaged with an Italian utilities company and driven the company to set new emissions reductions targets which were verified by SBTi. The asset manager has demonstrated a push for Paris-aligned lobbying activities in its engagements with Shell and in its Net Zero Letter. It is involved in CA100+ and other investor initiatives although it lacks recent examples of collaborative engagement in its reporting.
DWS has highly effective stewardship governance, outlining its structure and roles along with its annual review processes. The asset manager is very transparent about engagements, disclosing a list of companies it engages with in its quarterly active ownership reports as well as case studies in its annual stewardship report. The asset manager discloses all proxy voting data along with rationale for voting decisions.
It appears to be willing to use shareholder authority to engage companies on climate and engaged at the AGMs of Shell as well as Enel, Exxon, Boeing, Total, and Gazprom. In 2022, it voted against the re-election of board directors at 24 companies who failed to provide adequate oversight of climate risks.
Insightia data suggests that DWS has become increasingly supportive in recent years of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 59.4% in 2019, 94.9% in 2020, 93.5% in 2021, and 92.6% 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: Deutsche Bank has displayed mostly positive engagement on climate-related policy, with a significant proportion of engagement from asset management subsidiary DWS.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: DWS stated support for the 2050 net-zero target in a May 2023 briefing. In a joint investor statement to governments in 2022, DWS advocated for action to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5C. In a November 2023 interview, Deutsche Bank’s ESG Chief Investment Officer expressed support for the role of financial institutions in climate action. Deutsche Bank stated its support for the European Commission’s Sustainable Finance Action Plan and reiterated its commitment to the Paris Agreement in its 2023 Non-Financial Statement.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Both Deutsche Bank and DWS appear to offer broad support for mandatory corporate climate disclosures in their own reporting but have sometimes opposed ambitious regulations in response to policymakers. In a December 2023 joint letter, Deutsche Bank stated their support for global climate disclosures. DWS, in joint investor statements, in both 2024 and 2022 advocated for mandated climate-related disclosures and 1.5 pathway-aligned transition plans. However, in response to an SEC consultation in 2022 on Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, Deutsche Bank did not support the proposed 1% materiality threshold and requested an extension to the implementation deadline, particularly referring to issues with gathering data for Scope 3 emissions disclosure. In 2022, DWS stated support for an ambitious global sustainability reporting in response to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), advocating for increased ambition in some areas and suggesting a double materiality approach. However, Deutsche Bank, in July 2022 comments, offered a much more cautious approach, suggesting disclosure requirements should be more principles-based “so that the costs of implementing the disclosures do not outweigh the benefits”. Deutsche Bank urged alignment of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) to the ISSB in response to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) in 2022, and suggested that the standards should “limit the level of detail required and adopt a principle-based approach”. DWS offered a similar position regarding the ESRS, arguing in August 2022 comments that all mandatory disclosure requirements were not material for all companies and arguing that Scope 3 emissions disclosure is complex.
Position on Taxonomies: In a 2022 whitepaper, Deutsche Bank highlighted the need for taxonomies to be “dynamic and adaptive” and asserted that the EU taxonomy does not fully capture the ongoing transition and its financing needs. According to reporting on the EU Transparency Register, Deutsche Bank has engaged with policymakers on the “further development of EU Taxonomy and related Delegated Acts” but details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In response to a December 2023 consultation on implementation of the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), DWS expressed a mixed position on the benefits of the SFDR and advocated for product level disclosures over entity level.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: Deutsche Bank is generally supportive of real economy climate policy. In a July 2024 briefing, DWS supported GHG emissions regulation, including the emissions reduction policies set out in the European Green Deal. Deutsche Bank also appeared to support methane emission reductions targets in a December 2023 website post. Similarly, Deutsche Bank has expressed support for energy efficiency legislation in both November 2022 and October 2023 joint letters. However, in its transition plan published in October 2023, Deutsche Bank emphasized the difficulties of the implementation of the EU Energy Performance Buildings Directive.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Deutsche Bank has engaged positively on energy, industry and land transitions. In both a November 2022 and October 2023 joint letter, Deutsche Bank has supported renewable energy legislation. Deutsche Bank has also supported the regulatory measures to decarbonize the economy, in March 2023 and September 2023 and expressed support for the Inflation Reduction Act in October 2023.
Industry Association Governance: Deutsche Bank has published a partial list of its industry associations, including climate relevant trade groups, in its 2023 Non-Financial Report. Deutsche Bank has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of its industry associations, or any action taken to address misalignment.
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 Q3 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.
