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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $228B
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $189B
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 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: $220B
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 |
|---|---|
| RWE AG | 15.8% |
| Enel SpA | 12.8% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 5.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.8% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.5% |
| Exelon Corp | 4.3% |
| Brazilian Electric Power Co | 3.8% |
| Engie SA | 3.2% |
| WEC Energy Group Inc | 3.2% |
| Huaneng Power International Inc | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 26.7% |
| Volkswagen AG | 18.9% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 13.7% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 11.3% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 7.1% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.6% |
| General Motors Co | 2.4% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 2.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 2.1% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 1.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 43.8% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 14.4% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 12.8% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 8.3% |
| Coal India Ltd | 6.8% |
| Glencore PLC | 5.5% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 2.3% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.7% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 1.5% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 0.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | 15.5% |
| Shell PLC | 12.7% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 11.0% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 6.3% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.8% |
| BP PLC | 5.6% |
| Eni SpA | 4.8% |
| Novatek PAO | 4.5% |
| Repsol SA | 2.9% |
| Conocophillips | 2.8% |
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.
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.
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 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.
Deutsche Bank has had mostly positive engagement on sustainable finance policy, with a significant proportion of engagement from asset management subsidiary DWS.
DWS has stated support for the 2050 net-zero target, and Deutsche Bank has generally supported action by the financial sector on climate. In a joint investor statement to governments in 2022, DWS advocated for action to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5C. However, in 2021, Deutsche Bank argued against Germany's earlier net-zero commitment by 2045 and for a continued role for GHG emissions intense investments. Deutsche Bank has stated broad support for the EU's Action Plan on Sustainable Finance on its websites and its 2020 CDP response it encouraged policy that drives positive action but without a clear position on whether to restrict negative action (i.e. fossil-fuel energy investments).
Both Deutsche Bank and DWS appear to offer broad support for mandatory ESG corporate disclosures in corporate reporting but have sometimes opposed ambitious regulations in response to policymakers. In its 2020 CDP response, Deutsche Bank supported regulated corporate ESG disclosure and in a website article in 2021 further supported policy to improve regulated corporate ESG disclosure, including regulatory implementation of Scope 3 emissions. DWS has also offered broad support for regulated ESG corporate disclosures in website articles and consultation responses. In a joint investor statement in 2022, DWS advocated for mandatory TCFD implementation and 1.5 pathway-aligned transition plans. Likewise, in a 2021 letter to the SEC, Deutsche Bank stated support for a regulated corporate ESG disclosure framework. However, in response to the SEC consultation in 2022 on Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, Deutsche Bank did not support the 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 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. It further suggested the standards should “limit the level of detail required and adopt a principle-based approach”. DWS offered a similar position regarding the ESRS, arguing that all mandatory disclosure requirements were not material for all companies and arguing that Scope 3 emissions disclosure is complex.
During 2019-2020, Deutsche Bank was generally supportive of the EU taxonomy in website articles, consultations and in the media. However, a 2019 DWS whitepaper argued that regulatory requirements based on the taxonomy should be voluntary. In feedback to the European Commission's consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, Deutsche Bank supported the EU taxonomy, particularly its use by the public sector, but opposed its expansion to cover environmentally harmful activities. Deutsche Bank also argued that it was not possible to meet the taxonomy’s requirements due to lack of available data in a 2021 news release. In a 2022 whitepaper, it also highlighted the need for taxonomies to be “dynamic and adaptive” and that the EU taxonomy does not fully capture the ongoing transition and financing needs.
In a 2019 whitepaper, DWS stated support for an EU Green Bond Standard and supported the EU's climate benchmarks with some minor concerns around the methodology used. In feedback to the Commission consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, Deutsche Bank supported the need for verification of the EU Green Bond Standard, as well as the Commission’s suggestions for new ESG labels and benchmark. However, it argued for a less prescriptive approach to the EU Ecolabel in 2020.
Prior to 2021, DWS has stated support for the EU's work to integrate ESG considerations into fiduciary duty in website posts and whitepapers. In 2020, Deutsche Bank supported considering adverse sustainability impacts as part of fiduciary duty, although suggested a flexible approach to how retail clients are asked about their sustainability preferences.
In a 2020 press release, Deutsche Bank offered broad support for prudential regulatory rules that encourages greater ESG deployment of capital.
DWS has stated some policy positions in whitepapers, but there does not appear to be a centralized disclosure of lobbying activities or any group level disclosure, with positions scattered throughout various website articles. Deutsche Bank has disclosed some of its trade association memberships, but has not given any further details of its governance of indirect influence. DWS has also listed trade group memberships on its website with some details on working groups it is involved in.
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)
As of February 2023, Christian Sewing is on the board of the IIF
Christian Sewing (CEO, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Christian Sewing is on the board of the IIF
Christian Sewing (CEO, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Gavin Colquhoun is on the AFME board of directors
Gavin Colquhoun (Deutsche Bank EMEA Head of Global Financing & Credit Trading and Co-head of Investment Bank EMEA)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Gavin Colquhoun is on the AFME board of directors
Gavin Colquhoun (Deutsche Bank EMEA Head of Global Financing & Credit Trading and Co-head of Investment Bank EMEA)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Mr Holger Naumann is a corporate members' representative at EFAMA's board of directors
Mr Holger Naumann (DWS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
DWS is a member of EFAMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Mr Holger Naumann is a corporate members' representative at EFAMA's board of directors
Mr Holger Naumann (DWS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
DWS is a member of EFAMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank is a member of SIFMA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Gary Kane is on the board of SIFMA.
Gary Kane (Co-Head of ICG Americas & Head of Securitized Products Sales in the Americas, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank is a member of SIFMA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Gary Kane is on the board of SIFMA.
Gary Kane (Co-Head of ICG Americas & Head of Securitized Products Sales in the Americas, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Tiina Lee is on the board of UK Finance
Tiina Lee (CEO, UK and Ireland, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank AG Group is a member of UK Finance
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Tiina Lee is on the board of UK Finance
Tiina Lee (CEO, UK and Ireland, Deutsche Bank)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank AG Group is a member of UK Finance
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS Private Equity is a member of Invest Europe
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS Private Equity is a member of Invest Europe
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of the Investment Association
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of the Investment Association
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of May 2023, Christian SEWING is President of the EBF Board
Christian SEWING (Chief Executive Officer at Deutsche Bank)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of May 2023, Christian SEWING is President of the EBF Board
Christian SEWING (Chief Executive Officer at Deutsche Bank)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Deutsche Bank is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of Inverco which is a national association member of PensionsEurope
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of Inverco which is a national association member of PensionsEurope
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of the IIGCC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Roelfien Kuijpers is on the board of the IIGCC. As of February 2023, Roelfien Kuijpers does no longer appear to be a board member
Roelfien Kuijpers (Head of Responsible Investments and Head of Global Client Group for Ireland, Scandinavia and UK, DWS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, DWS is a member of the IIGCC
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Roelfien Kuijpers is on the board of the IIGCC. As of February 2023, Roelfien Kuijpers does no longer appear to be a board member
Roelfien Kuijpers (Head of Responsible Investments and Head of Global Client Group for Ireland, Scandinavia and UK, DWS)
--no extract--
Deutsche Bank has incorporated climate-related issues into corporate strategy through pledging to align its lending activities with a net-zero future. However, while the board is regularly updated on sustainability topics and there is a designated Sustainability Committee that oversees the bank’s sustainability initiatives, it is unclear if and how the board monitors the progress of climate-related issues and initiatives. Management level positions and committees are assigned clear climate-related responsibilities. Still, it is unclear what processes are used to ensure management and relevant committees monitor the progress of climate-related issues.
Deutsche Bank considers climate-related risks and opportunities in its lending and investment business activities and appears to consider these over different time horizons as part of its risk management process, but it does not define which climate-related risks or opportunities are considered.
Deutsche Bank has outlined numerous examples of how it should consider climate-related risks and opportunities in its business planning across its non-financial report and climate statement. Additionally, its asset management arm DWS has developed several climate-related initiatives and activities, including furthering its climate-risk sensitivity methodology.
The organization appears to have 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. However, it does not appear to have tested resilience against a robust range of scenarios or conducted climate scenario analysis across other business areas.
The organization outlines some processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks in its climate statement and non-financial report and appears to incorporate climate-related risks into assessments of several risk categories. Deutsche Bank has developed an internal sectoral-based climate risk taxonomy to classify all institutional credit exposures, however, it is unclear how climate-related risks are prioritized.
Deutsche Bank’s environmental and social (ES) risk management approach is built on its ES policy framework, which includes sector-specific due diligence guidelines. However, it is unclear how it prioritizes, transfers, accepts, or controls climate-related risks. Physical risks are managed by an in-house analytical team that measures and monitors country and city-specific risks to its assets and operations.
The organization is in the process of integrating climate-related risks into overall risk management. For example, climate risks are embedded in the qualitative statements in its group risk appetite statement and incorporated climate and other ESG risks into its risk taxonomy as discrete risk types. Additionally, climate risk indicators and physical and transition scenarios are being integrated into DWS’s investment risk management process.
The organization provides various metrics including emissions, waste, paper, water, and energy consumption data in its non-financial report as well as sustainable financing metrics in its climate statement and green financing instruments report.
The organization is transparent about Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data and discloses some Scope 3 emissions areas in its CDP response. It has begun calculating the carbon footprint of its portfolio based on PCAF for its corporate and FI lending portfolio and has disclosed initial metrics for the oil and gas, utilities, steel, and automotive sectors. Additionally, it publishes the amount and percentage lending in climate-relevant sectors. It appears to have calculated an estimated carbon intensity for its credit portfolio; however, this information is also not publicly available.
Deutsche Bank has set targets to measure climate-related risks and opportunities, including a pledge to align its lending activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and in April 2021, a net-zero by 2050 target through 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.
Deutsche Bank has established coal financing exclusion policies that apply to coal mining and coal power. Additionally, all clients that are more than 50% dependent on generating coal power must have credible diversification plans in place, however this is not clearly defined.
With regard to natural gas and oil, Deutsche Bank has set financing exclusion policies that apply to certain 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 will finance nuclear energy projects if strict country and project safety criteria are met. Additionally, the organization has communicated support for a low-carbon economy and has been increasing its renewables financing. The bank has committed to aligning its credit portfolio with the Paris Agreement’s and set targets by the end of 2022. Its asset management arm, DWS, was a founding signatory of the Net-Zero Asset Managers Initiative, committing to decarbonize its investment portfolios with 1.5°C targets.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source