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 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: $2.58T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Vistra Corp | 9.7% |
| AES Corp | 8.3% |
| Entergy Corp | 8.1% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 7.2% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 6.6% |
| Southern Co | 6.2% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 4.7% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 3.1% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 3.0% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 2.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 16.3% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 13.0% |
| Ford Motor Co | 11.7% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 9.0% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 7.6% |
| Stellantis NV | 6.4% |
| Tesla Inc | 5.6% |
| Kia Corp | 5.0% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 3.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 29.9% |
| Coal India Ltd | 29.9% |
| Glencore PLC | 15.1% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 3.9% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 3.2% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 2.6% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 2.6% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 2.3% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 16.1% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.4% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 4.9% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 4.6% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 4.2% |
| EQT Corp | 4.0% |
| ConocoPhillips | 4.0% |
| Range Resources Corp | 3.8% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 3.5% |
| Ovintiv Inc | 3.1% |
Fidelity Investments (Fidelity) does not appear to be robustly engaging with companies around climate change. Fidelity includes sustainability disclosure and climate risk as a key ESG factor but lacks a framework for climate engagements. The asset manager does not appear to use milestones or success criteria for tracking progress of engagements. It also does not appear to have a defined escalation strategy.
Fidelity only appears to engage with companies on climate and sustainability disclosures and does not go beyond the topic. Given the lack of case studies in its reporting, it is unclear if Fidelity is driving company behavior change on climate. The asset manager does not appear to engage on climate lobbying. It is a member of various collaborative initiatives such as UN PRI, TCFD, and Ceres, but does not appear to be actively participating in collaborative engagements.
Fidelity has outlined stewardship-related roles and responsibilities within the organization, but does not disclose if and how it is carrying out review of its stewardship policies and activities. The asset manager has only disclosed one climate engagement case study in its 2021 reporting and does not disclose names of any companies it has engaged with. Fidelity does disclose all proxy voting data although it does not provide rationale for voting decisions.
It has not demonstrated willingness to use shareholder authority to engage companies on climate in its reporting.
Insightia data suggests that Fidelity FMR has overwhelmingly opposed AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 11.1% in 2019, 10.6% in 2020, 14.3% in 2021, and 4.8% 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: Fidelity Investments (Fidelity) appears to have limited engagement on climate-related policies, generally advocating for flexibility in any regulation on the financial sector.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: In its 2022 Environmental Progress Report, Fidelity states that “collaboration with policymakers” is important in order to address environmental risks, but does not clearly state support for climate-related finance policy specifically.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In comments on the SEC’s climate disclosure rule in 2022, Fidelity outlined several objections to the proposal, including Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. Fidelity has engaged on disclosure requirements with international regulators, advocating for harmonization and disclosure comparability, as reported in its sustainable investing and stewardship update 2023-2024. In its sustainable investing and stewardship update 2022-2023, Fidelity also engaged on the Singapore Exchange climate reporting regulation, but gave no details of its position on the policy.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: In 2022 comments to the SEC, Fidelity supported introducing categories for ESG-related funds but advocated for a narrower approach to categorizing funds than proposed. Throughout 2022 and 2023, Fidelity has met with the SEC several times, as a constituent of the Investment Company Institute, to discuss the SEC’s proposed ‘Investment Company Names’ rule, but details of these meetings are unclear.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In an April 2022 meeting with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), Fidelity appeared to not support the incorporating climate factors into investor duties, advocating for greater flexibility in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II) requirements for considering sustainability preferences. In August 2022, Fidelity outlined concerns with the SEC’s proposed rules around investor ESG disclosures. Fidelity met with the SEC in November 2022 to discuss the proposed investor climate disclosure rule, but details of Fidelity’s position on this are not available.
Industry Association Governance: The company has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, but appears to exclude a number of industry associations memberships such as Japan Investment Advisers Association (JIAA) and the Institute of International Finance, which are actively engaged on climate policy. However, the company has not disclosed an account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities.
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 Q1 2025.
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.
