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: $1.73T
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 |
|---|---|
| Vistra Corp | 11.2% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 8.0% |
| AES Corp | 6.1% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 5.9% |
| Southern Co | 5.7% |
| Exelon Corp | 4.4% |
| Entergy Corp | 4.3% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.8% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 2.9% |
| PG&E Corp | 2.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 16.7% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 11.8% |
| Ford Motor Co | 11.7% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 11.0% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 6.8% |
| Stellantis NV | 5.4% |
| Kia Corp | 4.9% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| Tesla Inc | 3.5% |
| Volkswagen AG | 2.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| NACCO Industries Inc | 21.4% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 21.2% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 15.5% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 15.3% |
| Glencore PLC | 10.8% |
| Coal India Ltd | 3.9% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 2.7% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 2.3% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 1.6% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 1.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 14.2% |
| EQT Corp | 6.9% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 6.2% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.7% |
| Conocophillips | 5.2% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 4.8% |
| Occidental Petroleum Corp | 3.9% |
| Hess Corp | 3.5% |
| Southwestern Energy Co | 2.7% |
| Range Resources Corp | 2.7% |
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.
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 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.
Fidelity Investments (Fidelity) appears to have had somewhat limited engagement on sustainable finance policy. Where it has engaged, it has taken mixed positions, supporting the need for some policies while outlining objections to specific regulations.
Fidelity’s 2021 Environmental Report states support for efforts to address climate change, but the level of ambition it supports is unclear. 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 sustainable finance policy specifically.
Fidelity stated support for consistent disclosure standards in its 2021 Investment Sustainability and Impact Report, although it did not call specifically for regulation to achieve this. In an August 2021 podcast, Fidelity stated support for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) work toward mandating corporate ESG disclosure. However, in comments on the SEC’s climate disclosure rule in June 2022, Fidelity outlined several objections to the proposal, including Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements.
In August 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.
Fidelity took mixed positions on Trump-era restrictions on sustainable investing. In 2020, Fidelity opposed Department of Labor rules that sought to limit ESG investing and shareholder rights but supported a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that sought to limit shareholder rights. In its August 2021 podcast, Fidelity supported the Biden administration’s efforts to roll back the Trump-era Department of Labor rules. However, in comments to the Department in December 2021, Fidelity asked for specific references to ESG in rule language to be altered or removed, writing that it did not support “singling out any one specific investment factor” which may “give it undue weight.” In August 2022, Fidelity outlined concerns with the SEC’s proposed rules around investor ESG disclosures.
Fidelity does not disclose its membership to industry associations. Fidelity is a member of industry associations that are actively engaged on sustainable finance policy, including serving on the board of the Investment Company Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce.
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)
J.J. Johnson is on the Board of Directors of the US Chamber.
J.J. Johnson (Executive VP for Communications, Public Affairs, and Policy, Fidelity Investments)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
J.J. Johnson is on the Board of Directors of the US Chamber.
J.J. Johnson (Executive VP for Communications, Public Affairs, and Policy, Fidelity Investments)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Katie Fallon is on the board of SIFMA.
Katie Fallon (Executive Vice President and Head of Corporate Affairs, Fidelity)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Fidelity Investments is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Michael Durbin is on the board of SIFMA. As of August 2023 this is no longer the case.
Michael Durbin (President, Fidelity Institutional)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Katie Fallon is on the board of SIFMA.
Katie Fallon (Executive Vice President and Head of Corporate Affairs, Fidelity)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Fidelity Investments is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Michael Durbin is on the board of SIFMA. As of August 2023 this is no longer the case.
Michael Durbin (President, Fidelity Institutional)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Fidelity Investments is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
J.J. Johnson is on the board of ICI.
James L. "J.J." Johnson Jr. (Senior Advisor, Fidelity Investments)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Fidelity Investments is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
J.J. Johnson is on the board of ICI.
James L. "J.J." Johnson Jr. (Senior Advisor, Fidelity Investments)
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source