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: $167B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Entergy Corp | 14.2% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 8.2% |
| Vistra Corp | 5.7% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 5.1% |
| Evergy Inc | 5.1% |
| NTPC Ltd | 4.2% |
| Southern Co | 3.7% |
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 3.6% |
| EDP SA | 3.0% |
| Enel SpA | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 22.7% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 17.2% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 9.8% |
| Volkswagen AG | 7.4% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 6.9% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 6.3% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 4.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.7% |
| Kia Corp | 2.6% |
| Renault SA | 2.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Coal India Ltd | 79.3% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 6.8% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 5.0% |
| Glencore PLC | 4.3% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 1.4% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 1.2% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 0.8% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 0.6% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 0.3% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BP PLC | 24.1% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 11.5% |
| Shell PLC | 8.2% |
| Chevron Corp | 7.1% |
| NK Lukoil PAO | 6.9% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 6.5% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 4.2% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 4.0% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 3.8% |
| Suncor Energy Inc | 3.0% |
Franklin Templeton Investments (FTI) appears to be engaging with companies around climate, although it lacks some disclosure and transparency that would allow for a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of their climate stewardship. The asset manager appears to have a general framework for engagements and a database for monitoring engagement progress but does not have a climate specific framework or clear milestones to measure engagement progress. In addition, it has outlined its escalation strategy, however, its escalation process lacks granularity such as how it selects or prioritizes issues for escalation.
FTI appears to be strengthening engagements with companies around climate, and its integrated investment groups have engaged on setting emissions reductions targets with companies in the utility sector and electric vehicle battery supply chain. The asset manager does not have any examples or appear to have any expectations set around indirect climate policy influence. FTI is involved with several climate-related investor initiatives and has noted an example of one of its acquired investment managers leading a collaborative engagement with CA100+, although lacks examples from its integrated investment groups.
FTI has described its stewardship governance structure and appears to regularly seek clients’ and beneficiaries’ views. It is not fully transparent on the companies that it engages with, only including limited case studies in its 2021 Stewardship Report, some named and some anonymous. The asset manager has described its proxy voting policies and use of third-party service providers and discloses proxy data on its website. However, it does not include rationale for voting decisions.
The asset manager does not appear to have filed climate-related shareholder resolutions. However, one integrated investment group has shared its own policy on voting against directors, although it is unclear if there is a firmwide stance on this.
Insightia data suggests that Franklin Templeton is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 14.6% in 2019, 27.3% in 2020, 39.1% in 2021, and 43.9% 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: Franklin Templeton has displayed mostly positive engagement on climate-related policy, with a significant proportion of engagement from its subsidiaries Martin Currie and ClearBridge Investments.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: Franklin Templeton, in a 2023 article, expressed top-line support for the role of finance in delivering the goals of the Paris Agreement. CEO Jenny Johnson stated support for net-zero by 2050 in Franklin Templeton’s 2021 Stewardship Report. In its 2022 CSR Report Franklin Templeton, while stating that it has engaged on climate finance policy, did not clarify whether it supported the need for climate finance regulation. Subsidiaries Martin Currie and ClearBridge Investments both appeared to support the need for climate finance regulation in 2023. Martin Currie also expressed support for reforms in order to deliver a sustainable finance system in its 2023 Stewardship Annual Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Franklin Templeton appears supportive of regulated corporate climate disclosure. In a 2022 article, Franklin Templeton stated support for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate disclosure rule, calling it a “welcome blast of fresh air that can revitalise capital allocation for the benefit of all”. In an April 2022 article, Franklin Templeton called the efforts by the SEC and the International Financial Reporting Standards Board to mandate corporate climate disclosure a “necessary, but not sufficient” step to properly understand climate risk. In its June 2022 comments on the SEC’s rule, Franklin Templeton expressed strong support for the proposal. In its 2024 Annual Stewardship Report Martin Currie described the adoption of the SEC final rule as “a positive development”. Franklin Templeton, in a 2024 article, appeared to support the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: Franklin Templeton supported policy on ESG labels in 2022 comments to the SEC on Enhanced Disclosures for Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About ESG Investment Practices. Franklin Templeton engaged on EU ESG Ratings Regulation in 2024 and the US SEC Names Rule in 2023, but details on such engagement are unclear. ClearBridge Investments, in an 2024 article, appeared to support the need for regulation around ESG-labeled products to combat greenwashing. In a 2025 article, Franklin Templeton Fixed Income appeared to support more ambitious reporting standards under EU Green Bond Standard.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: Franklin Templeton appears generally supportive of policy to incorporate climate factors into investor duties. In 2022 comments to the SEC, Franklin Templeton supported but suggested narrowing proposed disclosure requirements for investors about their climate-related practices. In September 2022, a ClearBridge representative spoke out against a Texas law that seeks to limit ESG investing. In March 2023, Franklin Templeton signed onto a Freedom to Invest joint letter, directly advocating for policymakers to ensure investors remain able to consider ESG factors in decision making. In its 2024 Stewardship Annual Report, Martin Currie appeared to oppose policy that seeks to limit climate investing.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Franklin Templeton appears to support the energy transition and stated in an October 2023 article that “the cost of not transitioning far outweighs the investments and cost of transition” however it also positioned fossil gas as “cleaner”. In January 2024 article Franklin Templeton reiterated its support for decarbonizing the economy.
Industry Association Governance: Franklin Templeton has disclosed a partial list of its membership to industry associations, for example its membership of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the International Investor Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and the Investment Association. Franklin Templeton has however failed to disclose its membership of International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and membership and board participation of the Investment Company Institute (ICI). It has not disclosed an account of its associations' climate finance policy 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.
