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: $19.9B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA | 28.0% |
| Enea SA | 11.2% |
| Engie SA | 7.7% |
| Polenergia SA | 6.5% |
| EDP SA | 6.5% |
| Iberdrola SA | 6.3% |
| Enel SpA | 5.0% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.9% |
| Tauron Polska Energia SA | 4.6% |
| CEZ as | 4.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Renault SA | 41.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 8.2% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 7.1% |
| General Motors Co | 6.3% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 6.2% |
| Volkswagen AG | 5.8% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.8% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 3.8% |
| Stellantis NV | 3.7% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 3.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Orlen SA | 21.0% |
| Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA | 14.9% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 13.5% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.7% |
| MOL Magyar Olaj es Gazipari Nyrt | 6.6% |
| Shell PLC | 6.1% |
| Eni SpA | 5.6% |
| BP PLC | 4.3% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 3.4% |
| Repsol SA | 2.9% |
Climate Lobbying Overview: Generali appears to have taken positive but broad positions on climate-related finance policy, mostly focusing on corporate climate disclosures.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Finance Policy: Generali has stated support for keeping global warming below 1.5C and action to achieve net-zero by 2050 in its 2024 Integration of Sustainability into Investments Report, and in a 2024 Group Integrated Annual Report investor statement. It is part of the Net-Zero Asset Owners Alliance
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Generali has broadly supported regulated corporate climate disclosure with some exceptions. In a response to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) in 2022, Generali argued against the number of sector-agnostic disclosure requirements, suggesting they were too granular. In the same response, it also urged for an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)-aligned definition of materiality, which is based on enterprise value rather than double materiality. Despite this, in its 2023 CDP response Generali stated engagement with and support without exception for the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) which considers double materiality a cornerstone of its reporting standards.
Position on Taxonomies and Climate Standards In its 2023 CDP response Generali stated support with no exceptions for the EU Taxonomy. It has also stated support for the EU Taxonomy in its 2023 Annual Integrated Report, but emphasized difficulties with data availability. In website articles in 2021-2022, Generali offered broad support for the EU Taxonomy and the EU Green Bond Standard.
Industry Association Governance: Generali has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, on the EU Transparency Register which is linked on its website, however this list excludes several industry associations actively engaged on sustainable finance policy, including European Issuers, EFAMA, and Insurance Europe. In addition, it does not disclose positions on specific sustainable finance policies taken by industry associations of which it is a member.
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 Q2 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.
