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: $256B
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: $250B
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: $244B
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: $140B
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 |
|---|---|
| Iberdrola SA | 7.9% |
| Enel SpA | 7.9% |
| Engie SA | 5.6% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 5.4% |
| AES Corp | 5.2% |
| NTPC Ltd | 4.9% |
| Fortis Inc | 4.7% |
| PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA | 3.5% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 2.8% |
| Drax Group PLC | 2.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 23.4% |
| Kia Corp | 20.5% |
| General Motors Co | 16.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 4.0% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.0% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 3.4% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 3.4% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 3.0% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 2.6% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 52.9% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 16.2% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 12.6% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 9.1% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 2.2% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 1.5% |
| Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa SA | 1.3% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 1.3% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 0.9% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 0.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 34.5% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 9.3% |
| NK Rosneft' PAO | 8.9% |
| Eni SpA | 7.7% |
| NK Lukoil PAO | 7.5% |
| Shell PLC | 5.8% |
| Tourmaline Oil Corp | 4.5% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 4.3% |
| BP PLC | 1.3% |
| Chesapeake Energy Corp | 1.0% |
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.
Goldman Sachs is engaging with companies around climate change, but it does not appear to be robustly engaging on the topic. The asset manager has included ‘Accelerating the Climate Transition’ as a priority engagement topic along with a framework of specific climate actions to engage on. Goldman Sachs appears to have a structure for engagements based on climate data disclosure, but it is unclear how it measures engagement progress. It has described an escalation strategy including voting, writing letters, engaging the Board or other seniors at the company, etc. and appears to determine escalation response on a case-by-case basis.
Goldman Sachs does appear to be engaging some companies on climate, including a German industrial company on scope 3 emissions disclosure as well as a US gas and oil company about climate strategy and disclosing emissions reduction targets. While the asset manager’s 2021 voting policy states it will generally vote against lobbying and trade group disclosures, it appears to have supported a number of climate lobbying shareholder proposals. However, Goldman Sachs does not appear to be actively engaging with companies on the topic of climate lobbying. It also does appear to be participating in collaborative engagements including with an unnamed Indian coal company through CA100+.
Goldman Sachs has described the role of its Global Stewardship Team and appears to review stewardship policies and activities. The asset manager is partially transparent about engagements, and discloses a full list of companies it has engaged with, but does not provide any named case studies. Additionally, it discloses its full proxy voting record but does not provide voting justifications.
Goldman Sachs does not appear to have used its shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned resolutions but voted against 22 directors at 16 companies that were not disclosing material emissions data in 2022.
Insightia data suggests that GSAM is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 22.2% in 2019, 35.6% in 2020, 46.2% in 2021, and 34.5% 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.
Goldman Sachs appears to have had limited and unclear direct engagement with sustainable finance policies, while communicating some support for regulated corporate ESG disclosures and opposition to stringent ESG taxonomies and standards.
Goldman Sachs has stated support for the Paris Agreement including action to keep temperature rise to 1.5C, and in October 2021 it joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance, signaling support for the goal of a net zero economy. CEO David Solomon has stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement but in October 2021 stated support for continued financing of fossil fuel companies. In a 2018 blog post Goldman Sachs suggested that a market-led response to sustainable finance would be more effective than regulation, and its 2018 and 2019 CDP responses appear to support some regulation on sustainable finance while emphasizing a market-driven response. In both its 2021 CDP response and 2021 Sustainability Report Goldman Sachs mentions engaging with policymakers on greening the financial system, but details of this engagement are unclear. A Goldman Sachs Asset Management insights report from August 2022 suggests support for certain sustainable finance regulations to incentivize the transition to a low-carbon economy.
In April 2022, Goldman Sachs Asset Management's global head of stewardship told the Wall Street Journal that Goldman's voting framework is "very supportive of the SEC's proposed climate risk disclosure rules," suggesting support for the proposal. An insights report from February 2022 appears to support the need for policy to enhance disclosures in APAC to keep up with international ESG policy developments. A September 2022 memo regarding a meeting between banks and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suggests that Goldman Sachs does not support aspects of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule, outlining concerns with implementation and cost.
Goldman Sachs appears to have a more negative position on taxonomies and ESG standards. In a 2021 webinar Goldman Sachs stated support for the common language an EU Taxonomy would create but warned against it being overly stringent. In a January 2022 insights report, Goldman Sachs supported the weakening of EU Taxonomy criteria to include natural gas and in a February 2022 insights report it suggested that concerns of greenwashing following the inclusion of gas in the taxonomy were “overdone.”
Goldman Sachs’ 2021 CDP Report states support for government action to push institutional investors to integrate ESG factors into investment decision-making. However, Goldman Sachs’ position on and engagement with specific policies to achieve this, including the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and the US Department of Labor’s proposed Prudence and Loyalty rule, is unclear.
In its Statement on Policy Engagement and Political Participation, Goldman Sachs discloses just three trade associations to which it holds membership. Goldman Sachs Asset Management lists other memberships in reports across its website. Neither Goldman Sachs nor its asset management arm describe the sustainable finance policy positions of these associations or any details of their policy engagement.
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)
Thalia Chryssikou is the Chair of AFME board of directors (last checked September 2023).
Thalia Chryssikou (Goldman Sachs, Global Head of FICC Sales Strats and Structuring, and Global Head of the Systematic Trading Strategies Group)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Thalia Chryssikou is on the AFME board of directors
Thalia Chryssikou (Co-head of Global Sales Strats & Structuring across FICC and Equities, Goldman Sachs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Thalia Chryssikou is the Chair of AFME board of directors (last checked September 2023).
Thalia Chryssikou (Goldman Sachs, Global Head of FICC Sales Strats and Structuring, and Global Head of the Systematic Trading Strategies Group)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Thalia Chryssikou is on the AFME board of directors
Thalia Chryssikou (Co-head of Global Sales Strats & Structuring across FICC and Equities, Goldman Sachs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of August 2022, Goldman Sachs is a board member of the MFA
Kevin Kelly (Global Co-Head, Prime Services)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a strategic partner of the MFA. Unclear whether Goldman Sachs still holds a board membership, as MFA no longer discloses its board.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Marc Rothenberg is on the MFA board
Marc Rothenberg (Managing Director, Goldman Sachs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of August 2022, Goldman Sachs is a board member of the MFA
Kevin Kelly (Global Co-Head, Prime Services)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a strategic partner of the MFA. Unclear whether Goldman Sachs still holds a board membership, as MFA no longer discloses its board.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Marc Rothenberg is on the MFA board
Marc Rothenberg (Managing Director, Goldman Sachs)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
James McNamara is on the Board of ICI.
James A. McNamara (President, Goldman Sachs Mutual Funds)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
James McNamara is on the Board of ICI.
James A. McNamara (President, Goldman Sachs Mutual Funds)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
John F. W. Rogers is on the board of SIFMA.
John F. W. Rogers (Executive Vice President, Goldman Sachs)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
John F. W. Rogers is on the board of SIFMA.
John F. W. Rogers (Executive Vice President, Goldman Sachs)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
In October 2022, David Solomon was the Financial Services Forum Chairman. In January 2023, Solomon was replaced by State Street's Ron O'Hanley.
David Solomon (Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
In October 2022, David Solomon was the Financial Services Forum Chairman. In January 2023, Solomon was replaced by State Street's Ron O'Hanley.
David Solomon (Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International and NN Investment Partners are corporate members of the EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International and NN Investment Partners are corporate members of the EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International - Private Equity Geoup is a member of Invest Europe (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International - Private Equity Geoup is a member of Invest Europe (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022, Goldman Sachs is a member of the American Bankers Association.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022, Goldman Sachs is a member of the American Bankers Association.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs Asset Management International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Goldman Sachs is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
Goldman Sachs board and board committees have regular oversight of climate risk management, and climate-related issues are being incorporated into company strategy. Management level positions and committees are assigned various climate-related responsibilities and there are processes in place to ensure they monitor the progress of climate-related issues and initiatives. In 2021, it established a Firmwide Climate Steering Group which convenes key senior stakeholders of the business to provide oversight for climate risk and opportunity decisions.
The organization is transparent about the climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, asset management, advisory, and investment business activities. It discloses a process used to determine which risks could have a material financial impact on the organization and has categorized various physical risks by risk severity but has not done so with transition risks. It has defined what it considers short/medium and long term time horizons, but it is unclear whether these risks and opportunities are considered over different time horizons.
It is transparent about the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning in its 2019 and 2021 TCFD Report and Environmental Policy Framework. For example, Goldman Sachs' Environmental Policy Framework highlights several initiatives across different business units related to climate mitigation, climate adaptation, climate risk management, and climate approach in operations.
Goldman Sachs has tested the resilience of components of its business to climate-related risks and opportunities using various scenarios. It has tested the value of its balance sheet equity and credit assets against two transition scenarios, and it has conducted physical stress testing to assess the impact on its properties. In its 2021 TCFD report, it describes physical scenario analysis on its properties, collateral or investments covering 8 physical risks. However, it does not appear to have tested climate resilience robustly across other business areas.
Goldman Sachs is transparent around the processes used for identifying and prioritizing climate-related risks and appears to incorporate climate-related risks into various risk categories risk assessments. It highlights some processes in place to manage climate-related risks, including an environmental and social risk due diligence process and sector guidelines as part of the organization’s Environmental Policy Framework (EPF). It has also provided examples of how its business structure and strategy helps manage climate-related risks and increase its ability to participate in climate-related opportunities.
Climate-related risks and opportunities are integrated into risk management practices across various business areas, including asset management, investing, and financing. Goldman Sachs has also begun integrating climate risk into the firm's credit evaluation and underwriting processes for certain industries.
The organization discloses key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks in its TCFD and Sustainability reports. However, there do not appear to be metrics used to measure and manage climate-related opportunities, and methodologies to calculate metrics are not provided. Goldman Sachs is transparent regarding historic Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions but does not appear to disclose around Scope 3 emissions except for air travel in its TCFD and Sustainability Report. It appears to disclose other Scope 3 emissions data in its CDP response; however, it does not currently disclose portfolio emissions data.
The organization has set various targets to measure and manage climate-related risks and some climate-related opportunities, which include operational targets. In March 2021, Goldman Sachs announced a target to align financing activities with a Net-Zero by 2050 pathway and in October 2021, it joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. In December 2021, it published its 2030 interim targets which are initially focused on oil and gas, power, and auto manufacturing targets. Its 2030 targets include corporate lending commitments, debt and equity capital markets financing, and other on-balance sheet debt and equity investments. Targets for the remaining carbon-intensive sectors will be announced before Q4 2024.
Goldman Sachs is not aligned with IPCC guidance on the role of coal in the energy mix up to 2050. The organization has established financing exclusion policies but appears to otherwise provide financing to the sector, assuming clients meet due diligence criteria.
The organization has similar sector guidelines for oil and gas and will provide financing given due diligence. Enhanced due diligence is applied to certain activities including fracking, Arctic oil exploration and development, and oil sands projects. It appears to only prohibit financing new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development. It appears to be actively financing the expansion or increased capacity of unabated natural gas power generation and does not appear to have made statements surrounding the need to deploy CCS.
Goldman Sachs appears to be supportive of a future role of nuclear in the energy mix and will provide financing given enhanced due diligence to ensure clients meet international safety standards.
It has communicated support for a low-carbon economy and has mobilized over $115 billion in clean energy financing and investments. Goldman Sachs has also made a net-zero financing goal for 2050.
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
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source