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.
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. In October 2021, it joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance, however Goldman Sachs left the alliance in December 2024, though it appears to maintain its net zero commitment. 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.
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $597B
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 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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $830B
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 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: $194B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 32.5% |
| Adani Power Ltd | 15.9% |
| Iberdrola SA | 12.9% |
| AES Corp | 2.2% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 2.2% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 1.9% |
| Vistra Corp | 1.7% |
| National Grid PLC | 1.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 1.7% |
| PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA | 1.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 25.2% |
| Kia Corp | 12.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 8.0% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 6.4% |
| Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 6.4% |
| General Motors Co | 4.9% |
| Ford Motor Co | 4.7% |
| Dongfeng Motor Group Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 3.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 76.5% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 15.8% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 5.5% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 0.7% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 0.4% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 0.3% |
| Coal India Ltd | 0.3% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 0.2% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 0.2% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 42.1% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 13.6% |
| Neftyanaya Kompaniya Rosneft' PAO | 10.4% |
| NK Lukoil PAO | 8.3% |
| Shell PLC | 7.8% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 2.9% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 1.7% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 1.7% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.2% |
| BP PLC | 0.9% |
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 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: Goldman Sachs appears to have had limited and unclear direct engagement with climate finance policies, while communicating some support for regulated corporate climate disclosures and opposition to stringent climate taxonomies and standards. Goldman Sachs takes a mixed position on the energy transition, supporting the use of fossil fuels in the energy mix but supporting government investments in renewable energy.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: Goldman Sachs has stated support for the Paris Agreement, in its 2023 Sustainability Report, including action to keep temperature rise to 1.5C in its 2023 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Report. Goldman Sachs posits a mixed position on climate-related finance regulation, suggesting in a December 2023 article that regulations should focus on encouraging financing the energy transition ‘rather than an increased regulatory burden’.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: 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 Asset Management expressed support for the ISSB in its 2022 Stewardship Report. In Goldman Sachs 2023 Sustainability Report however, Goldman Sachs did not take a clear position on mandatory corporate climate disclosure, though emphasized the "extensive" disclosures to be required under EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
Position on Taxonomies: Goldman Sachs appears to have an unsupportive position on taxonomies. 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.”
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: Goldman Sachs Asset Management, in a January 2022 article, expressed an unclear position on the US Department of Labor’s proposed Prudence and Loyalty rule. Goldman Sachs appears to support the weakening of the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), suggesting in a March 2022 website article that minimum Article 8 and 9 fund standards could "threaten ESG fund innovation" and restrict capital from companies that "need to transition the most". Similarly, in a September 2022 meeting with the European Securities and Markets Authority Goldman Sachs suggested that the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ (DNSH) principle should recognize improvement on indicators of adverse impact over time and suggested that the EU's approach was 'overly-conservative'.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: Goldman Sachs has advocated for carbon pricing in both December 2023 Goldman Sachs Principles for Responsible Banking Report and in a meeting with the European Commission in November 2023.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Goldman Sachs takes a mixed position on the transition of energy mix. David Solomon, Goldman Sachs CEO, expressed opposition for the transition of the energy mix away from fossil fuels in a September 2023 energy summit. In Goldman Sachs’ 2023 Sustainability report however, Solomon emphasized the costs in transition towards a low carbon economy and flagged increased demand from AI as a headwind, but advocated for government policy to decarbonize in a way that balances energy security and economic growth. Similarly, Goldman Sachs has taken mixed positions on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In its Sustainability Report Goldman Sachs supported the use of CCS in hard to abate sectors, however in a February 2024 video Goldman Sachs stated that ‘oil and gas is net a social good’ and supported CCS as sufficient for decarbonizing the energy mix while maintaining current fossil fuel production. Goldman Sachs expressed support for the Inflation Reduction Act in an April 2023 article and the European Green Deal in its 2022 Sustainability Report. Goldman Sachs has also engaged on the energy transition at EU level, meeting with representatives from the European Commission in January 2024, though details of this meeting are unclear.
Industry Association Governance: 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 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 Q4 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.
