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: $525B
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 |
---|---|
NRG Energy Inc | 9.1% |
Exelon Corp | 8.6% |
American Electric Power Company Inc | 7.9% |
Entergy Corp | 7.3% |
Dominion Energy Inc | 6.4% |
Xcel Energy Inc | 5.2% |
Vistra Corp | 5.0% |
Duke Energy Corp | 3.6% |
Pinnacle West Capital Corp | 3.1% |
Evergy Inc | 3.0% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
General Motors Co | 51.9% |
Ford Motor Co | 15.9% |
Tesla Inc | 9.2% |
Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 3.8% |
Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 2.8% |
Volkswagen AG | 2.4% |
Dongfeng Motor Group Co Ltd | 1.5% |
Stellantis NV | 1.5% |
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 1.3% |
Renault SA | 1.3% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 21.2% |
Glencore PLC | 20.3% |
CONSOL Energy Inc | 15.3% |
Coal India Ltd | 14.8% |
Arch Resources Inc | 6.7% |
Exxaro Resources Ltd | 4.4% |
Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 3.6% |
Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 3.3% |
Warrior Met Coal Inc | 3.0% |
Peabody Energy Corp | 3.0% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
CNOOC Ltd | 9.9% |
Exxon Mobil Corp | 8.8% |
EQT Corp | 7.6% |
APA Corp (US) | 6.4% |
Chevron Corp | 5.9% |
Conocophillips | 5.8% |
Diamondback Energy Inc | 4.8% |
Marathon Oil Corp | 3.3% |
Suncor Energy Inc | 3.0% |
Devon Energy 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.
Invesco appears to be increasing its engagements on climate change. The asset manager appears to have an engagement framework around TCFD reporting but it is unclear if its climate engagement framework is focused on transitioning business models. Invesco has a structure informing its engagement activities but lacks clear milestones to track progress. It has a defined escalation strategy and demonstrated examples of escalation responses in its reporting, including when a company it engaged with did not fully comply with its net zero agenda.
Invesco is engaging with some companies on climate, including with a British bank on climate strategy and financed emissions reporting, as well as with a South American bank on developing a net-zero investment framework. The asset manager is engaging with companies on climate policy influence, and provided an example with a North American energy company on aligning lobbying with its commitments to the climate transition. It also is a member of several collaborative investor initiatives, including CA100+ with which it co-leads engagements at one company and participates in seven others.
Invesco discloses its stewardship governance structure and appears to review and update its stewardship policies regularly. The asset manager only discloses anonymous case studies and does not report names of companies it has engaged with. It is fully transparent about its voting record, providing an extensive list of voting justifications and has described how voting decisions are made.
There is limited evidence of the asset manager using its shareholder authority around AGMs, but it has communicated its decision to vote against management at the AGM of an IT and industrial conglomerate that it is engaging with as part of CA100+.
In contrast, Insightia data suggests that in recent years Invesco has been generally unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 40.0% in 2019, 43.9% in 2020, 45.5% in 2021, and 33.7% 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.
Invesco appears to have had mixed engagement on sustainable finance policy, generally supporting policy to improve corporate ESG disclosure and not supporting policy on investment decision-making.
Invesco appears to support urgent action to tackle climate change, and in 2021 Invesco joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the global goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. In 2020 comments to the European Commission, Invesco suggested that sustainable finance policy should encourage positive action but not restrict negative action.. In 2022 comments to the UK Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Invesco welcomed government regulation on sustainable finance.
Invesco appears generally supportive of regulated corporate ESG disclosure, with some exceptions. In a 2020 white paper, Invesco advocated for increased ambition of the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), and echoed this in comments on the European Commission’s review of the Directive in 2020. In a 2021 letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Invesco also strongly supported regulated corporate ESG disclosure in line with TCFD guidelines and subject to third party auditing. In 2020 and 2021 comments to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Invesco supported regulated disclosure in line with the TCFD. In a 2022 insights paper, Invesco also stated support for mandatory reporting frameworks in Singapore, India, and Hong Kong. However, in July 2022 comments on the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) draft climate disclosure standards, Invesco took a more mixed position, advocating for phase-in of certain provisions including Scope 3 and scenario analysis disclosures. In August 2022, Invesco outlined objections to the proposed European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), advocating for the standards to closer more with the ISSB.
Invesco appears to have mixed positions on a taxonomy. Invesco commented on the EU Taxonomy to argue that the proposed 'green' thresholds were too stringent in a media article in 2019 and in feedback to the European Commission in 2020. In feedback to the Commission's Renewed Strategy in 2020 Invesco supported the expansion of the taxonomy to cover environmentally harmful activities but appeared to argue for an approach with a greater emphasis on the transition. In a 2021 white paper, Invesco appeared to advocate for weakening of the EU Taxonomy, suggesting that the current approach that penalizes assets that are not "green" puts the climate transition at risk. In comments to the UK BEIS in 2022, Invesco suggested that the UK Green Taxonomy should account for transitioning assets. A 2022 insights paper states support for government efforts to establish taxonomies in Asia.
In 2020 comments on the EU Renewed Strategy, Invesco supported verification for the EU Green Bond Standard and supported some of the Commission’s suggestions for new ESG labels but not others. In response to the UK FCA’s consultation on Sustainability Disclosure Requirements and investment labels in January 2022, Invesco supported and advocated for increased ambition for some proposed labels and standards, but advocated for the watering down of others. In June 2022, Invesco supported the "transition" labels included as part of the UK Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) proposal. In August 2022, Invesco took a mixed position on the SEC’s proposed categories for ESG-related funds, supporting the proposal but suggesting narrower criteria for inclusion in each category. Invesco did not support the SEC’s proposed expansion of the Names Rule and its 80% investment requirement to funds with names that suggest an investment strategy, including an ESG-related strategy, suggesting that disclosure is a better means to address fund greenwashing. In November 2022, Invesco outlined objections to the EU’s proposed quantitative thresholds for fund names using ESG or sustainability-related terms.
Invesco appears generally unsupportive of incorporating ESG factors into investor duties. In feedback to the European Commission on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, Invesco did not appear to support adapting fiduciary duty to take into account adverse impacts on sustainability. In response to the ESA’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) consultation on investor ESG disclosure in 2020, Invesco argued against the stringency of the proposed regulation and suggested a principles-based approach instead, although welcomed the regulation in a website article in 2021. Invesco took a mixed position on the FCA’s proposed SDR and investment labels in June 2022, cautioning about a lack of available data but supporting disclosures for all investment products marketed in the UK. In August 2022, Invesco outlined several objections to the SEC’s proposed disclosures for investors about ESG practices, characterizing the proposal as “overly prescriptive” and opposing quantitative engagement disclosure requirements.
Invesco has disclosed memberships to some, but not all industry associations, and has given little detail of the sustainable finance policy positions of these groups. Its disclosure omits mention of membership to some groups actively engaged on sustainable finance policy, including the Institute of International Finance (IIF) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).
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
Elizabeth Gillam is chair of the Workstream: SFDR & Taxonomy at the Stewardship, Market Integrity and ESG Committee (last checked September 2023).
Elizabeth Gillam (Invesco (UK))
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Invesco is a corporate member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Elizabeth Gillam is chair of the Workstream: SFDR & Taxonomy at the Stewardship, Market Integrity and ESG Committee (last checked September 2023).
Elizabeth Gillam (Invesco (UK))
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Invesco is a corporate member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Invesco is a member of ICI, and serves on its Global ESG Task Force
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Andrew Schlossberg is on the Board of ICI.
Andrew R. Schlossberg (Senior Managing Director & Head, Americas, Invesco Ltd.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Cynthia Hostetler is on the Board of ICI.
Cynthia Hostetler (Independent Director, Invesco Funds)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Invesco is a member of ICI, and serves on its Global ESG Task Force
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Andrew Schlossberg is on the Board of ICI.
Andrew R. Schlossberg (Senior Managing Director & Head, Americas, Invesco Ltd.)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Cynthia Hostetler is on the Board of ICI.
Cynthia Hostetler (Independent Director, Invesco Funds)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Invesco Pensions Limited is a member of the ABI (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Invesco Pensions Limited is a member of the ABI (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--