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: $669B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 12.2% |
| AES Corp | 11.7% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 9.9% |
| Entergy Corp | 5.8% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 4.8% |
| Evergy Inc | 4.8% |
| Vistra Corp | 4.4% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 4.3% |
| Pinnacle West Capital Corp | 3.9% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 2.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 23.9% |
| Ford Motor Co | 22.3% |
| Tesla Inc | 15.2% |
| Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 8.9% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 8.7% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 4.2% |
| Stellantis NV | 3.4% |
| Volkswagen AG | 2.5% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 2.1% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 1.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 54.4% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 20.9% |
| Coal India Ltd | 6.6% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 3.9% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 3.8% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 3.2% |
| Glencore PLC | 3.0% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.4% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.3% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 0.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 13.7% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 11.9% |
| APA Corp (US) | 7.5% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 7.3% |
| EQT Corp | 5.5% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.1% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 5.1% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 3.7% |
| Occidental Petroleum Corp | 3.2% |
| Aker BP ASA | 3.2% |
Invesco appears to be a neutral engager on climate and it is unclear whether its engagements and strategies are in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C. The asset manager does not appear to have an engagement framework, but has incorporated climate change into ESG ratings which guide stewardship activities. Invesco does not have clearly defined milestones to measure progress, however, it has a framework for Invesco Fixed Income (IFI) which assesses six key components of net zero alignment. The asset manager’s escalation mechanisms appear limited, only providing few escalation case studies and only including softer escalation activities.
Invesco is engaging with some companies on climate, including with a UK Metals and Mining Company on its transparency around coal-related activities and climate targets. It does not appear to have engaged companies on their climate policy influence in 2024, but has referenced climate lobbying in previous reporting. The asset manager has some examples of driving impact at companies, including at a UK Industrials company which committed to Net Zero by 2050 and set a Scope 1 and 2 emissions reduction target. It also is a member of several climate-related investor initiatives, including IIGCC, TNFD, and PRI, but it is unclear how it has contributed to these initiatives.
Invesco discloses its stewardship governance structure and processes to review effectiveness of its stewardship policies. It also describes how it seeks clients’ views, including through its ‘Invesco Listens’ program. The asset manager only discloses anonymous case studies and does not report names of companies it has engaged with. It is somewhat transparent about its voting record, disclosing all proxy voting data without rationale, and has described how voting decisions are made.
Invesco does not appear to have used its shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions, or publicly vocalized support for such resolutions
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 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.
