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: $20.0B
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: $6.13B
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 |
|---|---|
| Brazilian Electric Power Co | 82.7% |
| Companhia Paranaense de Energia | 5.4% |
| Engie Brasil Energia SA | 4.4% |
| Energy of Minas Gerais Co | 2.0% |
| Eneva SA | 1.6% |
| CPFL Energia SA | 1.0% |
| EDP Energias do Brasil SA | 0.8% |
| Enel Chile SA | 0.7% |
| Neoenergia SA | 0.4% |
| Light SA | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Tesla Inc | 100.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 98.1% |
| Petro Rio SA | 0.7% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 0.6% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 0.4% |
| MEG Energy Corp | 0.1% |
| Enauta Participacoes SA | 0.1% |
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.
Itaú Asset Management does not appear to be strongly engaging with companies around climate change, although reporting and disclosures are limited so it is unclear to what extent. The asset manager appears to place a strong focus on climate change and ESG integration, but it does not appear to have a climate engagement framework. Itaú does not appear to use milestones for tracking engagement progress or have a defined escalation response.
Due to the lack of case studies and examples in its reporting, it is unclear if Itaú is engaging companies on Paris-aligned business models or impacting company behaviour on climate. The asset manager is involved with a number of climate-related investor initiatives like CDP and Investidores Pelo Clima although it is not clear how it has engaged with these initiatives. Additionally, there is no evidence of engagement or expectations around indirect climate policy influence.
Itaú has described its sustainability governance structure but does not detail where stewardship fits into this structure or how its stewardship processes are reviewed. It is not transparent about engagements, only providing limited summary statistics, however the asset manager does publish quarterly reports with proxy voting data. There is no evidence in Itaú’s reporting that it is willing to use shareholder authority to engage companies on climate.
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.
Itaú Unibanco (Itaú) has supported the role for finance in tackling climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy, but has not clearly specified a level of ambition.
Itaú does not appear to be engaged on sustainable finance regulation. In a 2017 white paper, Itaú states its support in the development of guidelines for green securities, but has not stated a position on regulated ESG labels.
Itaú Unibanco does not have a clearly identifiable, dedicated disclosure of sustainable finance policy positions and lobbying activities. Itaú has published a list of memberships to third party organizations in ESG reporting but has not given any further details of governance of its indirect influence.
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)
Milton Maluhy Filho is a board member of the IIF
Milton Maluhy Filho (CEO)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Candido Bracher is the Vice Chairman of the IIF
Candido Bracher (CEO)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Milton Maluhy Filho is a board member of the IIF
Milton Maluhy Filho (CEO)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Candido Bracher is the Vice Chairman of the IIF
Candido Bracher (CEO)
Itaú Unibanco is aligned with some elements of TCFD guidance regarding the governance of climate-risk. The board steers, monitors, and approves the bank’s sustainability policy and strategy, which includes climate change, but it is unclear if the board regularly monitors climate-related issues, goals and targets. Meanwhile, management-level positions and committees are assigned clear climate-related responsibilities and there are some processes in place to ensure they monitor the progress of climate-related issues and initiatives.
The organization partially meets the recommendations set out by the TCFD for reporting on climate-related risks and opportunities with regard to operational strategy. Itaú considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending and investment business activities and has defined various risks it considers relevant over different time horizons. Itaú has provided some examples of how it has considered the impact climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning on its ESG report, ESG further information report, and CDP response.
Itaú uses climate scenarios to support its mapping of climate risks and appears to have participated in a pilot scenario to test its energy and agriculture portfolios using 1.5 ºC and 2 ºC warming scenarios. However, the organization does not appear to have tested its business strategy under a range of scenarios and across other lines of business
The organization references processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, for example, Itaú has mapped the potential impacts of climate risk and their channels of transmission and its Business Environmental and Social Risk team analyzes clients using environmental and social criteria. Additionally, Itaú considers climate-related risks in assessments of various risk categories.
Itaú’s process for managing climate-related risks includes a Sustainability and Social Responsibility Policy that sets guidelines for environmental and social management and a management structure with three lines of defense. The organization appears to have integrated climate risk into its overall risk management approach, for example, climate change is included in its Environmental and Social Responsibility Policy.
Itaú is transparent about the key metrics to measure and manage climate-related risks, including metrics on emissions, electric energy, water, etc., in its ESG report and integrated report. However, it is unclear if it uses metrics to measure and manage its climate-related risks beyond these. It appears to have such metrics in place for managing climate-related opportunities.
The organization is transparent about Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data and discloses some Scope 3 emissions data in its CDP response. In addition, the bank discloses the amount and percentage of lending in climate-relevant sectors and carbon intensity of its portfolio. Itaú has also stated its support of the PCAF methodology and has applied PCAF to a part of its real estate portfolio and vehicle financing.
Itaú has set various targets to measure and monitor climate-related risk. In October 2021, it joined the UN convened Net Zero Banking Alliance. It has committed to transition its lending and investment portfolios to align with net-zero by 2050 or sooner pathways, and will set 2030 interim targets within 18 months that will align with NZBA guidelines.
Itaú does not appear to have set sectoral financing policies for climate risk sectors, however, 'Sensitive Sectors' including Mining, Oil and Gas and Petrochemicals require an additional ESG assessment by senior level authorities upon credit approval and renewal. Therefore, it appears it is willing to finance such projects assuming the client meets due diligence or engagement criteria. It is unclear if coal mining is considered under this 'mining' policy, and power generation is not named as a sensitive sector.
Climate finance has become one of Itaú’s strategic priorities, and the organization appears to be increasing its financing of renewables, but it is unclear how this relates to the wider energy transition.
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