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.
The organization’s board appears to consider climate-related issues but has not assigned clear climate-related responsibilities to board committees or positions. Additionally, some management-level committees appear to have climate-related responsibilities, but descriptions of oversight lack detail.
JPMorgan Chase discloses the climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant, but does not disclose over which time horizons it considers these risks and opportunities. The organization considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, advisory, and investment business activities and has disclosed some of the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization. It has provided examples of how it has considered climate-related risks and opportunities in business planning across business areas like its commercial and investment bank as well as its wealth and asset management.
In 2021, JPMorgan participated in pilot exercises to assess transition risks to carbon-intensive industries using the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario and analyzed physical risks on its home lending and commercial real estate portfolios. In 2022 the organization conducted several scenario analyses on transition risks at both a macro and sector-level, as well as an IPCC-derived physical risk scenario, although results of the scenario analysis lack detail in its reporting. In 2023 and in 2024 it mentioned the use of the same IPCC and NGFS scenarios used to test physical and transition risk scenarios on the firm, but does not disclose any results of this analysis. The organization does not describe how it plans to respond to the impacts that it identified in the range of scenario analyses.
JPMorgan Chase uses a heatmap analysis to identify, and prioritize climate-related risks for its wholesale credit portfolio. It has broken down some of its risk management activities by risk type.
The organization has integrated climate risk into overall risk management by including climate as a risk driver in its firmwide risk identification framework, but description of how it embeds climate risk lacks detail.
The organization is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including credit exposures to physical risks and carbon intensity, capital expenditure towards climate-related opportunities, and ESG remuneration policies.
The organization discloses Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data, but only limited relevant operational Scope 3 emissions data. Additionally, JPMorgan has disclosed its Scope 3 Category 15 financed emissions for nine sectors, disclosing absolute metrics for both financed and facilitated emissions.
JPMorgan has committed to net zero by 2050. It was previously a member of the NZBA but left the alliance in January 2025, though it appears to maintain its 2050 target. In 2020 it published interim 2030 portfolio emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas, electric power, and auto manufacturing sector. In 2022, JPMorgan added three additional interim sector targets for iron and steel, cement, and aviation. In 2023, it announced two more sector targets for the shipping and aluminum sectors. Its targets appear to include capital markets activities along with lending, however all targets are measured in emissions intensity metrics and not based on absolute metrics.
The organization has prohibited financing for the development of new coal mines or coal power plants or expansion of an existing mine or power plant. It has not set a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance and has only stated that it is phasing out exposure to clients that derive the ‘majority of their revenues’ from coal mining by the end of 2024.
With regard to unconventional oil and gas, JPMorgan Chase has set limited exclusionary measures, prohibiting financing for Arctic oil and gas projects and requiring enhanced due diligence for oil sands. However, the organization appears to otherwise participate in unbated oil and gas financing. It has set 2030 emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector, committing to a 45% reduction in emissions intensity for Scopes 1 and 2 and a 36% reduction in emissions intensity for its ‘energy mix’ Scope 3 emissions.
The entity is increasing its financing of renewables with a commitment to financing $1 trillion for climate action by 2030, and has outlined which activities, including renewables, it considers eligible towards this financing goal.
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: $1.86T
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: $1.03T
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: $659B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 16.3% |
| Southern Co | 15.8% |
| Entergy Corp | 12.1% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 7.7% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 6.7% |
| Engie SA | 4.4% |
| Iberdrola SA | 3.9% |
| CMS Energy Corp | 3.8% |
| Enel SpA | 2.8% |
| Portland General Electric Co | 2.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 28.2% |
| Kia Corp | 15.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 15.5% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 6.2% |
| Tesla Inc | 5.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 5.4% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 4.6% |
| Stellantis NV | 3.4% |
| Volkswagen AG | 3.1% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 41.2% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 37.4% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 5.3% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 3.3% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 2.7% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 2.0% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 1.6% |
| Coal India Ltd | 1.4% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 1.4% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| ConocoPhillips | 14.9% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 13.2% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 10.5% |
| Chevron Corp | 7.1% |
| Shell PLC | 7.0% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 5.5% |
| BP PLC | 5.2% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 2.8% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 2.7% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 2.5% |
JP Morgan Chase (JP Morgan) does not appear to be strongly engaging with companies around climate change. The asset manager has a universal strategy for climate engagements, having identified climate risk as a main stewardship priority as well as starting two net zero emissions focused projects in 2021 involving international oil and gas companies on the supply and demand side. It has detailed its process for assessing the effectiveness of engagements which uses milestones. Additionally, it has a defined escalation strategy which may include voting against management and non-executive directors, collaborating with investors, divestment, etc.
JP Morgan has engaged with companies on climate, for example, it engaged with Shin Etsu Chemical on the company’s climate targets and climate risk reporting and with PPT Plc on the company’s emissions intensity target. Additionally, it has engaged with Phillips 66 on concerns regarding its climate risk reporting, including disclosure on lobbying activities, though it is unclear whether the asset manager is actively engaging with companies on climate lobbying. JP Morgan appears to be collaboratively engaging around climate and in 2022 co-led two CA100+ engagements and participated in five others.
The asset manager has clearly described its stewardship governance structure and processes to review its policies and activities. For example, it conducted an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of its engagement approach in 2021 which resulted in the organization establishing engagement working groups. JP Morgan appears to be improving the transparency of its engagements, providing named case studies in its 2021 and 2022 Stewardship Report. It discloses its proxy voting guidelines, though is partially transparent about its voting record and does not provide voting justifications.
While the asset manager previously did not appear to use shareholder authority on climate, in 2022 it voted in favor of four new non-executive directors at AGL on climate grounds.
Insightia data suggests that JP Morgan is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 5.4% in 2019, 37.1% in 2020, 43.5% in 2021, and 30.6% 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: JPMorgan Chase (JPMorgan) and its asset management subsidiary JPMorgan Asset Management have outlined high-level support for climate action and the decarbonization of the global economy, while advocating for continued use of fossil fuels in the energy mix. The company appears to favor public policy aimed at the non-financial sector, and is skeptical of stringent climate-related regulation on the financial sector.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: JPMorgan supported action to achieve net zero by 2050 in its 2023 ESG Report and JPMorgan Asset Management echoed this support in its 2022 Investment Stewardship Report. However, in a 2023 Bloomberg article JPMorgan’s Head of EMEA ESG asserted there had been some “overreach” in positioning the role of the financial sector in the net zero transition, and in an 2023 interview CEO Jamie Dimon suggested that nuclear proliferation, rather than climate change, was the most pressing global issue. In JPMorgan Asset Management’s 2022 Investment Stewardship Report it appeared supportive of climate-related finance regulation. However, according to minutes from a meeting with the European Commission, in 2023 JPMorgan advocated for reducing the “administrative burden” associated with the EU’s sustainable finance policies.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: JPMorgan appears generally unsupportive of specific climate disclosure policies. According to a memo, in 2022 representatives from JPMorgan met with the SEC to discuss concerns around “burden and cost” of the Commission’s climate disclosure proposal. As outlined in meeting minutes, also in 2022 JPMorgan met with the European Commission to raise concerns about the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. In a 2022 Wall Street Journal article, JPMorgan Asset Management outlined concerns with mandating Scope 3 emissions disclosure.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: In 2022, JPMorgan Asset Management supported proposals from the SEC and UK FCA to introduce categories for ESG-related funds. In 2022 comments on the SEC’s proposed Investment Company Names rule, JPMorgan Asset Management supported the extension of the Names Rule to funds with ESG-related names but advocated that compliance with the 80% investment policy be made less stringent. JPMorgan Asset Management also outlined concerns with ESMA’s proposed 80% threshold for funds using sustainability-related terms in 2022 and 2023. According to the EU Transparency Register, JPMorgan has engaged on the EU regulation of ESG ratings providers, but details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: JPMorgan Asset Management has voiced support for mandating disclosure of climate-related investment practices in its 2022 and 2023 Investment Stewardship reports. In 2022 comments on the SEC’s proposed disclosure requirements for investment advisers and investment companies on ESG investment practices, JPMorgan Asset Management broadly supported the proposal but recommended a summary approach to disclosure rather than the detailed draft requirements, and recommended that funds not be required to disclose Scope 3 emissions. In 2023 comments on the FCA’s proposed Sustainability Disclosure Requirements, JPMorgan Asset Management advocated for a more flexible framework in how asset managers could meet fund objectives, asserting that the proposal “overstated” the influence asset managers have on investee companies.”
According to a Florida Lobbying Report, in 2023 JPMorgan engaged on HB 3, legislation to prohibit the use of ESG factors in investment decision making. Its position on the bill is undisclosed. CEO Jamie Dimon has opposed other “anti-ESG” legislation including in Texas, where he called the state’s policy “bad for business” in a 2023 Bloomberg article.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Although JPMorgan has repeatedly voiced support for the transition to a low-carbon economy, the company has also taken positions that oppose transitioning the energy mix away from fossil fuels. In its 2023 Climate Report, JPMorgan appeared supportive of public policy to decarbonize the economy, including the climate investments in the Inflation Reduction Act. CEO Jamie Dimon echoed this in his 2023 Letter to Shareholders. However, Dimon has also frequently advocated for a continued role for oil and gas in the energy mix, asserting that the world needs “cheap” oil and gas “for 50 years” in a 2023 CNBC interview and opposing the US government’s restrictions on permits for LNG export facilities in his 2023 shareholder letter. According to reporting from Axios, in 2022 Dimon directly advocated for the Biden Administration to increase domestic oil and gas production. In 2022 comments on the New York Climate Action Council Draft Scoping Plan, JPMorgan advocated against establishing an all-electric buildings mandate.
Industry Association Governance: JPMorgan and JPMorgan Asset Management's disclosure of trade association memberships is limited to top-line disclosure and does not describe the climate-related policy positions or engagement activities of the groups. The company is a member of industry groups actively engaged on climate policy including the US Chamber and the Investment Company Institute.
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.
