J.P. Morgan

United States

$3.0T in AUM

$3.74T in Total Assets

Qualitative Analysis

FinanceMap scores this financial institution in the following areas. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis

FinanceMap Scores

Governance Score

Stewardship Score

Policy Engagement Score

Top Line Target

Net Zero

Portfolio Analysis

FinanceMap assesses these portfolios for this financial institution. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis.

Activity Stream
Value Assessed
Portfolio Paris Alignment Score
Exposure to Fossil Fuels
Corporate Lending
$772B
-25%
4.7%
Bond Underwriting
$399B
-27%
10.2%
Equity Underwriting
$186B
-20%
2.4%
Equity Asset Management
$466B
-19%
5.2%

Governance

D
Performance Band

48%
Organisation Score

Detailed Evidence Used to Assess J.P. Morgan

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.

Portfolio Paris Alignment

Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.

Corporate Lending Paris Alignment

Value Assessed: $772B

Portfolio Paris Alignment by Sector

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.

Sector
% of Portfolio Value
Sector Paris Alignment

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Paris Alignment

Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.

Bond Underwriting Paris Alignment

Value Assessed: $399B

Portfolio Paris Alignment by Sector

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.

Sector
% of Portfolio Value
Sector Paris Alignment

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Portfolio Paris Alignment

Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.

Equity Underwriting Paris Alignment

Value Assessed: $186B

Portfolio Paris Alignment by Sector

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.

Sector
% of Portfolio Value
Sector Paris Alignment

Exposure Analysis

Last Updated - 28/02/2023

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.

Portfolio Paris Alignment

Equity Portfolio Paris Alignment

Portion of AUM Assessed: $466B

Portfolio Paris Alignment by Sector

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.
Sector
% of Portfolio Value
Sector Paris Alignment

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Holding NameContribution to Sector Production
Nextera Energy Inc16.5%
Xcel Energy Inc14.0%
RWE AG8.5%
Entergy Corp5.7%
Public Service Enterprise Group Inc5.6%
CMS Energy Corp5.4%
Dominion Energy Inc4.7%
Iberdrola SA4.4%
Engie SA3.2%
Portland General Electric Co3.0%

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Holding NameContribution to Sector Production
Stellantis NV25.6%
Toyota Motor Corp11.3%
Volkswagen AG10.2%
Kia Corp10.0%
Suzuki Motor Corp6.8%
Honda Motor Co Ltd6.8%
Mercedes Benz Group AG4.0%
Guangzhou Automobile Group Co Ltd3.8%
Renault SA3.2%
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd3.1%

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Holding NameContribution to Sector Production
Glencore PLC44.2%
Arch Resources Inc21.4%
Peabody Energy Corp18.3%
CONSOL Energy Inc3.5%
China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd3.0%
Hargreaves Services PLC1.7%
Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc1.5%
Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd1.1%
Whitehaven Coal Ltd1.1%
Exxaro Resources Ltd0.9%

Portfolio Forecast Production in Sector

Holding NameContribution to Sector Production
Conocophillips19.3%
Exxon Mobil Corp11.3%
BP PLC7.8%
EOG Resources Inc7.4%
Shell PLC6.6%
Chevron Corp6.6%
TotalEnergies SE4.1%
Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras3.9%
Diamondback Energy Inc2.3%
NK Rosneft' PAO2.1%

Funds Assessed

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.
Fund Name
Fund Domicile
TNA
Exposure
Portfolio Paris Alignment
United States
$48.8B
13.4%
-18%
United States
$42.7B
5.0%
11%
United States
$21.3B
8.6%
-22%
United States
$19.8B
9.4%
-12%
United States
$14.4B
8.8%
-17%
United States
$14.2B
9.0%
-23%
United States
$13.1B
4.0%
-13%
United States
$9.27B
9.0%
-20%
United States
$8.96B
12.2%
-9%
United States
$8.25B
1.7%
N/A
United States
$8.15B
1.8%
N/A
Luxembourg
$7.85B
2.3%
N/A
United States
$7.04B
8.3%
-21%
United States
$7.02B
10.3%
-22%
United States
$6.28B
2.0%
N/A
Luxembourg
$5.98B
6.0%
-10%
Luxembourg
$5.83B
2.0%
N/A
United States
$5.69B
9.8%
-13%
United Kingdom
$5.53B
13.5%
-19%
Luxembourg
$5.13B
5.3%
74%
United States
$5.02B
9.7%
-22%
Luxembourg
$4.82B
9.6%
-15%
Luxembourg
$4.71B
0%
N/A
Luxembourg
$4.44B
12.5%
-20%
United States
$4.27B
11.6%
-11%
United States
$4.26B
8.5%
-18%
United States
$4.14B
12.1%
-20%
United States
$4.0B
3.6%
-18%
United States
$3.68B
17.2%
-23%
Luxembourg
$3.55B
5.7%
-10%
United States
$3.42B
5.9%
-23%
Luxembourg
$3.04B
6.6%
-27%
United Kingdom
$2.95B
2.2%
N/A
Luxembourg
$2.86B
7.7%
-14%
Luxembourg
$2.84B
8.9%
-15%
Luxembourg
$2.74B
9.6%
-21%
Luxembourg
$2.72B
7.0%
-8%
United States
$2.53B
8.2%
-18%
Luxembourg
$2.24B
6.7%
-19%
United Kingdom
$2.17B
17.5%
-12%
Luxembourg
$2.11B
15.6%
-15%
United Kingdom
$2.06B
1.3%
N/A
Luxembourg
$1.97B
1.7%
N/A
Hong Kong
$1.9B
4.7%
-13%
Luxembourg
$1.88B
0%
N/A
Luxembourg
$1.85B
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$1.8B
8.0%
-14%
Luxembourg
$1.72B
21.8%
-16%
United Kingdom
$1.62B
5.4%
-13%
Luxembourg
$1.62B
5.3%
14%
Luxembourg
$1.57B
12.6%
-10%
Luxembourg
$1.55B
2.8%
N/A
United States
$1.45B
4.7%
-17%
Luxembourg
$1.44B
6.8%
-14%
Luxembourg
$1.44B
38.5%
-13%
United Kingdom
$1.31B
38.6%
-13%
Luxembourg
$1.3B
0%
N/A
United States
$1.3B
11.4%
-10%
United States
$1.28B
2.7%
N/A
United Kingdom
$1.27B
0%
N/A
United States
$1.26B
7.9%
-22%
Hong Kong
$1.24B
2.2%
N/A
United Kingdom
$1.21B
9.5%
-15%
Luxembourg
$1.15B
<1%
N/A
Luxembourg
$1.14B
2.2%
N/A
Luxembourg
$1.03B
15.4%
-13%
Hong Kong
$1.03B
10.1%
-9%
United States
$998M
3.4%
1%
United States
$948M
4.7%
-12%
Hong Kong
$850M
6.5%
-21%
Luxembourg
$849M
14.8%
-13%
United States
$835M
6.4%
-17%
United Kingdom
$830M
2.7%
N/A
Luxembourg
$823M
5.6%
11%
United States
$813M
7.3%
-21%
United States
$811M
8.8%
-9%
United Kingdom
$802M
4.0%
-20%
Luxembourg
$799M
5.1%
-100%
Luxembourg
$770M
3.1%
-11%
United Kingdom
$733M
14.5%
-33%
Luxembourg
$730M
<1%
N/A
United Kingdom
$708M
7.0%
-8%
United Kingdom
$700M
<1%
N/A
Hong Kong
$663M
15.9%
-10%
United States
$619M
14.7%
-16%
Mauritius
$619M
11.2%
-32%
Hong Kong
$616M
1.0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$598M
10.0%
-19%
Luxembourg
$594M
16.3%
-17%
Luxembourg
$579M
12.9%
-15%
Luxembourg
$558M
4.0%
-20%
United Kingdom
$532M
5.6%
-29%
United States
$510M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$506M
23.0%
-18%
Japan
$499M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$490M
N/A
N/A
Luxembourg
$482M
9.7%
-35%
Luxembourg
$453M
1.8%
N/A
Luxembourg
$452M
4.0%
-15%
United States
$445M
17.2%
-17%
Luxembourg
$427M
2.5%
N/A
United Kingdom
$419M
3.8%
-17%
Luxembourg
$407M
3.2%
-18%
Luxembourg
$391M
8.8%
-17%
United Kingdom
$380M
0%
N/A
Hong Kong
$359M
3.1%
-20%
United Kingdom
$348M
3.5%
-13%
United States
$341M
14.0%
-22%
Luxembourg
$340M
2.4%
N/A
United Kingdom
$339M
2.1%
N/A
Hong Kong
$332M
0%
N/A
Luxembourg
$327M
3.3%
-14%
United Kingdom
$324M
19.5%
-6%
United States
$319M
0%
N/A
Hong Kong
$309M
8.3%
-25%
Luxembourg
$289M
3.3%
-29%
Luxembourg
$268M
15.3%
34%
United Kingdom
$262M
3.2%
-18%
United Kingdom
$249M
3.8%
-100%
United States
$239M
5.9%
-13%
United Kingdom
$239M
20.9%
-15%
Hong Kong
$225M
N/A
N/A
United States
$224M
4.8%
7%
United Kingdom
$217M
2.8%
N/A
United States
$208M
5.4%
-12%
United Kingdom
$195M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$195M
17.8%
-11%
Finland
$186M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$182M
6.0%
-7%
Hong Kong
$178M
N/A
N/A
Ireland
$171M
N/A
N/A
United States
$169M
3.2%
-12%
United Kingdom
$165M
7.3%
-100%
Luxembourg
$158M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$156M
6.1%
10%
Japan
$155M
6.2%
-33%
Luxembourg
$140M
5.8%
-32%
Luxembourg
$140M
19.8%
-22%
Japan
$138M
7.9%
-29%
Luxembourg
$137M
0%
N/A
United States
$137M
6.1%
-100%
Luxembourg
$117M
4.8%
-8%
United Kingdom
$116M
20.0%
-10%
Luxembourg
$113M
12.7%
-15%
Luxembourg
$107M
N/A
N/A
Luxembourg
$99.5M
4.5%
-29%
Ireland
$98.7M
N/A
N/A
Japan
$96.4M
14.7%
-34%
United Kingdom
$94.3M
12.2%
17%
Luxembourg
$86.0M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$81.1M
4.6%
-13%
United States
$76.6M
2.3%
N/A
Japan
$73.8M
2.0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$73.3M
7.0%
-12%
United Kingdom
$69.3M
19.5%
-19%
United Kingdom
$60.3M
16.8%
-10%
Luxembourg
$54.6M
31.6%
-19%
United Kingdom
$53.9M
4.0%
-23%
Luxembourg
$50.4M
13.5%
-17%
Hong Kong
$44.8M
N/A
N/A
Japan
$40.2M
0%
N/A
Hong Kong
$37.6M
N/A
N/A
Japan
$27.6M
0%
N/A
Hong Kong
$26.4M
5.6%
-15%
Japan
$26.3M
4.6%
-33%
United Kingdom
$23.8M
N/A
N/A
United States
$21.5M
8.1%
-12%
United States
$21.4M
14.8%
17%
Hong Kong
$18.7M
6.7%
-20%
Japan
$18.3M
0%
N/A
Ireland
$17.9M
17.9%
-12%
United Kingdom
$14.2M
N/A
N/A
United States
$11.4M
0%
N/A
United States
$11.4M
0%
N/A
United Kingdom
$11.0M
N/A
N/A
Luxembourg
$10.8M
0%
N/A
Luxembourg
$10.6M
0%
N/A
United States
$10.4M
25.6%
8%

Stewardship

C+
Performance Band

31%
Voting Percentage

Detailed Evidence Used to Assess J.P. Morgan

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.

Policy Engagement

D
Performance Band

48%
Organisation Score

48%
Relationship Score

Detailed Evidence Used to Assess J.P. Morgan

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.

Detailed Evidence Used to Assess J.P. Morgan - Relationships

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.

Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
57%
 
57%
 
30%
 
30%
 
44%
 
44%
 
60%
 
60%
 
51%
 
51%
 
50%
 
50%
 
41%
 
41%
 
41%
 
41%
 
54%
 
54%
 
46%
 
46%
 
58%
 
58%
 
48%
 
48%
 
51%
 
51%
 
14%
 
14%
 
49%
 
49%
 
43%
 
43%
 
62%
 
62%
 
52%
 
52%
 
47%
 
47%
 
61%
 
61%
 
82%
 
82%