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: $60.7B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 5.7% |
| Entergy Corp | 5.2% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 5.1% |
| Iberdrola SA | 5.0% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.9% |
| Southern Co | 3.9% |
| EDP SA | 3.7% |
| Korea Electric Power Corp | 3.0% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 2.9% |
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 2.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Volkswagen AG | 15.9% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 10.4% |
| Renault SA | 8.0% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 8.0% |
| Stellantis NV | 7.6% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 6.8% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 5.8% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 5.7% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 5.4% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 5.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 63.8% |
| Coal India Ltd | 16.4% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 6.5% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 2.0% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.7% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 1.1% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 1.0% |
| Bukit Asam Tbk PT | 0.6% |
| Banpu PCL | 0.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BP PLC | 28.6% |
| Shell PLC | 23.0% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 7.5% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 5.9% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 3.7% |
| Energean PLC | 3.2% |
| Eni SpA | 2.9% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 1.9% |
| Mari Energies Ltd | 1.7% |
| Equinor ASA | 1.6% |
Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) appears to be a leading corporate engager on climate. The asset manager has a clear strategy for engaging companies in all material climate sectors, assessing companies on climate drawing on around 40 data points across 5 key pillars. It has set out clear expectations for various climate-related sectors and clearly describes processes for monitoring engagements. Additionally, it has a robust escalation strategy should companies not comply, outlining minimum standards in its 2022 Climate Impact Pledge.
LGIM is actively engaging companies to transition their business models in line with the Paris Agreement. It is engaging across material climate sectors and has selected 59 companies for in-depth engagement which are influential in their sectors but not yet leaders in climate. LGIM’s engagements have supported behavior change on climate at the sector level, for example, in the autos sector, engagements with Honda resulted in improving its decarbonization commitment by aligning it to a 1.5 scenario, while targets at Ford and Honda are progressing towards SBTi approval. The asset manager is engaging on climate policy influence and has been engaging with General Motors since 2017 on the topic, which has resulted in improvements in climate-related lobbying disclosure. It is also an active collaborative engager on climate, co-leading several engagements as part of CA100+ including with BP and Fortum.
The asset manager appears to have highly effective governance structure and processes to support stewardship, having described stewardship roles and responsibilities in the organization as well as how it has sought clients’ views in its stewardship approach. LGIM is transparent about its engagements, regularly disclosing engagement subjects and content of engagements. It is also transparent about its voting record, disclosing proxy data along with rationale.
The asset manager appears to be willing to use shareholder authority to engage on climate, for example, it opposed the re-election of ExxonMobil’s Lead Independent Director and its chair/CEO and has laid out criteria for supporting management-proposed transition plans.
Insightia data suggests that Legal and General is broadly supportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 67.3% in 2019, 85.2% in 2020, 85.1% in 2021, and 80.3% 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: Legal & General appears to be actively advocating for ambitious regulation on climate, with most of its policy engagement carried out by its asset management arm, Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM).
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-related Financial Policy: LGIM supported urgent action to keep global temperature rise to below 1.5C in its 2023 Net Zero 2050 Update, and Legal & General supported the UK Treasury’s proposals on integrating climate change into the financial services regulatory framework in a 2022 consultation response. LGIM strongly supported the development of the UK’s sustainable finance framework in its Q2 2022 Active Ownership Report and advocated for ambition in the UK’s Green Finance Strategy.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Legal & General appears actively engaged on and supportive of mandatory corporate climate disclosures. LGIM supported the widespread adoption of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards by national jurisdictions, with a focus on Japan and Korea, in its Q4 2024 Quarterly Engagement Report. LGIM also advocated for greater ambition in the disclosure standards proposed by the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) in a 2024 consultation response, and for the SEC to uphold ambition on prescriptive Scope 3 emissions reporting in 2022 comments to the regulator. LGIM CEO Michelle Scrimgeour supported the work of the UK Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) in developing a disclosure framework for transition plans in an article hosted on the TPT website. LGIM also supported the mandatory implementation of the TPT framework in 2023 comments to the House Environmental Audit Committee.
Position on Taxonomies: In its Q1 2022 Active Ownership report, LGIM stated that it was engaging with policymakers on the EU taxonomy, advocating against weakening of criteria for agriculture and supporting the extension of the taxonomy to transition and harmful activities. In 2023 evidence given to the UK Environmental Audit Committee, LGIM supported the development of the UK Green Taxonomy.
Position on Climate Standards/Labels/Benchmarks: LGIM has offered broad support for the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) proposed labeling regime in its 2023 Q1 ESG Impact Report, however suggested it did not support provisions ‘incompatible with how the sustainable investment market currently operates’ and client interests. In a 2022 website article LGIM appeared to support the proposed labelling system and suggested it would bring ‘much needed clarity’ to the market.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: LGIM supported the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s proposal to integrate sustainability into investor duties regulation in its Q4 2023 Quarterly Engagement Report. In the US in 2023, LGIM America supported an Illinois bill requiring investment managers to disclose how climate factors are integrated into decision making, according to a witness slip. In the UK, Legal & General supported including climate preferences in default pension options in a 2022 consultation response.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: In a 2022 and 2023 letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency, LGIM America supported methane emissions regulation, and advocated to increase the ambition of the proposed rules. In 2024, LGIM America was a signatory to a letter to the Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change, strongly supporting Canada’s proposed regulation on methane reduction and advocating for more ambitious measures. In Japan, LGIM supported GHG emissions reduction targets of 75% by 2035 in an engagement with the Japan Climate Leaders Partnership (JCLP],. Through the JCLP, LGIM has also supported mandatory zero-emissions buildings and housing requirements by 2030 in its GHG Reduction Targets and Strategic Energy Plan. In the same plan, LGIM advocated for Japanese policymakers to increase the ambition of carbon pricing systems.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transition: LGIM supported Paris-aligned government policy in Japan in its 2024 PRI Full Transparency Report. It opposed investments prolonging the role of fossil fuels in 2024 recommendations to the Japanese government, and supported the scale up of renewables in its Q4 2023 Quarterly Engagement Report and through JCLP recommendations. It has also supported the expansion of electrification and targets for decarbonization in the JCLP GHG Reduction Targets and Strategic Energy Plan, ZEV infrastructure and targets for vehicle electrification in the same report.
Industry Association Governance: Legal & General has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, including its memberships of IIGCC, The Investment Association, and Council of Institutional Investors, but appears to exclude some associations which are actively engaged on climate policy, including its membership of UK Finance, and the position of its CEO António Simões as head of TheCityUK Leadership Council.
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 Q1 2025.
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.
