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: $124B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Entergy Corp | 17.7% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 9.3% |
| OGE Energy Corp | 7.2% |
| Enel SpA | 6.2% |
| DTE Energy Co | 6.0% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 4.3% |
| PPL Corp | 4.1% |
| FirstEnergy Corp | 3.6% |
| Huadian Power International Corp Ltd | 3.2% |
| AES Corp | 3.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 24.7% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 10.6% |
| Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 7.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 7.3% |
| Ford Motor Co | 6.5% |
| Volkswagen AG | 5.6% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 5.4% |
| General Motors Co | 5.3% |
| Stellantis NV | 5.1% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 3.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Coal India Ltd | 60.1% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 10.4% |
| Bumi Resources Tbk PT | 6.8% |
| Glencore PLC | 6.2% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 5.0% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 3.0% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 2.6% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 1.0% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 1.0% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 0.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| EQT Corp | 14.5% |
| Range Resources Corp | 12.2% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 11.0% |
| Cenovus Energy Inc | 7.5% |
| ConocoPhillips | 5.8% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 4.7% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 4.3% |
| Chord Energy Corp | 3.6% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 3.6% |
| Shell PLC | 3.2% |
Manulife does not appear to be firmly engaging with companies on climate. The asset manager states it prefers to engage companies on effective implementation of climate risk mitigation and adaptation strategies and its top engagement topics in 2021 included GHG emissions and energy management. However, the organization does not appear to have a clear framework for climate engagements. It has outlined milestones to measure engagement progress, however, it is unclear how it tracks and monitors engagements. Manulife has a clearly defined escalation strategy, including examples of escalation activities in its reporting.
The asset manager is engaging with companies on climate. For example, it has engaged with an Asian steel manufacturer regarding its lack of disclosure and targets for GHG emissions. Its engagement with a Canadian fertilizer company about its exposure to transition risks and science based targets resulted in the company adopting SBTs in mid-2021. Manulife appears to be actively engaging in collaborative initiatives including CA100+, Climate Engagement Canada, and AIGCC. As part of CA100+, it took the role as leader engager for a large chemical company in 2021 and stated that it is looking to influence the company to produce a climate lobbying report.
Manulife has clearly described its sustainability governance structure, including roles and responsibilities related to stewardship and has described processes in place to review stewardship activities and policies. The asset manager has limited transparency on engagements, providing some anonymous case studies in its annual stewardship reports. It has disclosed its proxy voting record and global voting policy which outlines how voting decisions are made. However, voting justifications are not provided in its record.
Manulife does not appear to use its shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions.
Insightia data suggests that Manulife has mixed support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 33.3% in 2019 and 48.4% in 2020. Its support increased significantly in 2021 at 81.1% but decreased in 2022 at 64.5%.
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: Manulife Financial Corporation (Manulife) and its investment arm Manulife Investment Management (IM) appear to have had somewhat positive engagement on climate-related finance policies, including generally supporting the need for regulated corporate climate disclosures. Manulife has also supported real economy methane regulation and the energy transition more broadly.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: In its 2023 Stewardship Report Manulife IM recognized the risk climate change poses to the financial system but emphasized what the organization is doing individually to address this risk rather than calling for systemic reform. In 2022, Manulife IM signed onto The Investor Agenda’s Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis, calling on governments to take action to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. Manulife appeared supportive of climate-related finance regulation in its 2023 Sustainability Report.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Manulife has been supportive of the need for climate disclosure regulation, while taking more mixed positions on specific policies. After the SEC released its climate disclosure proposal in 2022, Manulife IM outlined general support for the rule but advocated for delaying implementation of Scope 3 disclosure by three years. In its 2023 CDP response Manulife stated that it supported, “with minor exceptions,” climate disclosure policies at the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and the SEC. Manulife IM, as a member of the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG), has encouraged increased ambition in proposed CSA disclosure requirements and advocated for quicker implementation in 2022 and 2023 comment letters.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: Manulife, in its 2023 Sustainability Report, reported engaging with Canadian policymakers on climate risk data collection and scenario exercise policies, but details of this engagement are unclear. In its 2023 CDP response Manulife stated that it supported, “with minor exceptions,” climate risk work at the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS).
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: In Manulife IM’s 2023 Stewardship Report it stated that in 2022 it joined a letter to the Canadian ministry of environment and climate change encouraging “action” on methane in the oil and gas industry, advocating for increased ambition to reduce methane emissions.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Manulife appears generally supportive of the energy transition. In Manulife’s 2022 ESG Report it supports government action to decarbonize the power sector. Manulife’s 2023 Climate Action Implementation Plan asserts that governments play a “vital role” in the climate transition by enacting policies that encourage emissions reductions and decarbonize the economy. In its 2022 ESG Report, Manulife appears to broadly support the climate provisions in the US Inflation Reduction Act.
Industry Association Governance: Manulife has disclosed membership to trade associations but without giving details of these groups' specific climate-related policy engagement. For example, it is a member of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which is advocating for the withdrawal of Canada's oil and gas emissions cap, and the Investment Company Institute, which is opposing climate disclosure requirements for investors.
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 Q2 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.
