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.
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)’s board is responsible for the direct oversight of climate-related goal and target setting and the progress made against them, with responsibilities spread over four board-level committees. MUFG has also assigned climate-related responsibilities to management-level positions and committees, including the Chief Sustainability Officer and the Sustainability Committee, to support the oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities.
MUFG has clearly defined different transition and physical risk drivers across various risk categories and time horizons. The organization has defined some processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization, however the scope of these processes is limited. MUFG also considers climate-related risks and opportunities across various business activities, including in products and services that support the low carbon transition, and disclosure of its credit balance status for carbon-related assets.
The organization has provided some examples of how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on corporate strategy planning, such as its Capital Investment Expansion and Financing Opportunities, as well as engagement with companies to help achieve carbon neutrality. MUFG has tested the resilience of its business strategy across a robust range of scenarios, participating in the UNEP FI pilot project and scenario analysis of transition risks up to 2050 and physical risks up to 2100, however, details around the results and how MUFG plans to respond are limited.
The organization assesses climate risk through its Enterprise Risk Management framework, but it does not appear to have clearly described the processes used to identify and prioritize these risks. MUFG also references climate-related risks in discussions around various risk types, but it is unclear how risks are being addressed.
The organization has processes in place to manage climate-related risks, including its use of its Risk Appetite Framework, Top Risk Management, and the Equator Principles, and it integrates climate-related risks into its overall risk management, listing climate change as a top and emerging risk.
MUFG is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks, incorporating material climate-related risks into remuneration policies, and disclosing financing towards sustainable finance and the percentage of assets vulnerable to climate risks. MUFG discloses Scope 1 and 2 emissions but has only disclosed limited Scope 3 emissions emissions data. The organization also discloses some Scope 3 Category 15 emissions in its reporting, meeting some requirements outlined by the PCAF, and discloses the total loans and investments covered in emissions measurement.
In May 2021, MUFG announced it would become the first Japanese bank to join the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and was elected as a member of the NZBA Steering Group. The organization has set 2030 financed emissions targets for some high emitting sectors which are consistent with a 1.5 degree scenario, however it only appears to apply to lending activities. MUFG had initially set targets for the oil and gas and power sectors, coal-fired power generationand has set targets for 3 additional sectors: real estate, steel and shipping.
MUFG will not provide finance to companies planning the construction or building of new coal mines or plants or expansion of existing facilities, however the organization does not outline exclusions for companies with existing financing transactions, and has not outlined a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
The organization will provide financing, given due diligence, for expanding both conventional oil and natural gas, and unconventional 1348560 and natural gas infrastructure with no criteria around climate transition plan expectations of companies.
MUFG has communicated support for a transition to a low-carbon economy. It has increased its financing of renewables, and states it has reduced emissions by 36 million tons through FY2022 through a range of renewable energy project financing initiatives globally. However, there is some ambiguity around how it 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.
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 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $288B
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 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $112B
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: $74.8B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 13.1% |
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 10.3% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 9.3% |
| Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc | 9.1% |
| Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc | 7.7% |
| Entergy Corp | 6.1% |
| Chubu Electric Power Co Inc | 5.4% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| Hokkaido Electric Power Company Incorporated | 3.4% |
| Emera Inc | 3.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 30.6% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 24.7% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 20.4% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 10.0% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 5.1% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.8% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 1.7% |
| Stellantis NV | 0.5% |
| General Motors Co | 0.4% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 48.0% |
| Coal India Ltd | 14.4% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 12.7% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 8.8% |
| Glencore PLC | 6.9% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 5.1% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 3.0% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 0.5% |
| Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa SA | 0.5% |
| Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Ltd | 0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Inpex Corp | 21.6% |
| Mitsui & Co Ltd | 18.2% |
| ENEOS Holdings Inc | 10.8% |
| Tokyo Gas Co Ltd | 7.2% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 5.3% |
| CNOOC Ltd | 5.0% |
| Chevron Corp | 4.2% |
| Osaka Gas Co Ltd | 3.8% |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd | 3.0% |
| Cosmo Energy Holdings Co Ltd | 2.9% |
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group’s (MUFG) Responsible Investment Report states that the asset managers of MUFG Financial Group include: Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking, Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai Asset Management (MUKAM), MU Investments and Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management (UK) Ltd (MUFG AM UK). These entities appear to operate combined engagement approaches, so have been scored as one entity in this assessment and are referred to as MUFG. This report also references that MUFJ Trust Bank uses abrdn (which scores an A- in InfluenceMap's system) as a service provider for conducting engagements on foreign investee companies.
MUFG appears to be engaging with companies on climate. The asset manager has a strategy for climate engagements that includes how it prioritizes companies based on several ESG indicators. It follows a broad structure for tracking engagements which divides progress into four categories, but these stages lack detail. The asset manager appears to have an escalation response but also lacks details on what actions it is willing to take following unsuccessful engagements.
MUFG does appear to be actively engaging companies around climate change. For example, it has engaged with an automobile company and led the company to set emissions reduction targets in line with net zero, as well as with Daikin through a collaborative effort on the company’s disclosures and a climate action plan. The asset manager does not appear to engage with companies on climate policy lobbying. MUFG has served in leadership roles in CA100+ and AIGCCC and is an active collaborative engager on climate.
MUFG has described its Stewardship Committee’s role and how it reviews stewardship activities. It has limited transparency on its engagements, providing mostly anonymous case studies in its reporting, but does provide all proxy voting data with rationale for voting decisions.
The asset manager does not appear to use shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions.
Insightia data indicates that MUFG did not meet the minimum threshold to assess support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the asset manager has not been scored on InfluenceMap's climate-relevant voting query.
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.
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) appears to have very limited but broadly positive engagement with sustainable finance policy.
MUFG has supported the role for finance in delivering goals of Paris Agreement and a carbon-free society. MUFG has further advocated for action to achieve zero-carbon economies by 2050 in joint investor statements to governments in 2022 and 2021.
On its website in 2020, MUFG supported the need for improved corporate ESG disclosure but has not clearly linked this to regulatory requirements. However, in joint investor letters to governments in 2021 and 2022, MUFG did support the mandatory implementation of the TCFD and 1.5 pathway-aligned transition plans. In the 2022 statement, it also advocated for mandatory climate risk disclosure and prudential risk supervision. MUFG also appears to have supported stewardship standards that would better integrate ESG factors in its website, supporting an update of the Japanese Stewardship Code that would put more emphasis on long-term investment.
MUFG has disclosed some broad policy positions in various website articles and CDP Climate Change responses, but does not have a clearly identifiable, dedicated disclosure of its sustainable finance policy positions and lobbying activities. MUFG does not appear to disclose its engagement with industry associations or related governance.
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 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.
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)
Kanetsugu Mike is a Board Member of the Institute of International Finance (IIF)
Kanetsugu Mike (President and CEO)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Kanetsugu Mike is a Board Member of the Institute of International Finance (IIF)
Kanetsugu Mike (President and CEO)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of April 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is a vice chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is a chairman and NAGASHIMA Iwao is Vice Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank） NAGASHIMA Iwao（President & CEO, Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2021, HANZAWA Junichi is Vice Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association.
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of April 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is a vice chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is a chairman and NAGASHIMA Iwao is Vice Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank） NAGASHIMA Iwao（President & CEO, Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, HANZAWA Junichi is Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2021, HANZAWA Junichi is Vice Chairman of the board at the Japanese Bankers Association.
HANZAWA Junichi（President & CEO, MUFG Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MUFG Securities EMEA PLC is a Member of AFME (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MUFG Securities EMEA PLC is a Member of AFME (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management UK is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management UK is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MUFG is a member of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MUFG is a member of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management UK is a member of the Investment Association, which is a national member association of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management UK is a member of the Investment Association, which is a national member association of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source