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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $168B
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $117B
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 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.
Portion of AUM Assessed: $74.8B
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.
| 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% |
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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)
As of March 2023, 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 March 2023, 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--
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is aligned with elements of the TCFD’s recommendation regarding the governance of climate-risk. The board is responsible for overseeing the implementation of climate initiatives and there are processes in place to ensure the board is informed and monitors the progress of climate-related issues. The organization has assigned clear climate-related responsibilities across various management-level positions or committees. MUFG’s Sustainability Committee, headed by the Chief Sustainability Officer, engages with policies and initiatives to manage climate-related risks and opportunities while other committees also discuss and report on climate-related issues.
Strategy:* MUFG considers climate-related risks and opportunities in relation to its strategy, and has clearly defined how it considers these over different time horizons. It has defined some processes to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization. Historically, it has focused on domestic and foreign bond and equity portfolios only. 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 active engagement with investee companies and operations and R&D investment strategy considerations.
MUFG has tested the resilience of its several business areas to climate-related risks and opportunities. Its Trust Bank subsidiary has tested transition pathways for GHG emissions in four-asset classes under 2C, 4C, and 6C scenarios. MUFG has tested the resilience of its credit portfolio to climate-related risks and opportunities (both physical and transitional) across various climate scenarios and time horizons, including those consistent with a 2°C or lower warming. The organization plans to, but has not yet, conducted robust climate-scenario testing at the group level.
The organization references processes used for identifying and prioritizing climate-related risks in its Sustainability reporting and ESG webpages, but references lack detail. These are more transparently discussed in CDP reporting, alongside the risk types considered in its climate risk assessments.
The organization discusses the processes used to manage climate-related risks, including an ESP Framework that integrates corporate training and education for relevant employees to better manage environmental and social issues. Climate risk is integrated into MUFG’s ESP framework to manage risks associated with financing, and climate risk it is considered a "Top Risk" for the organization. In 2021, climate-related risks were included in the organization's risk appetite statement.
MUFG is transparent about the key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks, including calculation methodologies. For example, it discloses the amount of expenditure, capital investment, or financing/lending towards managing climate related risks and opportunities, including corporate finance and project finance related to coal-fired power generation and sustainable finance. The organization has committed to publishing annual metrics to monitor its progress on its Paris Aligned financing targets. Additionally, as of 2021, it will incorporate the management of material climate-related risks into remuneration policies.
MUFG discloses Scope 1, Scope 2, and some Scope 3 emissions data as well as weighted average carbon intensity for its equity and bond portfolios. In November 2021, MUFG was announced as a signatory to the PCAF Japan coalition and has disclosed the emissions intensity for the electricity sector, power generation projects, and emissions for its oil and gas portfolio.
In May 2021, the bank announced that it "aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across its finance portfolio by 2050 and will work to set and disclose an interim milestone for 2030 in FY2022". Alongside this, it announced it would become the first Japanese bank to join the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. In August 2021, it announced that it has been elected as a member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance Steering Group and has joined PCAF. It has disclosed initial 2030 interim targets in its 2022 Progress Report, setting an emission intensity target for the power sector and an absolute emission target for the oil and gas sector.
In April 2021, the company updated its Environmental and Social Policy Framework. This included an enhanced commitment to no longer financing the expansion of existing coal power generation facilities, in addition to its existing exclusion on financing new coal-fired power generation projects. It does not appear to have updated its coal mining policy in this policy update and appears willing to continue to finance new coal mining activities.
With regard to natural gas, MUFG will provide financing given assessments of environmental and social considerations by clients. It appears to have a similar position on oil investments.
MUFG has communicated support for a transition to a low-carbon economy and has increased its financing of renewables, including project financing for solar, hydro, wind, and geothermal power generation. 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.
Open PDF file of Data Source