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: $160B
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: $182B
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: $44.2B
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 |
|---|---|
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 18.0% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 15.4% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 9.3% |
| Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc | 9.1% |
| Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc | 6.6% |
| Chubu Electric Power Co Inc | 5.1% |
| Hokkaido Electric Power Company Incorporated | 4.0% |
| Enel SpA | 2.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 2.4% |
| Hokuriku Electric Power Co | 2.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 30.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 25.2% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 22.0% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 8.2% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.8% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 4.8% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 1.4% |
| General Motors Co | 0.7% |
| Stellantis NV | 0.5% |
| Ford Motor Co | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 46.9% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 30.2% |
| Glencore PLC | 9.5% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 4.1% |
| Coal India Ltd | 3.0% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 3.0% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 1.8% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 0.6% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 0.4% |
| Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Ltd | 0.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Inpex Corp | 17.9% |
| Mitsui & Co Ltd | 11.0% |
| ENEOS Holdings Inc | 7.9% |
| BP PLC | 7.1% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.9% |
| Tokyo Gas Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 4.4% |
| Conocophillips | 3.6% |
| W&T Offshore Inc | 3.5% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 3.3% |
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.
AMO appears to be engaging with companies on climate change. It has a strategy for climate engagements, focusing on companies’ climate strategy, low carbon transition pathway, and solutions designed to achieve sustainable value creation. There is a strong framework informing engagement structure and an 8 step milestone system to ensure success. It has also developed a framework to assess companies' net zero pathways based on PAII's Net Zero Investment Framework. It has outlined its engagement escalation strategy which includes exercising voting rights at shareholder meetings, collaborating with investors, etc.
The asset manager highlights various climate-related engagements in its reporting, for example, it engaged with an unnamed electrical equipment company to incorporate climate considerations into its business strategy as well as with Hon Hai Precision Industry as part of CA100+ to seek plans on emissions reductions and target setting. However, it is unclear whether AMO is engaging with companies on climate policy influence. AMO is involved with several collaborative initiatives including CA100+, AIGCC, and NZAM.
AMO has clearly described its stewardship governance structure as well as review and assurance processes, for example, the asset manager carries out an annual self-assessment of its stewardship policies and activities and published the results each year. It has transparency on engagements, providing some anonymous case studies but only two named collaborative engagements in its 2021 reporting. The asset manager has disclosed all its proxy voting data along with rationale and describes how voting decisions are made.
It does not appear to have used its shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions, stating it generally does not make individual engagements public.
Insightia data indicates that AMO 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.
Mizuho and subsidiary Asset Management One appear to have had limited but broadly positive engagement on sustainable finance policy, particularly around climate-related disclosures.
Mizuho Financial Group (Mizuho) has stated support for the role of finance in delivering the goals of the Paris Agreement. Similarly, Asset Management One, Mizuho's subsidiary, has advocated for action to achieve zero carbon economies by 2050. Asset Management One also supported action to achieve net-zero by 2050 and keeping global temperature rise to 1.5C in joint statements to governments in 2021. In a joint statement with the financial sector in 2022, Mizuho advocated for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to mandate the alignment of financial flows with biodiversity goals.
Mizuho has engaged with corporate ESG disclosure through its participation in Japan's Study Group on Implementing TCFD Recommendations for Mobilizing Green Finance Through Proactive Corporate Disclosure, as a member of the TCFD Consortium Planning Committee and as a Green Investment Guidance (GIG) Supporter. Subsidiary Asset Management One advocated for increased ambition in regulated climate-related disclosures and for mandatory implementation of the TCFD in joint statements to governments in 2021. Mizuho also advocated for policymakers to support the assessment and disclosure of nature-related impacts and dependencies in joint investor statement in 2022. In meetings with the Financial Services Agency (FSA) disclosure group during 2021-2022, Mizuho supported mandatory disclosure of TCFD-aligned "Governance" and "Risk Management" categories, but suggested that "Strategy" and "Metrics and Objectives" should be disclosed according to materiality, a position aligned with FSA’s recommendations.
Mizuho does not appear to disclose positions towards, or engagement with, sustainable finance policy. Mizuho has listed some of its Japan-based memberships at the Group company level and through its subsidiary, Asset Management One. However, it does not disclose any further details on indirect influence 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)
Asset Management One is a member of The Investment Association, which is a national association member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Asset Management One is a member of The Investment Association, which is a national association member of EFAMA (last checked September 2023).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of April 2023, KATO Masahiko is Chairman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
KATO Masahiko（President & CEO, Mizuho Bank）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, KATO Masahiko is Vice Chairman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
KATO Masahiko（President & CEO, Mizuho Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
SAKAI Tatsufumi is a Vice Chariman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
SAKAI Tatsufumi（President & Group CEO, Mizuho Financial Group）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of April 2023, KATO Masahiko is Chairman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
KATO Masahiko（President & CEO, Mizuho Bank）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of March 2023, KATO Masahiko is Vice Chairman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
KATO Masahiko（President & CEO, Mizuho Bank）
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
SAKAI Tatsufumi is a Vice Chariman of the board of Japanese Bankers Association
SAKAI Tatsufumi（President & Group CEO, Mizuho Financial Group）
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Mizuho Bank Ltd & Mizuho International plc are members 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)
Mizuho Bank Ltd & Mizuho International plc are members of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
Mizuho Financial Group's (Mizuho) board incorporates climate-related issues into corporate strategy planning and appears to directly oversee progress against climate-related goals and targets. For example, in April 2021, Mizuho's board of directors approved an updated environmental policy that included a net-zero by 2050 ambition. The organization has assigned clear climate-related responsibilities to management-level committees.
Mizuho appears to consider climate-related risks and opportunities over different time horizons and has made some references to the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization. The organization is transparent about its investment credit exposure; however, it appears to be less transparent across other business areas like consulting and advisory.
In its 2020 CDP response, the organization discusses climate-related risks and opportunities identified with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on business and outlines responses made, including how these have been integrated into its business plans and financial planning. However, while the organization's TCFD reporting includes several examples of how it is adapting its business strategy to take advantage of climate-related business opportunities, how it integrates climate-related risks into business strategy planning is not discussed in depth.
The organization has used climate-related scenario analysis to assess physical and transitional climate risk impact on credit costs across various climate-scenarios and time horizons, including those consistent with a 2°C or lower warming. However, it does not appear to have used climate scenario analysis to assess other business areas beyond credit cost analysis.
Mizuho has described a process used for identifying and quantifying climate-related risks, which focuses on engaging with clients. It is managing climate-related risks through engaging with credit clients around the climate transition, examining its credit exposure to high risk sectors, and reviewing its climate change policies. However, it does not clearly define how it prioritizes, mitigates, transfers, accepts, or controls climate-related risks.
Mizuho appears to have integrated climate-related risks into its overall risk management processes. In 2021, it elevated climate change from an "emerging risk" to a "top risk", and Mizuho is enhancing its monitoring and management approach accordingly. It references climate-related risks in discussions about credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk, but references lack detail.
Mizuho is transparent about the key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. For example, it tracks the percentage of its credit exposure to climate-relevant sectors. Management remuneration may be influenced by sustainability-related company performance; however, this is not clearly defined.
The organization discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 emissions data and some relevant scope 3 disclosures. It appears to disclose total absolute investment emissions using TCFD aligned carbon foot-printing and exposure metrics. In June 2021, Mizuho became the first Japanese financial institution to join the PCAF financed emission disclosure initiative and in November 2021, it was announced as the chair of the PCAF Japan coalition.
In April 2021, it revised its Environmental Policy to include a net-zero by 2050 target and commitment to align financial flows with this goal. However, it has not yet published detailed KPIs or interim targets to explain how this will be achieved, nor has it committed to setting fair share 2030 interim targets. It has stated that medium to long term Scope 3 emissions targets will be released by the end of FY2022.
In March 2021, Mizuho tightened its coal power and coal mining policies to no longer provide financing or investment to construct new coal-fired power plants or for new mining projects. In May 2022, it further tightened these restrictions. However, it remains open to financing new coal mines or power plants where a "when an existing thermal coal mining project contributes to the stable energy supply of a country which has announced targets aligned with net-zero emissions by 2050" under careful consideration. It is aiming for a credit balance of zero for coal power generation by 2040.
It will provide financing, assuming the client meets due diligence or engagement criteria, for expanding natural gas and oil infrastructure. Its March 2021 update to its Environmental and Social Management Policy for Financing and Investment Activity policy requires enhanced due diligence for financing or investing in new oil and gas extraction in the Arctic circle, fracking projects and tar sands projects. As of May 2022, this now also includes pipeline projects.
However, it appears to support phase out of unabated fossil fuels in favor of renewables and supported by nuclear. It has a sustainable finance target of ¥25 trillion by 2030, and in 2021, it brought forward its target for zero credit exposure to the coal sector from 2050 to 2040.
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