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.
Mizuho Financial Group's (Mizuho) board incorporates climate-related issues into corporate strategy planning and risk management policies through its Environmental Policy and Transition Plan, and its Risk Committee has oversight of the Group’s risk management processes. The organization has assigned climate-related responsibilities to management-level committees, including the Sustainability Promotion Committee.
Mizuho appears to consider climate-related risks and opportunities over different time horizons and describes the four-step process used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization. The organization is also transparent about climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, advisory, and investment credit exposure. Mizuho is transparent about the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy and financial planning, including the promotion of sustainable finance and several sector specific initiatives.
The organization has used scenario analysis to assess physical and transition climate risk impact across various scenarios and multiple high-risk sectors. In 2023, Mizuho undertook transition risk scenario testing for four NGFS scenarios, covering electric utilities, oil and gas, coal, automative and steel sectors. It also conducted physical risk testing using IPCC scenarios, covering credit costs, group assets, overseas clients and large corporations, and expanded its analysis to include more types of acute and chronic risks. In 2024, it extended its transition risk analysis to cover the maritime, cement, and chemical sectors. The organization has disclosed the implications of its scenario analysis, and how it plans to respond to the effects identified.
Mizuho has described processes used for identifying and quantifying climate-related risks, including scenario analysis and a Risk Appetite Framework. It is managing climate-related risks through its risk control framework for carbon-related sectors and support for client’s transitions, and includes details on how it prioritizes and controls climate-related risks. Mizuho also appears to have integrated climate-related risks into its overall Risk Appetite Framework, and considers climate across all risk categories. It also cites “worsening impacts of climate change” as an FY2024 top risk.
Mizuho is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including its sustainable financing, the amount of assets vulnerable to transition risks, and the percentage of remuneration linked to sustainability initiatives, but does not disclose the percentage linked specifically to climate.
The organization discloses Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data and previously disclosed some relevant operational Scope 3 emissions, however, it did not include operational Scope 3 emissions in its 2024 reporting. Mizuho also discloses Scope 3 Category 15 emissions for 19 sectors in absolute emissions, and has begun to report some facilitated emissions for three sectors.
The organization has set a net-zero by 2050 target, which includes a fair share 2030 emission reduction commitment. Mizuho has outlined interim targets for the power, oil & gas, coal mining, automotive and maritime transport sectors, and in 2024, added sector targets for the steel and real estate sectors.
In its 2022 TCFD report, Mizuho stated that it will not provide coal financing for new clients whose primary business is coal-fired power generation or for the development of new or existing infrastructure linked with coal-fired power plants. However, it does not define a threshold for “primary business.” In its 2023 report, the organization expanded its scope to include coal mining. Mizuho has outlined a coal phase out policy for thermal coal mining in line with IPCC guidance, but has not done so for coal-fired power generation. It has also set an interim financed emissions target for the coal sector of reducing absolute emissions from coal to zero by 2030 for OECD economies and 2040 for non-OECD economies, consistent with a 1.5C scenario.
With regard to conventional oil and gas, the organization will provide financing, assuming the client meets due diligence or engagement criteria, for expanding oil and gas infrastructure. It will also provide financing for unconventional oil and gas activities, including extraction in the arctic, oil sands extraction, shale oil and gas extraction and pipelines given due diligence. Mizuho has set an interim financed emissions target for the oil and gas sector to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity to 4.2gCO2e/MJ by 2030, and Scope 3 absolute emissions by 12-29% by 2030.
The organization has stated support for the long-term contribution from nuclear energy to support the shift towards renewables. It is also increasing its financing of renewables through its environment and climate-related finance target of JPY 50 trillion, and has outlined eligible green projects under its green bond framework.
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 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $473B
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 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $466B
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: $51.9B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 27.9% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 17.5% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 8.7% |
| Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc | 6.6% |
| Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc | 6.2% |
| Chubu Electric Power Co Inc | 4.9% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 2.4% |
| Hokkaido Electric Power Co Inc | 2.3% |
| Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc | 1.8% |
| Engie SA | 1.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 31.1% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 23.9% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 21.8% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 6.7% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 5.5% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.3% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 1.6% |
| Renault SA | 1.5% |
| General Motors Co | 0.7% |
| Stellantis NV | 0.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 37.4% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 30.1% |
| Coal India Ltd | 10.2% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 6.7% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 5.7% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 3.9% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 2.8% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 1.5% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 1.0% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 0.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Inpex Corp | 17.4% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 8.1% |
| BP PLC | 7.4% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.4% |
| Japan Petroleum Exploration Co Ltd | 6.2% |
| Mitsui & Co Ltd | 6.0% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 4.5% |
| ENEOS Holdings Inc | 4.5% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 4.2% |
| Tokyo Gas Co Ltd | 3.6% |
Mizuho Financial Group operates its asset management activities through its subsidiary Asset Management One (AMO), of which it has a 70% stake, and 51% of voting rights. AMO appears to be the only asset management subsidiary of Mizuho Financial Group, and therefore is the focus of this engagement assessment.
AMO appears to be engaging with companies on climate change. It has a clear strategy for climate engagements, focusing on the 64 companies in its portfolio making up the majority of GHG emissions across five sectors. There is a strong framework informing engagement structure and 8 milestones to ensure success. It also has a framework to assess companies' alignment with net zero pathways based on PAII's Net Zero Investment Framework, which is used to inform engagement activities. AMO has outlined its engagement escalation strategy and provided examples including voting against a director and chairman on climate grounds.
The asset manager is engaging companies to transition in line with 1.5C, and is driving significant change in company behavior on climate, engaging with a transport equipment company which subsequently set emissions reduction targets and obtained SBT certification. It is unclear whether AMO is actively engaging with companies on climate policy influence, but participates in CA100+ engagements which appear to include lobbying. It has provided examples of collaboration engagements through CA100+, and is involved with several other collaborative initiatives, including, PRI Advance and ISSB.
AMO has described its stewardship governance structure and processes, outlining the role of the Stewardship Promotion Committee and its annual self-evaluation for each principle of the Stewardship Code. While AMO does not detail how it considers clients’ views in its stewardship approach in 2024, it has done so in previous reports. It has limited transparency on engagements, only providing some anonymous case studies. The asset manager has disclosed all its proxy voting data along with rationale and describes how voting decisions are made.
AMO has voted against company directors on climate grounds, but does not appear to use its shareholder authority to file Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions.
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 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.
