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.
Morgan Stanley’s board appears to monitor climate-related issues through subcommittees, but it is unclear what processes are in place for the board to oversee climate strategy and risk. Management-level positions and committees are assigned climate-related responsibilities, however it is unclear how they are involved in the implementation and management of climate-related issues and strategy.
Morgan Stanley considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, advisory, and investment business activities, but it is unclear what processes are in place to determine which risks and opportunities could have material financial impact on the organization. It considers different types of transition and physical risks, however, it has not comprehensively disclosed which climate-related risks and opportunities it considers over different time horizons.
Moran Stanley is transparent about how it considers climate-related risks and opportunities in its business planning. For example, it is mobilizing low-carbon solutions across wealth management, investment management, and institutional securities business lines and uses resources from its Climate Action Investing Toolkit to engage with clients.
The organization references the use of several climate change scenarios in previous reporting, including two transition scenarios in its 2020 TCFD Report on rapid EV adoption and carbon tax adoption, and a flooding physical risk scenario in its 2021 TCFD Report. However, in its latest reporting has not provided details of how it has tested the resilience of its business strategy using these scenarios, or the implications of its analyses on its business model.
In previous reporting Morgan Stanley has described its processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, including an in-house sector-based risk register for determining materiality of risks. However, its latest reporting lacks further detail about these processes, only stating that it monitors external developments and tracks the latest science to understand relevant climate risks.
Morgan Stanley appears to have some processes in place to manage climate-related risks, including oversight from Firm Risk Management (FRM) and collaboration with the firm’s Climate Risk team. The organization appears to have integrated climate-related risks into its overall risk management, but does not describe how it has integrated these risks in its 2022 reporting, or its latest 2023 reporting.
Morgan Stanley does not appear to have comprehensive metrics disclosure, reporting only on some metrics such as the amount of capital mobilized towards its sustainable finance target. It is transparent about Scope 1 and 2, as well as some relevant Scope 3 emissions data. It discloses limited financed emissions data, only reporting on emissions from three sectors, including auto manufacturing, energy, and power.
In September 2020, Morgan Stanley announced a target to achieve net-zero financed emissions by 2050. Morgan Stanley was previously a member of the NZBA but left the alliance in January 2025, though it appears to maintain its net zero commitment. In November 2021, the bank set its initial 2030 interim targets covering three sectors including auto manufacturing, energy, and power. Morgan Stanley has not published new interim sector targets since it set its initial targets in 2021.
The organization is not aligned with IPCC guidance on the role of coal in the energy mix up to 2050. Morgan Stanley states it will not provide financing that support the development of new or physical expansions of coal-fired power generation as well as for new thermal coal mine development or expansion of existing mines. By 2030, it will phase out of companies with greater than 20% of revenue from thermal coal mining but it does not appear to have outlined a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
With regard to unconventional gas and oil, Morgan Stanley applies enhanced due diligence for certain activities and prohibits financing of new oil and gas exploration and development in the Arctic. The organization does state in its Environmental and Social Policy Statement that it will engage with clients in the oil and gas sector on emissions reduction initiatives and net-zero commitments, but appears to otherwise be actively financing new or expansionary projects. It has also set an interim target of 29% reduction in emissions intensity by 2030 for its energy portfolio.
Morgan Stanley has no clear position of the role of nuclear in the energy mix, but it appears to support nuclear given due diligence to ensure that clients meet international safety standards.
Moreover, the organization is increasing its financing of renewables and has committed $1 trillion of sustainable financing by 2030, including $750 billion to low-carbon solutions. Morgan Stanley has included renewable energy in its eligible activities for its sustainable financing commitment.
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: $510B
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: $797B
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: $139B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Duke Energy Corp | 15.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 14.0% |
| Iberdrola SA | 9.3% |
| CMS Energy Corp | 6.4% |
| Idacorp Inc | 5.0% |
| Public Power Corporation SA | 4.2% |
| Enel SpA | 3.0% |
| PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA | 2.1% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 1.9% |
| NTPC Ltd | 1.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 23.1% |
| Stellantis NV | 16.4% |
| Kia Corp | 10.4% |
| Tesla Inc | 10.3% |
| Ford Motor Co | 6.7% |
| General Motors Co | 6.4% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 5.6% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 5.4% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 2.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 23.5% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 19.6% |
| Glencore PLC | 10.8% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 10.7% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 7.7% |
| Coal India Ltd | 6.9% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 6.0% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 4.4% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 2.9% |
| Bukit Asam Tbk PT | 2.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| EQT Corp | 30.1% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 12.9% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 8.4% |
| ConocoPhillips | 7.8% |
| Antero Resources Corp | 7.3% |
| Chevron Corp | 5.6% |
| Mari Energies Ltd | 3.3% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 3.2% |
| BP PLC | 2.3% |
| Shell PLC | 1.8% |
Morgan Stanley is engaging with companies around climate change, but it does not appear to be a strong engager. While climate risk and decarbonization have been listed as engagement priorities of MSIM, it does not have a clear overarching framework for climate engagements. However, one of its investment teams does have a robust framework for engagements with companies in the oil and gas sector. The asset manager does not appear to use milestones but does track and monitor engagement progress. It has defined a clear escalation response as well as provided examples of escalation activities.
Morgan Stanley does appear to be actively engaging companies on climate change. For example, it has engaged with a US global transportation provider on carbon accounting and ESG reporting, as well as with a South African paper company on its emissions reduction targets which led the company to implement measures that saw results in Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The asset manager does not appear to have a firm-wide strategy on climate policy influence, but some of its subsidiaries and integrated investment teams have engaged with companies on climate lobbying. Additionally, it is a member of several climate-related investor initiatives.
MSIM has clearly described its stewardship governance structures and appears to review its Engagement and Stewardship principles at least once a year. The asset manager does provide anonymous case studies but does not disclose the names of any companies it has engaged with. It is transparent about voting activities, and discloses all proxy voting data along with voting rationale on its website.
The asset manager does not appear to have used shareholder authority to engage companies on climate.
Insightia data suggests that Morgan Stanley has mixed support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 29.8% in 2019, 43.1% in 2020, 51.2% in 2021, and 46.3% in 2022.
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: Morgan Stanley and its asset management subsidiary Morgan Stanley Investment Management appear to have moderate engagement on climate-related finance policy, particularly in the area of corporate climate disclosure. Morgan Stanley demonstrates broadly positive engagement in the areas of energy and industry transition.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: Morgan Stanley has stated support for action to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 in its 2023 ESG Report and advocated for a role for finance in delivering goals of the Paris Agreement in its 2024 2030 Interim Financed Emissions Targets. In a 2024 letter to the SEC Morgan Stanley did however place emphasis on the economic viability of emission reductions as opposed to the IPCC demanded response. Morgan Stanley Investment Management, in its 2022 UK Stewardship Report, appeared to support regulatory efforts on sustainable finance.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Morgan Stanley Investment Management, in its 2022 UK Stewardship Report, appeared to support regulated climate disclosure, including the proposed SEC disclosure rule. In a March 2022 podcast Morgan Stanley also appeared to support the SEC proposal, however a 2022 memo regarding a meeting between banks and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suggests that Morgan Stanley did not support aspects of the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule, outlining concerns with implementation and cost. In a 2023 SEC meeting, Morgan Stanley further engaged on the SEC climate disclosure rule, but details of this engagement are unclear. Calvert Research and Management, a part of asset management subsidiary Morgan Stanley Investment Management, has also engaged on the SEC’s climate rule, supporting, in June 2022 comments, the proposal including its financial statement and Scope 3 disclosure requirements. In a July 2022 response to the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) proposed climate disclosure standards, Calvert took a more mixed position, not supporting mandatory scenario analysis disclosure.
Morgan Stanley appears to support the ISSB’s climate reporting standards, stating in its Fixed Income ESG Outlook 2024 that ‘the market will benefit from greater standardisation and assurance on the quality of reporting’. Morgan Stanley has also engaged on the California climate disclosures bills, as reported in its California Lobbying Report Q4 2023, but details of engagement or position taken are not disclosed.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: Morgan Stanley, as reported in its 2022 ESG Report, engaged on the EU Green Bond Standard with all three EU Institutions. In March 2023 Morgan Stanley Investment Management met with the SEC to discuss its proposed Investment Company Names Rule. In comments to the SEC in 2022, Calvert Research and Management stated support for the Commission’s efforts to classify ESG-related funds but did not support an extension of the Commission’s ‘Names Rule’ and its 80% investment policy to ESG-related funds.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In 2022, Calvert Research and Management took a mixed position on the SEC’s proposal to enhance disclosures by investors about their ESG investment practices, supporting qualitative disclosure about a fund’s approach to proxy voting and engagement but asserting that quantitative reporting should be voluntary, and advocating for Scope 3 disclosure requirements to be delayed.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Morgan Stanley has engaged on the US Inflation Reduction Act, as disclosed in its Q3 2022 Lobbying Report. On its podcast ‘Morgan Stanley Thoughts on the Market’ Morgan Stanley supported the climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and its clear energy tax credits in October 2022 and August 2022 episodes respectively. In a December 2023 S&P article however, Morgan Stanley advocated for weak implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act's hydrogen tax credit by calling for less stringent requirements. In 2024 in its 2030 Interim Financed Targets report Morgan Stanley appears to take a positive position on the energy transition, stating support for the decarbonization of the mining sector, emissions reduction by the use of CCS and electrification in the power sector, and the electrification of transport. In this report, Morgan Stanley also supported the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) but did not make it clear whether it supports policies to incentivize SAF production or whether its position is aligned with IPCC guidelines, scales or timescales. Morgan Stanley did however caveat the need for the transition of the energy mix, citing in ‘the need to balance regional energy security from heightened geopolitical risks with the increasing global energy demand needed to support growth in developing economies’ in the October 2024 report.
Industry Association Governance: Morgan Stanley has disclosed membership to some US trade groups but has not given comprehensive disclosure on the climate policy positions of these organizations. Morgan Stanley does acknowledge that its climate policy positions do not always align with that of its industry associations but does not give any examples or details of misalignment. Membership of a number of trade associations are not disclosed, including a number of memberships in regions other than the US, for example The CityUK, Japan Investment Advisers Association and Business Council of Australia.
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 Q4 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.
