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.
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: $221B
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 | 19.0% |
| Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc | 15.0% |
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 14.2% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 14.2% |
| Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc | 12.7% |
| Chubu Electric Power Co Inc | 7.3% |
| Hokkaido Electric Power Company Incorporated | 4.8% |
| Hokuriku Electric Power Co | 4.3% |
| Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc | 3.6% |
| Okinawa Electric Power Co Inc | 1.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 33.0% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 23.7% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 18.4% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 11.5% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 6.0% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.2% |
| Mitsubishi Motors Corp | 2.0% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 0.6% |
| General Motors Co | 0.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 37.5% |
| Glencore PLC | 27.6% |
| Coal India Ltd | 17.7% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 8.5% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 4.5% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 2.3% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 1.1% |
| Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Ltd | 0.6% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 0.1% |
| Bukit Asam Tbk PT | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Inpex Corp | 27.5% |
| Mitsui & Co Ltd | 22.4% |
| ENEOS Holdings Inc | 14.3% |
| Tokyo Gas Co Ltd | 8.2% |
| Osaka Gas Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd | 3.7% |
| Cosmo Energy Holdings Co Ltd | 2.8% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 2.2% |
| Japan Petroleum Exploration Co Ltd | 1.9% |
| Chevron Corp | 1.7% |
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.
NAM has listed climate change as a priority engagement topic, however it is unclear if it is making efforts in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C. NAM has defined its climate engagement priorities and appears to use clear milestones to track progress on its engagements. However, the asset manager does not appear to have a defined escalation response.
NAM appears to be actively engaging companies around climate, in particular on themes around reaching net-zero and emissions reduction plans. For example, its engagements with an unnamed Australian materials company resulted in the company formulating a climate transition plan. Additionally, the asset manager is a member of several climate-related investor initiatives although it has not provided examples of how it is participating in these initiatives. It is unclear if NAM has any expectations set or has taken any action around climate lobbying.
NAM has described its stewardship governance and has recently created an engagement department for managing engagements. It is somewhat transparent about its engagements, providing some examples in its reporting as well as in depth examples on its website. The asset manager describes its voting policy and discloses its proxy voting record, although it does not provide rationale for all voting decisions.
It is unclear whether NAM is willing to use shareholder authority to file or co-file climate resolutions.
Insightia data indicates that NAM 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.
Nomura appears to have very limited engagement with sustainable finance policy, mostly engaging on sustainability-related corporate disclosures, but it has advocated for increased ambition where they have engaged.
Nomura and subsidiary Nomura Asset Management have supported action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C and to achieve net-zero by 2050. Nomura Asset Management has further advocated for this ambition positions in joint investor statements to governments in 2022 and 2021. In 2022, Nomura supported the post-2020 global biodiversity framework in its corporate website. Since 2010, Nomura reported in its 2020 CDP report that it has engaged with the voluntary initiative of the Japanese government and private financial institutions on the “Principles for Financial Action towards a Sustainable Society”, however, this initiative does not appear to have resulted in any regulation.
In its 2022 CDP response, Nomura stated support with minor exceptions for the Climate Exposure Draft by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).
Nomura lacks a clearly identifiable, dedicated disclosure of its sustainable finance policy positions and lobbying activities. It 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)
Kevin Connors is on the board at AFME (last checked September 2023).
Kevin Connors (Nomura, Head of EMEA FX Trading and Global Head of FX Sales)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Kevin Connors is on the board at AFME (last checked September 2023).
Kevin Connors (Nomura, Head of EMEA FX Trading and Global Head of FX Sales)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Chairman of Nomura Securities, NAGAI Koji is a member director, chairman of the securities strategy council. and vice chairman of JSDA.
NAGAI Koji
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Chairman of Nomura Securities, NAGAI Koji is a member director, chairman of the securities strategy council. and vice chairman of JSDA.
NAGAI Koji
Open PDF file of Data Source