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 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: $67.8B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Entergy Corp | 18.4% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 11.3% |
| Vistra Corp | 11.0% |
| Evergy Inc | 5.9% |
| Southern Co | 5.7% |
| Ameren Corp | 4.6% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 4.1% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 4.0% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 3.9% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 76.3% |
| General Motors Co | 14.2% |
| Tesla Inc | 2.6% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 2.0% |
| Ford Motor Co | 1.8% |
| Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd | 0.5% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 0.5% |
| Kia Corp | 0.4% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 0.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 0.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 83.4% |
| Glencore PLC | 9.7% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 4.1% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.9% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 0.5% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 0.2% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 0.1% |
| Coal India Ltd | 0.1% |
| Bukit Asam Tbk PT | <0.1% |
| New Hope Corporation Ltd | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Expand Energy Corp | 22.9% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 15.6% |
| Chevron Corp | 14.5% |
| EQT Corp | 12.4% |
| Permian Resources Corp | 7.4% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 3.3% |
| ConocoPhillips | 3.2% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 1.9% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 1.5% |
| Kosmos Energy Ltd | 1.5% |
PGIM Inc (PGIM) is the asset management arm of Prudential Financial Inc (PFI). It consists of seven autonomous asset manager subsidies. For the engagement based analysis, this profile assesses PGIM Fixed Income (USD 920 bn), which manages the vast majority of PFI’s USD 1.4 trillion AUM. This engagement assessment does not score subsidiaries with less than USD 250bn or a focus on alternative investments, which excludes the other PGIM subsidiary brands, although other subsidiary funds are reflected in the portfolio assessment and voting data. InfluenceMap's methodology is focused on investor engagement using equity holdings, therefore, as PGIM Fixed Income is a predominantly fixed income investor, some queries have not been scored in this assessment.
PGIM Fixed Income does not appear to be engaging substantially on climate. The asset manager does not appear to have a clear climate engagement framework, although it does recognize the importance of climate stewardship. Although the asset manager uses an ESG Impact Rating system to inform its stewardship activities, it does not appear to use milestones to track engagements. It does appear to have an escalation response which includes meeting with more senior figures, collaboratively engaging with other groups/investors, and divesting.
PGIM Fixed Income has provided some climate-related engagements in its reporting, including with a consumer products company on its net-zero emissions plan as well as a UK bank on its climate targets. The asset manager does not have any examples or appear to have any expectations set around indirect climate policy influence. It is involved in several collaborative investor initiatives, however it has not provided examples of collaborative engagement on climate.
PGIM Fixed Income has outlined its ESG governance structure, providing some details on stewardship-related responsibilities, for example, its ESG Ratings Sub Committee has oversight of the organization’s stewardship approach. The asset manager lacks transparency on engagements, only providing limited anonymous case studies and summary statistics in its reporting.
PGIM Fixed Income primarily invests client assets in debt instruments, therefore the asset manager will not be scored on InfluenceMap's queries on climate-relevant voting, voting transparency, and use of shareholder authority.
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: Prudential Financial (Prudential) and its asset management arm PGIM appear to have had supportive and unsupportive positioning on climate finance policy, generally supporting the need for policy to improve climate disclosure and fund disclosure but outlining objections to specifics of some policies including minimum standards for ESG funds. Prudential does not appear to be actively engaged on real economy climate policy.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: In Prudential’s 2023 Sustainability Report it disclosed direct engagement on climate-related government policy and regulation, but without giving details of this engagement. Similarly, in PGIM Fixed Income’s 2023 ESG Engagement Policy it mentioned engaging with financial regulators and standard setters on ESG topics but without clearly supporting the need for climate-related financial policy.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In its 2023 CDP response Prudential outlined that it had supported, with minor exceptions, climate disclosure policies at the US SEC and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). In its 2024 CDP response Prudential disclosed engagement with policymakers on ISSB sustainability disclosure standards and took a “neutral” position on the policy. In 2024, PGIM signed onto a joint letter advocating for policymakers to adopt the ISSB’s climate and sustainability disclosure standards. California lobbying disclosures from Q3 2023 show that Prudential engaged on the state’s climate risk and emissions disclosure bills but details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Climate/ESG Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks: In PGIM’s 2023 ESG Report it disclosed engaging with ESMA’s guidelines for fund names, but did not report a clear position on the policy, and reported a “neutral” position in its 2024 CDP response. In a 2024 insights paper PGIM advocated for the EU to introduce a voluntary product categorization scheme alongside investor disclosures, advocating for fund categories to be based on a double materiality lens with eligibility criteria stringent enough to avoid greenwashing.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In its 2023 ESG Report PGIM disclosed engaging with policymakers on the review of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) but gives no detail of its positions on the policies. In a 2024 insights paper PGIM appeared supportive of the goal of SFDR to address greenwashing and enable investors to help finance the net-zero transition but asserted the framework was overly complex and advocated for streamlining of disclosure and simplification of PAI and metrics-based disclosures. In its comments to the Commission on review of the SFDR in 2023, PGIM advocated for eliminating mandatory Principal Adverse Impact (PAI) disclosures at the product level, suggested that SFDR disclosures should be materiality-based, and did not support mention of engagement or remuneration policies.
Industry Association Governance: Prudential Financial and PGIM have disclosed industry association memberships, but Prudential's most recent reporting, as of July 2025, is from 2023. Disclosure on industry associations is limited to top-line statements without reference to specific climate policies. Prudential and PGIM retain memberships to groups active on climate policy, both financial and real economy, including the Institute of International Finance, the Investment Company Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce.
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 Q3 2025.
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.
