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: $53.7B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 10.6% |
| Vistra Corp | 9.4% |
| RWE AG | 7.0% |
| AES Corp | 6.8% |
| Ameren Corp | 6.7% |
| Entergy Corp | 6.4% |
| NTPC Ltd | 5.1% |
| Exelon Corp | 4.5% |
| Clearway Energy Inc | 4.5% |
| Engie SA | 4.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 52.6% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 12.2% |
| Tesla Inc | 9.3% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 7.8% |
| Ford Motor Co | 7.3% |
| Stellantis NV | 2.8% |
| Kia Corp | 1.8% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 1.8% |
| Volkswagen AG | 0.9% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 0.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 40.3% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 19.8% |
| Glencore PLC | 14.8% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 11.7% |
| Coal India Ltd | 5.8% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 4.3% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 1.5% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 1.2% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 0.2% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Conocophillips | 25.2% |
| PDC Energy Inc | 15.0% |
| Chevron Corp | 7.2% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 5.4% |
| Hess Corp | 5.3% |
| Chord Energy Corp | 5.2% |
| Chesapeake Energy Corp | 5.1% |
| EQT Corp | 3.7% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 3.2% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 2.9% |
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.
Prudential Financial (Prudential) and its asset management arm PGIM appear to have had somewhat limited engagement on sustainable finance policy, taking mixed positions on regulated corporate ESG disclosure and policies to incorporate ESG factors into investor duties.
Prudential has stated support for action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. PGIM has mentioned engaging with financial regulators on ESG topics but has suggested that financial market actors may be more effective than regulatory action to incorporate sustainability into the financial system.
In a 2021 perspectives paper, PGIM appeared to support the need for legislative action to improve companies’ ESG disclosures. This support for regulatory action on ESG reporting has been reiterated in videos on PGIM’s website. In its 2021 ESG Report, Prudential appeared supportive of efforts by the SEC and the IFRS to develop climate disclosure standards. In comments to the SEC in 2021, PGIM supported the need for policy to improve corporate ESG disclosures. However, in 2022 PGIM took a mixed position toward the SEC’s draft climate disclosure rule, suggesting some physical risk and scenario analysis disclosure requirements were too granular but supporting and advocating for increased ambition in the rule’s Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. In comments to the International Sustainability Standards Board in 2022, PGIM took a mixed position toward climate disclosure standards which are likely to influence government policy, advocating for greater ambition in some areas, including a double materiality approach, and less ambition in other areas, including specific scenario analysis disclosure requirements.
In a 2021 report, PGIM stated support for improved ESG standards for financial products, similar to the EU Green Bond Standard. In August 2022 comments to the SEC, PGIM supported the need for standards and labels for ESG funds, advocating for increased ambition by designating between funds that seek to mitigate ESG-related risks and funds that seek to promote sustainability and/or good governance.
In various papers and briefings, Prudential has referred to policies to incorporate ESG into investor duties. In a 2020 white paper, QMA, the investment management business arm of Prudential, appeared to support increased investor disclosure requirements under the EU’s Sustainable Finance Action Plan, but warned against regulatory overreach. In a blog post from 2020, Prudential appeared to oppose the Department of Labor proposed regulation that sought to limit ESG investing. In August 2022 comments to the SEC, PGIM took a mixed position on ESG disclosure rules for investors, supporting less granular disclosure requirements than proposed and supporting Scope 3 disclosure requirements but requesting flexibility and safe harbor provisions.
In a 2021 white paper, Prudential appeared to support the need for central bank action on addressing climate risk, including stress tests and climate risk monitoring to efficiently allocate capital. In its 2021 ESG Summary Report, Prudential mentions providing feedback on climate-related risk supervisory guidance, but details of this engagement are unclear.
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 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.
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)
Stuart S. Parker is on the board of ICI, on the Executive Committee.
Stuart S. Parker (President & CEO, PGIM Investments)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of ICI.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Stuart S. Parker is on the board of ICI, on the Executive Committee.
Stuart S. Parker (President & CEO, PGIM Investments)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of ICI.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of ACLI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Andrew Sullivan is Chair-elect Designate on the 2022 ACLI Board of Directors. He is ACLI Chair for 2023. In September 2023, Sullivan transitioned to the position of Immediate Past-Chair for the coming year.
Andrew Sullivan (Prudential Financial Executive VP and Head of U.S. Businesses)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of ACLI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Andrew Sullivan is Chair-elect Designate on the 2022 ACLI Board of Directors. He is ACLI Chair for 2023. In September 2023, Sullivan transitioned to the position of Immediate Past-Chair for the coming year.
Andrew Sullivan (Prudential Financial Executive VP and Head of U.S. Businesses)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Scott Sleyster is on the board of the Chamber's US-Japan Business Council.
Scott Sleyster (Executive VP and Head of International Business, Prudential Financial, Inc.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Scott Sleyster is on the board of the Chamber's US-Japan Business Council.
Scott Sleyster (Executive VP and Head of International Business, Prudential Financial, Inc.)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a member of SIFMA and PGIM is a member of SIFMA.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a member of SIFMA and PGIM is a member of SIFMA.
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source