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.
Santander's board has incorporated climate-related issues into corporate strategy. The board of directors, the board risk committee and the executive committee discuss and oversee climate change and the green transition at regular meetings, covering the Climate-Net Zero ambition plan, the ESCC policy review, and disclosure reports. Additionally, the organization’s management committees, such as its Responsible Banking Forum, clearly implement and manage climate strategy.
Santander has clearly defined the climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant over different time horizons. Additionally, it describes the heatmap analysis it uses to assess the materiality of climate-related risks and opportunities, and references the actions it has taken to address climate-related risks and opportunities across business areas like asset management and corporate and investment banking. Santander has provided many examples of how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning.
It has also used scenario analysis to test the resilience of its business strategy to climate-related risks and opportunities. In 2022, Santander participated in the Bank of England’s CBES scenario exercise as well as the ECB climate risk stress test. In 2023, Santander undertook scenario analyses on both physical and transition risk across a range of scenarios, however it lacks detail on the implications or responses made to these analyses.
Santander is transparent around the processes used for identifying and prioritizing climate-related risks, including its heatmap analysis used to identify sectors exposed to transition and physical climate risks. It also incorporates climate-related risks into its risk assessments of credit, market, liquidity, and operational risk.
The organization has outlined various risk management processes that are used to manage climate-related risks across the group, breaking down risk management activities by risk type and providing next steps for each. Santander has embedded climate-related risks into its overall risk management and has begun integrating climate and environmental risk factors in the different phases of its risk management cycle and its credit granting process.
Santander is transparent about various key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including remuneration policies, capital expenditure towards climate-related opportunities, and exposure of different lines of business to physical and transition risks.
It discloses Scope 1, Scope 2, and some Scope 3 emissions data. Additionally, it discloses Scope 3 Category 15 emissions, reporting absolute emissions for the 8 sectors disclosed, Scope 3 emissions from clients in some sectors required by PCAF including oil and gas and auto manufacturing, and the PCAF data quality score for reported financed emissions.
Santander has set a net-zero by 2050 target, supported by interim decarbonization targets, but its decarbonization efforts appear to be focused only on lending activities. Santander initially released its 2030 target for the power sector and in its 2022 Climate Finance Report, it released 2030 interim targets for the energy, steel, and aviation sector in line with the IEA NZE 2050 scenario. In its 2023 Climate Finance Report, it released additional interim targets for the auto manufacturing and auto lending Europe sectors.
The organization’s coal policy states that it will not provide financing for new clients with coal-fired power plants or thermal coal mine operations, except for transactions for new renewable energy facilities at companies with credible transition plans. Additionally, it will not provide project financing for new construction or expansion of existing coal-fired power plants or coal mining related activities. The organization has set a coal phase out in line with the IPCC for coal mining activities, but its phase out for coal-fired power generation is not in line with IPCC guidance, allowing financing of companies that generate less than 10% of revenue from coal power after 2030.
Santander has set exclusionary policies for some unconventional oil and gas activities that prohibit projects north of the Arctic circle and fracking or tar sands projects, and prohibits companies that generate more than 30% of revenue from unconventional activities. The organization will not take on new oil upstream clients, but appears to otherwise provide financing for expanding oil and natural gas infrastructure. Santander has set an interim financed emissions target for the oil and gas sector of a 29% reduction in absolute emissions by 2030.
It appears to support nuclear given due diligence to ensure clients meet international safety standards. However, it does not appear to have a clear position on nuclear power in the energy mix in general. Santander has consistently been a leader in renewable energy finance, and has outlined in its Sustainable Finance Classification System what renewable energy production activities meet its eligibility standards.
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: $219B
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: $188B
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: $6.61B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras | 57.8% |
| Light SA | 18.3% |
| Companhia Paranaense de Energia | 3.9% |
| Enel SpA | 3.2% |
| Tauron Polska Energia SA | 2.6% |
| PGE Polska Grupa Energetyczna SA | 2.5% |
| Eneva SA | 2.2% |
| Iberdrola SA | 2.1% |
| Energy of Minas Gerais Co | 1.9% |
| Enea SA | 1.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 44.0% |
| Mercedes-Benz Group AG | 18.7% |
| Tesla Inc | 8.2% |
| Kia Corp | 6.8% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 5.1% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 5.1% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 4.7% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 2.6% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 2.4% |
| Subaru Corp | 1.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 100.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 73.5% |
| Aker BP ASA | 7.3% |
| Shell PLC | 6.8% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 3.8% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 3.6% |
| Orlen SA | 2.4% |
| BP PLC | 1.0% |
| Prio SA | 0.3% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 0.3% |
| ConocoPhillips | 0.2% |
Santander Asset Management (Santander or SAM) does not appear to be actively engaging with companies around climate change. SAM has developed a new Net Zero Stewardship Strategy for prioritizing high emitters and pushing for science-based transition plans, however, it does not appear to have yet engaged with companies using this framework. It does appear to follow a defined engagement structure to monitor its engagements, and has laid out an escalation response driven by engagement outcomes which may include joining a collaborative initiative, exercising its voting rights, divesting, etc.
Santander does have some examples of engagements on climate change, such as its engagement with a power utility company on net zero commitments and developing a transition plan, as well as its engagement with a real estate company on climate disclosures and publishing climate plans. It is unclear if the asset manager is engaging on climate policy influence. SAM is a member of CA100+ and appears to be participating in collaborative engagements with the initiative, having led engagements with a company in the power and utilities sector.
Santander has described its stewardship governance structure and detailed the teams and committees that are involved with its stewardship processes. The asset manager has limited transparency about engagements, and only provides anonymous case studies. It discloses some of its proxy voting record but does not provide voting data for companies based in Latin America and does not give voting rationale. SAM does not provide examples or demonstrate willingness to use shareholder authority on climate.
ProxyInsight data suggests that Santander is generally unsupportive of climate resolutions, supporting 63.6% in 2018, 33.3% in 2019, and 25% in 2020. However, due to the small sample sizes in 2019 and 2020, it is unclear if the data is representative of Santander's climate voting record.
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: Santander appears to have been moderately engaged on climate policy, taking mixed positions on specific climate-related financial policies.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: Santander stated support for a role for finance in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement in its 2022 Climate Finance Report, and for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C in a 2022 website article. However, in a 2023 meeting with the European Commission, Santander appeared to support continued investment in unabated fossil fuels. In a sector forum in May 2022, Santander CEO José Antonio Álvarez stated that the bank is not 'comfortable' being the 'climate police' and urged for more clarity from governments on what companies are expected to do.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In Santander’s 2023 Climate Finance Report it stated engagement with regulated corporate climate disclosure policies, but did not gives details of this engagement. In its 2022 Climate Finance Report Santander warned that disclosure may harm business competition. Santander also supported the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards in its 2023 CDP Report but gave a mixed position on the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). In joint investor letters to governments in 2022 and 2024, Santander supported climate-related disclosures, including disclosure of 1.5C-aligned transition plans and Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions disclosure.
Position on a Taxonomy: In its 2023 Climate Finance Report, Santander supported the role of taxonomies, however suggested that policymakers simplify the EU Taxonomy framework in a way that "banks and non-financial companies alike can implement the requirements in a more straightforward way". In addition, in its 2023 CDP Report, Santander pushed for the simplification of the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle of the EU Taxonomy. In a shareholders meeting in 2022, Ana Botín, Chairman at Santander, called for the EU to define net-zero aligned lending “as soon as possible”. In its 2024 Climate Finance Report, Botín suggested the EU Taxonomy Regulation should be weakened to include transition assets.
Position on Climate Labels, Standards, and ESG Ratings: In both its 2023 and 2022 Climate Finance Reports, Santander disclosed engagement with climate standards and labels but gave unclear positions. In its 2023 CDP response, Santander disclosed that it is engaging with industry associations in support of the EU Green Bond Standard, and also supported bringing ESG ratings providers within the EU’s regulatory scope.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors into Risk Management and Prudential Regulation: In its 2023 ESG Supplement, Santander appeared to support regulatory action on climate risk management, and reported engagement with the UK Prudential Regulation Authority on Climate Scenario Analysis and risk management. As a signatory to a 2022 joint investor statement, Santander also supported mandatory climate risk disclosure and prudential risk supervision. In a meeting with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the US, Santander, as a constituent of the Bank Policy Institute, outlined challenges to draft principles for climate-related financial risk management.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: Santander has given broad support to government action on energy efficiency of the housing stock in its 2023 ESG Supplement. It has also advocated for policymakers to implement robust carbon pricing aligned with 1.5C, improve emission standards, and implement policies to support the Global Methane Pledge as a signatory to the 2024 Global Investor Statement.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transition: Santander has supported the ban on ICE-powered vehicles in the UK in its 2023 ESG Supplement. It has also offered broad support for the transition to a low-carbon energy sector in its 2023 Climate Finance Report, however did not give a clear timeline.
Industry Association Governance Santander has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, including its engagement with the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Finance, and the International Capital Markets Association. However, the company's disclosure on its industry associations is limited to top-line climate statements and it excludes strategic engagement on climate policy of these organizations, for example the engagement of the Institute of International Finance's engagement on the IAIS Climate Risk Consultation. It also appears to exclude more than 3 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy including but not limited to AFME, EFAMA, and UK Finance
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 Q1 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.
