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: $65.7B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Iberdrola SA | 31.1% |
| Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc | 10.8% |
| Enel SpA | 7.1% |
| Vestas Wind Systems A/S | 5.5% |
| Origin Energy Ltd | 5.3% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 4.7% |
| Voltalia SA | 4.0% |
| EDP Renovaveis SA | 3.7% |
| AGL Energy Ltd | 3.7% |
| Boralex Inc | 2.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 75.2% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 13.0% |
| Volkswagen AG | 3.0% |
| Kia Corp | 2.5% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 1.6% |
| Stellantis NV | 1.2% |
| Renault SA | 1.0% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 0.7% |
| Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 0.4% |
| General Motors Co | 0.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 73.4% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 11.1% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 10.6% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 4.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Shell PLC | 39.6% |
| Eni SpA | 9.8% |
| EnQuest PLC | 7.9% |
| Repsol SA | 7.4% |
| China Petroleum & Chemical Corp | 3.3% |
| Reliance Industries Ltd | 2.4% |
| Chevron Corp | 2.3% |
| Japan Petroleum Exploration Co Ltd | 2.2% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 2.2% |
| Inpex Corp | 1.9% |
Schroders appears to be an active engager on climate. The asset manager has a clear framework which informs climate engagement priorities, for example, it has defined four key areas for climate engagements and identified climate expectations it believes large and medium companies need to adopt to align business models with the transition to a net zero economy. Schroders has clearly described how it prioritizes and monitors climate-related engagements, using a range of metrics to track company performance. Additionally, it has a robust escalation strategy and has provided examples of escalation activities in its reporting.
The asset manager appears to be actively engaging with companies on climate, for example, Schroders’ CEO sent letters to all FTSE 350 companies requesting the companies share transition plans in 2021 and extended this outreach to 80 companies in Europe and North America. As a result, by September 2021, one third of the FTSE 350 companies it contacted had set or committed to set science based targets. Schroders has listed climate lobbying as an engagement topic and outlined desired short and medium-term actions for companies, however, it does not appear to have engagement case studies in its reporting. It is a highly active collaborative engager and in 2021 the asset manager contacted 84 companies included in the CA100+ net zero company benchmark.
Schroders has clearly described its stewardship governance structure and the processes in place to review and assess the effectiveness of policies and activities in its annual stewardship code report. It is transparent about engagements, providing numerous case studies in its reporting though some examples are anonymized. In addition, it is transparent about it voting record, disclosing all proxy voting data along with rationale.
Schroders has used its shareholder authority to engage companies on climate, for example, it has pre-declared its intention to vote for proposals at Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell as well as voted against management for Say on Climate Proposals in instances where it did not believe the emissions reduction targets were sufficient.
Insightia data suggests that Schroders has become increasingly supportive in recent years of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 30.8% in 2019, 39.1% in 2020, 72.3% in 2021, and 66.7% 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.
