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.
The Bank of Nova Scotia’s (Scotiabank) board oversees the bank’s ESG and climate strategy and overall risk strategy. Furthermore, management-level positions and committees are assigned climate-related responsibilities, including several management committees which are responsible for executing the Bank's climate transition plan and monitoring ESG risks.
Scotiabank considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its lending, advisory, and investment business activities. It uses various risk analyses, including a Climate Change Risk Assessment to assess physical and transition risks across different time horizons, although it does not disclose which risks it considers over which time horizons. Scotiabank has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning, and provides examples of how it considers climate across different lines of business.
Scotiabank has used climate scenario analysis to test the resilience of its business strategy, but does not appear to have done so comprehensively. In 2022, it used three different climate scenarios, and in 2023, it used four different climate scenarios to assess physical and transition risks on its non-retail lending portfolio over different time horizons. However its disclosure of these analyses lack detail, and it does not disclose any implications of its analyses on its strategy and business model.
The organization references some processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, for example, it uses heatmap analysis to vulnerable sectors to climate change. Scotiabank also considers climate-related risks in its assessments of various other risk types. It also has various processes in place to manage and mitigate climate-related risks, including an Enterprise-wide Risk Management Framework (EWRMF) which manages climate-related risk as a subcomponent of ESG risk. Scotiabank appears to integrate climate-related risks into its overall risk management approach, embedding climate risk drivers and climate-related risks throughout its EWRMF.
Scotiabank outlines various key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities including proportion of assets exposed to physical and transition risks, exposure to carbon-related assets, and some sustainable finance metrics. It appears to incorporate ESG factors into remuneration policies, but has not specified the specific amount that climate is weighted.
The organization is transparent about Scope 1 and 2 emissions as well as some relevant Scope 3 emissions. It measures and discloses financed emissions for five sectors including oil and gas, power and utilities, residential mortgages, automotive manufacturing and agriculture.
Scotiabank has set a net zero by 2050 target for its operations and financed emissions. It has set emissions reduction targets for its power and utilities and oil and gas lending portfolios, and has begun assessing decarbonization pathways in order to set targets for other sectors including residential real estate, and agriculture in 2022. In its 2023 Climate Report, Scotiabank set emissions reduction targets for its oil and gas portfolio’s Scope 3 emissions, and for its automotive manufacturing portfolio.
The bank states that it does not currently and will not finance standalone thermal coal mining or coal power generation projects, but continues to support existing mining and utility clients who have thermal coal or coal generation assets in their portfolios in their transition to lower carbon emissions. Scotiabank has not updated its coal policy since April 2021, but in its 2023 Climate Report it states that it intends to update its Statement on Financing Coal in fiscal 2024. It does not appear to have a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
Scotiabank has not set exclusionary policies for the oil and gas sectors. It has only set exclusions that limit financing of certain unconventional activities such as oil and gas exploration, development, or production within the Arctic Circle. It has set financed emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector for both Scope 1 and 2 and Scope 3 emissions, however both targets are set in emissions intensity metrics.
With regard to the role of renewable energy, the organization is increasing its financing of renewables, and increased its climate finance goal in 2022 from $100 billion by 2025 to $350 billion by 2030, of which it has provided CAD$132 billion so far. Scotiabank also updated its climate-related financing framework in 2024, which includes renewables as eligible activities for its target.
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: $367B
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: $146B
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: $12.2B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 33.5% |
| Northland Power Inc (Ontario) | 11.2% |
| FirstEnergy Corp | 8.4% |
| Vistra Corp | 6.3% |
| Southern Co | 6.0% |
| National Grid PLC | 5.9% |
| Capital Power Corp | 3.6% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 2.5% |
| Entergy Corp | 2.1% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 1.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 25.0% |
| General Motors Co | 13.0% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 10.9% |
| Ford Motor Co | 10.8% |
| Stellantis NV | 6.5% |
| Tesla Inc | 5.4% |
| Volkswagen AG | 5.0% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 2.9% |
| Nissan Motor Co Ltd | 2.4% |
| Kia Corp | 2.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Coal India Ltd | 34.8% |
| Glencore PLC | 30.6% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 10.1% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 8.8% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 4.1% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 3.7% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 2.5% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 2.2% |
| Inner Mongolia Yitai Coal Co Ltd | 1.4% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 0.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Shell PLC | 15.5% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 12.6% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 12.3% |
| Tourmaline Oil Corp | 10.7% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 4.8% |
| Peyto Exploration & Development Corp | 3.7% |
| Suncor Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| Permian Resources Corp | 3.6% |
| Paramount Resources Ltd | 3.3% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 3.1% |
Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) carries out its institutional asset management activities through two wholly owned subsidiaries: 1832 Asset Management (1832) and Jarislowsky Fraser Limited (JFL)]. 1832 Asset Management (1832) is a mutual fund business, represented by the Dynamic Funds and ScotiaFunds brands with an AUM of over CA$151.1 billion (as of October 2020). It appears to manage Scotia Global Asset Management investments, and is linked to Scotia Wealth Management. JFL has an AUM of CA$62 billion, and operates independently of Scotiabank and 1832.
InfluenceMap typically does not score the engagement programs of asset managers with less than USD 500bn in assets, however, the programs of both subsidiaries have been outlined below to contextualize Scotiabank's position in the market compared to its peers. The score provided is the aggregate of all the evidence assessed across both brands, and should not be assigned to either brand specifically.
JFL and 1832 have both listed climate change as a key engagement topic, and JFL has gone into more depth describing its priorities of emissions management and disclosures, carbon pricing, and resiliency. JFL appears to measure and track engagements using various metrics but does not give details on these metrics. Additionally, JFL has outlined an escalation strategy including writing letters to the board and collaborative engagements, while 1832 has not outlined an escalation response in its reporting.
Both subsidiaries appear to be engaging companies around climate. For example, 1832 engaged with an oil sands producer on its net zero strategy, and JFL engaged with a Japanese retailer on TCFD aligned climate disclosures. Both asset managers have referenced voting on lobbying proposals, but it is unclear whether this includes climate lobbying proposals and whether the asset managers engage on this topic. JFL and 1832 are both involved in climate-related investor initiatives like Climate Engagement Canada, but neither have provided examples of collaborative engagement activities on climate.
JFL has outlined its key stewardship roles within its governance structure but lacks details on stewardship review processes, and 1832 has described the function of its ESG Investment Committee which reviews responsible investment policies. Both asset managers have limited transparency on engagements, only providing some anonymous case studies of engagements. However, both JFL and 1832 provide all proxy voting data publicly, although neither provide rationale for voting decisions. Neither asset manager appears to use shareholder authority to engage companies on climate.
Insightia data suggests that 1832 Asset Management is unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 0% in 2021, 42.9% in 2020, and 0% in 2019. Meanwhile, JFL appears to have mixed support of climate resolutions, supporting 46.2% in 2021 and 96.8% in 2020, but it did not meet the minimum threshold of votes to be assessed in 2019. The assessment of Scotiabank uses a mean of its subsidiaries resulting in a percentage support of 23.1% in 2021, 21.5% in 2020, and 0% in 2019.
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: The Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) and asset management subsidiary Scotia Global Asset Management (GAM), Jarislowsky Fraser, and 1832 Asset Management, have engaged on climate-related policy across Canada and globally, focusing efforts on sustainable finance taxonomies and climate disclosure standards, with mixed and unclear positions.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: In its 2022 ESG Report, Scotiabank appeared supportive of systemic reform to deliver a sustainable financial system. In the same report it supported urgent action to tackle climate change. In its 2023 ESG Report and 2023 Public Policy Advocacy page Scotiabank reported engaging with Canadian policymakers on climate-related financial policy, but details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Scotiabank has taken some supportive and some unsupportive positions on regulated corporate ESG disclosure. In 2022, both Scotiabank and Scotia GAM submitted comments to the Canadian Securities Authorities on its proposal for climate disclosures. Scotia GAM took a mixed position on the proposal, supporting some aspects while advocating for a longer time for phase-in and increased flexibility in the final rulemaking. Scotiabank’s comments were consistent with the proposal, supporting the Authorities’ decisions to not require scenario analysis, require Scope 3 disclosure on a “comply or explain” basis, and phase in requirements. Also in 2022, Scotia GAM commented on the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) proposed climate disclosure framework, outlining several objections to the guidelines including financial reporting, scenario analysis, and Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. Again in 2023 comments Scotia GAM advocated for the ISSB to advance a “comply or explain” approach to Scope 3 disclosure when engaging with regulators. In 2024, as a registrant for Scotia GAM, 1832 Asset Management outlined objections to the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board’s (CSSB) climate disclosure standards, advocating for a delay in implementation and opposing Scope 3 emissions disclosure. Subsidiary Jarislowsky Fraser supported and committed to advancing the adoption of ISSB standards in a 2023 COP28 Declaration of Support.
Position on Taxonomies: Scotiabank’s 2023 ESG Report and Public Policy Advocacy page report engagement with Canadian policymakers on a taxonomy, specifically a taxonomy for transition finance. Details of what a transition finance taxonomy would look like, or how Scotiabank is advocating, are unclear.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: In its 2022 CDP response Scotiabank states support, with minor exceptions, for the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ efforts to incorporate climate risk into prudential regulation and risk management.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: In Scotia GAM’s 2023 Stewardship and Responsible Investment Report it detailed advocating for policies to support investment in clean energy and infrastructure and decarbonize the Canadian power sector. In Scotiabank’s 2023 Climate Report, it supported a role for fossil gas in the energy mix on the basis that it is “cleaner” without clear conditions related to carbon capture and storage (CCS) or mitigating methane emissions. In 2024 testimony to the Canadian House of Commons, President and CEO Scott Thomson took a mixed position on the transition of the energy mix, asserting that Canada should "move away from emissions reductions at all costs" but supporting efforts to "aggressively decarbonize fossil fuel production" through technologies like CCS.
Industry Association Governance: Scotiabank has disclosed its trade association membership and has mentioned engaging on specific policies via trade groups but has not given details of these groups' policy positions. As a result, it omits details of engagement by trade groups including the Canadian Chamber advocating for Canadian LNG infrastructure and the IIF pushing back on Pillar III climate disclosure at the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision.
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.
