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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $129B
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $56.1B
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 production companies are defined as those with primary sector of operations in the up-, mid-, and/or downstream segments of fossil fuel production. 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: $3.96B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors in which the asset manager has shareholdings. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel Chile SA | 18.2% |
| Exelon Corp | 10.7% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 8.3% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 6.9% |
| Northland Power Inc | 5.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.8% |
| Enel SpA | 3.7% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 3.7% |
| Iberdrola SA | 2.8% |
| Southern Co | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 23.1% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 11.3% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 11.1% |
| General Motors Co | 8.1% |
| Stellantis NV | 7.6% |
| Ford Motor Co | 7.1% |
| Tesla Inc | 7.1% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 6.0% |
| Volkswagen AG | 5.6% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 97.1% |
| Washington H Soul Pattinson and Company Ltd | 2.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 22.7% |
| Conocophillips | 17.1% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 9.0% |
| ARC Resources Ltd | 8.2% |
| Tourmaline Oil Corp | 7.3% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 4.9% |
| Chevron Corp | 4.8% |
| Suncor Energy Inc | 4.4% |
| Tamarack Valley Energy Ltd | 3.2% |
| BP PLC | 2.8% |
All equity funds that FinanceMap has identified as being managed by this asset manager. Click through to a fund's profile page to view in-depth analysis.
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 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.
The Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) appears to have had limited engagement on sustainable finance policy, and, where it has engaged, it has taken mixed positions.
Scotiabank has acknowledged the risks climate change poses to the financial sector but its communications focus on institution-wide action rather than systemic reform to combat climate risk. Scotiabank has stated support for the Paris Agreement and the goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, however, in a 2020 press release it stated support for a continued role for oil and gas in energy and economic systems. In October 2021, Scotiabank joined the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero's banking arm, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. In December 2020, Scotiabank announced its partnership with the Institute for Sustainable Finance, which is working to implement the recommendations of the Canadian government’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance. In its 2021 ESG Report and 2021 Public Policy Activities page, Scotiabank mentions engagement with regulators and policymakers on sustainable finance policy, but the details of this engagement are unclear. Jarislowsky Fraser (JFL), an asset management subsidiary of Scotiabank, has also reported engagement on sustainable finance policies in Canada and globally, but details of this engagement are similarly unclear.
In its 2020 CDP response Scotiabank appeared to be broadly supportive of Canada implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). In February 2022, both Scotiabank and Scotia Global Asset Management submitted comments to the Canadian Securities Authorities on its proposal for climate disclosures. Scotia Global Asset Management 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. In July 2022, Scotia Global Asset Management commented on the International Sustainability Standards Board’s proposed climate disclosure framework, outlining several objections to the guidelines including financial reporting, scenario analysis, and Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements.
Scotiabank has repeatedly taken the position that Canada needs a transition-focused taxonomy, but what exactly “transition-focused” entails is still unclear. In 2019, Scotiabank Director of Social and Environmental Risk told media sources that it would be difficult for Canada to adopt a taxonomy like the EU taxonomy, and any Canadian taxonomy should have more leniency for transitional activities. In a 2020 insights paper, Scotiabank supported the idea of a voluntary taxonomy and in its 2022 Net Zero Pathways report Scotiabank supported a taxonomy that would direct capital toward a “smooth and just energy transition.”
Scotiabank and JFL have been cautiously supportive of the need for policy on ESG labels and standards. A 2020 JFL insights paper suggests support for policy on ESG and transition bond labels. A 2021 Scotiabank market insights paper states support for harmonization of definitions of sustainable activities via frameworks like the EU Taxonomy and EU Green Bond Standard, but cautions against overly strict requirements.
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.
Scotiabank has disclosed a non-exhaustive list of its industry associations with little detail of the sustainable finance policy positions of these groups or actions taken to address misalignment.
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 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.
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)
Scotiabank is a member of IIF.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Brian Porter is no longer Vice Chairman and Treasurer of the IIF
Brian Porter (President and CEO)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Scotiabank is a member of IIF.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Brian Porter is no longer Vice Chairman and Treasurer of the IIF
Brian Porter (President and CEO)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Scotiabank Europe and The Bank Of Nova Scotia are members of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Scotiabank Europe and The Bank Of Nova Scotia are members of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
The Bank of Nova Scotia’s (Scotiabank) board oversees the bank’s ESG strategy and overall risk strategy. Furthermore, management-level positions and committees are assigned climate-related responsibilities and there are processes in place to keep the board informed of climate-related issues and initiatives, including several management committees which provide regular communications about climate-related topics to the board.
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.
It has provided various examples of how it has considered to 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 and product and service offerings.
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 to assess physical and transition risks on its non-retail lending portfolio over different time horizons, however its disclosure of theses 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 a Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) tool to evaluate physical and transition risks clients may face. It also has various processes in place to manage and mitigate climate-related risks, including an environmental risk management policy with key principles to guide the banks approach to managing climate risks.Scotiabank appears to integrate climate-related risks into its overall risk management approach. For example, Scotiabank is working to embed its climate risks scenarios into its enterprise-wide Stress Testing Framework.
Scotiabank outlines some 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 internal carbon pricing. 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 has begun measuring and disclosing financed emissions for four sectors including oil and gas, power and utilities, residential mortgages, and agriculture.
Scotiabank appears to have set an emissions reduction target for its power and utilities and oil and gas lending portfolio, and is currently assessing decarbonization pathways in order to set targets for other sectors including residential real estate, and agriculture.
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. It does not appear to have a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
Scotiabank has set exclusionary policies for the oil and gas sectors that limit financing of certain unconventional activities such as oil and gas exploration, development, or production within the Arctic Circle. The organization has not outlined an exclusion policy for other activities related to oil and gas and therefore appears to participate in unabated oil and gas financing, although it has outlined levers it can use to encourage the decarbonization of the sector.
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. However, it does not outline how it determines eligibility of transactions towards this goal.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source