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: $1.3T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Nextera Energy Inc | 9.7% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 9.5% |
| Entergy Corp | 8.8% |
| Southern Co | 8.0% |
| AES Corp | 6.2% |
| Vistra Corp | 6.0% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 4.6% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 4.4% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 4.3% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 3.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Ford Motor Co | 27.0% |
| General Motors Co | 25.3% |
| Tesla Inc | 8.5% |
| Stellantis NV | 5.5% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 5.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 3.2% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 3.0% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 2.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.2% |
| Kia Corp | 2.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 66.0% |
| Coal India Ltd | 6.2% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 6.0% |
| Glencore PLC | 5.0% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 4.3% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 3.0% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 2.9% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 1.3% |
| Banpu PCL | 0.7% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 0.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 17.6% |
| Chevron Corp | 13.7% |
| ConocoPhillips | 7.8% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 7.8% |
| EQT Corp | 7.4% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 4.0% |
| Occidental Petroleum Corp | 4.0% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 3.4% |
| APA Corp (US) | 3.1% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 2.6% |
State Street appears to be engaging with companies around climate change, although without the forcefulness of other leading investors. State Street centers its climate engagement strategy around the three main goals of CA100+, and in 2022 announced an engagement campaign on climate transition plan disclosure and progress on these plans. The asset manager appears to use a high-level process to define engagement success with some evidence of milestones and states it is in the process of developing additional KPIs to track progress. It lacks a strong escalation strategy, stating that voting is its main tool to escalate issues.
State Street is actively engaging with companies on climate. For example, it has launched a campaign addressing methane emissions in the oil and gas industry and initiated a series of engagements with over 20 companies as part of this campaign. It also engaged with Chevron on incorporating Scope 3 emissions into its targets which the company did shortly after. The asset manager only appears to engage on climate policy influence around upcoming shareholder proposals and it is unclear if it is encouraging alignment of lobbying activities with the Paris Agreement. It is a member of several climate-related investor initiatives, and appears to have led an analysis of Rolls-Royce on behalf of CA100+.
State Street appears to have highly effective governance structures and review processes supporting its stewardship activities. The asset manager has disclosed various case studies of engagements along with a full list of companies it has engaged with. It appears to publish all proxy voting data without voting rationale, but also states it is only willing to vote against management after one or two years, making it unclear if it votes on shareholder resolutions based on the merit of the resolution.
The asset manager has voted on proposals that asked companies to provide shareholders with a non-binding Say on Climate and states it will hold directors accountable starting in 2023 as part of its engagement campaign on transition plan disclosure.
Insightia data suggests that State Street is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 7% in 2019, 33.3% in 2020, 27.7% in 2021, and 15.1% 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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: State Street appears to have had mixed engagement on climate-related finance policy overall, taking mostly positive top-line positions while expressing objections to specific policies. State Street and its asset management subsidiary, State Street Global Advisors (SSGA), have been actively engaged with sustainable finance policies across the globe. State Street appears to have taken a mostly unsupportive position on the energy transition.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: State Street has stated support for the role of finance in tackling climate change in its 2023 Sustainability Report but the level of ambition it supports appears unclear. In a 2022 International Banker article, State Street did express support for the role of finance in delivering the goals of the Paris Agreement. State Street has however suggested that continued investment in fossil fuels is necessary in order to facilitate the transition, both in February 2022 in a podcast and an ESG Today article. State Street appears to have a mixed position on the need for climate-related finance regulation, suggesting in a 2022 podcast that sustainable finance regulation is a “good development” but asserting that markets should be the main driver of these standards.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: State Street has taken mixed positions on regulated corporate climate disclosure. After the SEC published its proposed climate disclosure rule in March 2022, State Street publicly supported the policy, releasing an article calling it a “watershed moment.” However, in its 2022 comments to the SEC, State Street outlined several objections to the proposal, including its Scope 3 disclosure requirements and certain governance and scenario analysis disclosure requirements. State Street took a mixed position on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)’s draft climate and sustainability disclosure standards, again not supporting the proposed Scope 3 disclosure requirements in 2022 comments. Despite this, State Street has characterized its position as supportive, stating in its 2022 ESG Report that the publication of the ISSB exposure drafts IFRS S1 and S2 as a “crucially important development”.
Position on Taxonomies: In a 2022 insights paper, State Street appeared to support the weakening of the taxonomy to include natural gas as “green”. In a 2024 article State Street appeared to support the EU taxonomy, stating that “investors and regulators alike may benefit from the EU Taxonomy data”.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks: SSGA has opposed efforts to establish strict categories and thresholds for climate-related funds. In a 2022 response to the FCA’s discussion paper on sustainability disclosure requirements and investment labels, SSGA did not support the proposed classification system for investment products and cautioned against imposing thresholds for fund categories. In 2022 comments, SSGA took a mixed position] on the SEC’s efforts to establish ESG fund categories, supporting the need to distinguish between ESG and non-ESG but asserting that the proposed fund categories were too broad. In a 2022 response to European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), SSGA did not support efforts to introduce quantitative thresholds for fund names using ESG or sustainability related terms. Similarly, in the UK, SSGA suggested that the proposed fund labels were too narrow and would result in decreased financing of high emitting sectors, in 2023 comments to the Financial Conduct Authority. State Street, as reported in Responsible Investor in 2023 opposed ESMA’s proposed guidelines for funds with names that use 'ESG' or 'sustainability’.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In 2022 comments on the FCA’s proposed Sustainability Disclosure Requirements, SSGA appeared to support a requirement to disclose how ESG factors are incorporated into investor duties, but comments to the SEC also in 2022 outlined several objections to proposed ESG disclosure requirements for investors, including emissions disclosure and proxy voting and engagement disclosure requirements. SSGA has not supported a number of technical elements of the changes proposed under the EU SFDR in July 2023 comments to the European Commission, opposing for example the proposed social Principal Adverse Impact (PAI) Indicators. Furthermore, in December 2023 comments on the SFDR, SSGA supported the removal of mandatory entity-level or product level PAI reporting, and suggested that materiality assessment should be extended to all indicators at product level. In 2023, CEO Ron O’Hanley appeared to criticize political efforts that seek to limit ESG investing, saying anti-ESG proponents have “left facts aside.”
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: State Street has appeared unsupportive of incorporating climate factors into risk management and prudential regulation. In comments to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2022, State Street advocated for flexibility in proposed risk management principles and requested that certain provisions on climate risk management and scenario analysis be withdrawn. A March 2022 memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shows that State Street, as constituents of the Bank Policy Institute, met with the OCC to outline “challenges” to its draft principles for climate-related financial risk management. State Street, in 2023 comments to the Federal Reserve, suggested that some aspects of draft climate risk management principles were “overly prescriptive.”
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: State Street appears to support carbon pricing, with Chair and CEO Ron O’Hanley stating in a 2022 podcast that “ultimately, carbon needs to be priced in as an externality”. While State Street has stated support for GHG emissions reduction, it is not clear that it supports regulation to achieve this, as evidenced in its 2022 Q3 Asset Stewardship Report.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: State Street has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the transition of the energy mix. In public communications, SSGA has stated support for the energy transition, for example in its 2022 TCFD Report and a 2022 Insights article. However, State Street also appears to support the continued use of and investment in fossil fuels, as seen in a 2022 ESG Insider article. Chair and CEO Ron O’Hanley has also demonstrated this support, stating in a 2023 website article that “some ongoing investment is required in traditional fossil fuels”. Furthermore, in his statement in State Street’s 2023 Sustainability Report, he supported the continued use of fossil fuels in the energy mix, and opposed the US's pause on the exportation of liquified natural gas (LNG).
Industry Association Governance: State Street has disclosed membership in principal US trade associations but has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of these organizations or actions taken to address misalignment. It has not disclosed some trade association membership, including in non-US associations, for example the Canadian Bankers Association 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.
