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: $307B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Duke Energy Corp | 14.5% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 11.4% |
| Southern Co | 9.9% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 8.2% |
| Engie SA | 6.8% |
| Vistra Corp | 4.5% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.1% |
| AES Corp | 3.6% |
| RWE AG | 3.4% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 3.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| BYD Co Ltd | 47.3% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 28.2% |
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 18.5% |
| Kia Corp | 3.9% |
| Tesla Inc | 2.0% |
| Ferrari NV | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 90.0% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 10.0% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | <0.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Expand Energy Corp | 16.1% |
| Eni SpA | 14.8% |
| ConocoPhillips | 13.3% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 10.3% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 8.2% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.1% |
| Aker BP ASA | 4.7% |
| Suncor Energy Inc | 4.1% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 4.0% |
| Galp Energia SGPS SA | 3.6% |
InfluenceMap has scored MFS as the primary Asset Manager of Sun Life Financial, which has an AUM of USD$1236bn as of December 2022. SLC Management, the other main asset management subsidiary of Sun Life Financial, is a fixed income investor and so is out of the scope of this assessment.
MFS is engaging with companies on climate change but its approach does not appear to be robust. The asset manager has an NZAM engagement program that uses a four-tier system for prioritizing climate engagements, and has laid out a strategy for engaging with the power utility sector. MFS appears to monitor engagement progress but does not describe clear milestones. It does have a defined escalation response including writing letters, voting against management, collaborative engagements, filing or co-filing a shareholder resolution, and divesting.
MFS appears to be actively engaging with companies around climate change. For example, it engaged with an electric utilities company about emissions disclosures and setting short, medium, and long-term targets in line with the Paris Agreement. It also engaged with a consumer staples company about methane risks related to dairy products. The asset manager has referenced reviewing proposals in climate lobbying activities, but does not appear to have engaged on climate lobbying in recent years. It is a highly active collaborative engager on climate, leading and co-leading several CA100+ engagements in 2021.
MFS has described its stewardship governance structure and appears to review policies and activities related to sustainability and stewardship. The asset manager is transparent about engagements, providing several named case studies. It is partially transparent about its voting record, as it provides all proxy voting data searchable by fund but does not disclose any voting rationale.
MFS has voted against directors on climate grounds, and has submitted questions at AGMs of four companies which it leads or co-leads for CA100+.
Insightia data suggests that MFS has mixed support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 45.8% in 2019, 50% in 2020, 52% in 2021, and 44.0% 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: Sun Life appears to have somewhat limited engagement with specific climate-related policies, with broadly supportive top-line messaging around climate and the need to transition the energy mix.
Top-Line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: In Sun Life’s Net Zero by 2025 report, released in 2024, it supported action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. In its 2023 Annual Report and 2024 Net Zero by 2025 report, Sun Life detailed engaging with governments and policymakers on a range of climate-related financial policies, but provided few details on the specifics of these engagements and did not clearly support the need for this regulation.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In its Net Zero by 2025 report Sun Life stated that to achieve its climate goals it is advocating for increased government action on climate-related disclosures. In its 2022 Sustainability Report Sun Life reported advocating for the “alignment” of climate disclosure frameworks in the US and Canada with “widely accepted international standards,” and specifically supported government frameworks aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) framework in its 2023 Annual Report. In its comments to regulators, there are more details about Sun Life’s specific positions. In 2022, after the SEC released its climate disclosure proposal, Sun Life’s comment letter supported the rule, including the SEC’s decision to not include climate disclosure requirements in Form 40-F, the form used by Canadian issuers filing with the Commission. In comments to the Canadian Securities Administrators on the Proposed National Instrument 51-107 Disclosure of Climate-related Matters in February 2022, Sun Life outlined support for the proposal, including its decision not to mandate scenario analysis disclosures. Sun Life also stated support for requiring Scope 3 emissions disclosure on a “comply-or-explain” basis. In its 2022 CDP response, Sun Life reported that it had engaged on the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) climate disclosure proposals through industry associations, advocating for leniency on some provisions including scenario analysis and Scope 3 emissions disclosure.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Risk Management/Prudential Regulation: In its Net Zero by 2025 report Sun Life described supporting the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ (OSFI) work on climate risk management reporting for the life insurance industry. According to its 2022 CDP response Sun Life also supported OSFI’s high-level climate risk management proposals for the financial sector.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transitions: Sun Life appears generally supportive of the transition of the energy mix, committing broadly to support policies that enable decarbonization with little detail of specific policy positions or engagement activities. In its Net Zero by 2025 report Sun Life asserted that to achieve its own net zero goals it would work with governments to “help advance net-zero progress.” A Canadian lobbying report from 2025 shows that Sun Life has engaged with policymakers on “expanding opportunities” to meet its decarbonization goals, but details of this engagement are unclear. A US lobbying report from Q4 2024 shows that Sun Life engaged on the Inflation Reduction Act, but details of this engagement are similarly unclear.
Industry Association Governance: Sun Life has disclosed memberships to industry groups across different reports and webpages, though with little details on its involvement with these groups and no information about the climate-related policy positions of the groups. Sun Life is a member of associations actively engaged on climate-related policies including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Investment Company Institute.
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.
