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: $269B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Duke Energy Corp | 15.1% |
| Southern Co | 10.8% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 10.4% |
| AES Corp | 6.5% |
| Exelon Corp | 5.5% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 5.3% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.5% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 4.3% |
| Engie SA | 3.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd | 45.8% |
| Kia Corp | 12.1% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 9.5% |
| Dongfeng Motor Group Co Ltd | 9.1% |
| General Motors Co | 8.8% |
| Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 8.0% |
| Stellantis NV | 5.6% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 1.0% |
| Tesla Inc | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 72.0% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 16.0% |
| United Tractors Tbk PT | 9.9% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 1.9% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Conocophillips | 15.5% |
| Eni SpA | 13.2% |
| Pioneer Natural Resources Co | 9.7% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 9.5% |
| Chesapeake Energy Corp | 6.8% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 5.7% |
| China Petroleum & Chemical Corp | 5.3% |
| Galp Energia SGPS SA | 4.8% |
| Hess Corp | 4.4% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 4.0% |
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.
Sun Life, and its asset management arm MFS, appear to have had limited engagement with sustainable finance policies, supporting sustainable finance regulations generally but outlining some objections to specific policies.
In its 2021 Sustainability Report, Sun Life appeared to support urgent action to address climate change. In July 2021, MFS joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative and stated support for efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. In November 2021, Sun Life CEO Kevin Strain called climate change the “defining issue of our lifetime.” Sun Life has reported that it is engaging with policymakers on sustainable finance regulation, but details of this engagement are unclear.
Sun Life appears to have somewhat mixed positions on regulated corporate ESG disclosure. In response to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) request for input on climate change disclosures in March 2021, Sun Life stated support for the SEC requiring climate disclosure but emphasized that disclosures should be “principles-based, rather than prescriptive.” In June 2022, after the SEC released its climate disclosure proposal, Sun Life stated support for 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.
In its 2021 Sustainability Report, Sun Life reports that it is participating in the development of ESG investing regulations for pension funds in Canada. Details of this engagement are unclear. In 2020, MFS did not support Trump-era SEC rules that sought to limit shareholder rights. In 2021, MFS supported a Department of Labor rule that sought to permit the use of ESG factors in fiduciaries’ decision-making but requested that specific ESG references be removed from rule language and cautioned against mandating the use of ESG factors in investment decisions.
In its 2022 CDP response, Sun Life stated support for the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions' high-level climate risk management proposals. In its 2021 CDP response, Sun Life stated support for the New York Department of Financial Services’ expectations for insurers to integrate climate risk into their risk management activities.
Sun Life and MFS have disclosed some select industry associations but have given little detail of the sustainable finance policy positions of these groups. Their disclosure omits associations that are active on sustainable finance policy, including the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and the European Fund and Asset Management Association (EFAMA).
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 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.
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)
Carol Geremia is on the board of ICI.
Carol Geremia (President & Head of Global Distribution MFS Investment Management)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MFS is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Carol Geremia is on the board of ICI.
Carol Geremia (President & Head of Global Distribution MFS Investment Management)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
MFS is a member of ICI
not specified
Open PDF file of Data Source