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: $539B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 14.6% |
| Ameren Corp | 13.5% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 8.6% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 8.5% |
| Engie SA | 6.6% |
| NTPC Ltd | 6.0% |
| Southern Co | 5.8% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 5.3% |
| CMS Energy Corp | 4.6% |
| OGE Energy Corp | 4.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Volkswagen AG | 25.1% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 16.4% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 13.1% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 9.9% |
| Stellantis NV | 7.9% |
| Tesla Inc | 5.6% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 4.8% |
| Subaru Corp | 4.7% |
| General Motors Co | 4.4% |
| Ford Motor Co | 2.6% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 63.0% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 18.4% |
| Glencore PLC | 10.5% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 6.6% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 1.1% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 0.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Expand Energy Corp | 23.0% |
| EQT Corp | 19.5% |
| Range Resources Corp | 12.0% |
| ConocoPhillips | 7.6% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 6.6% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 4.8% |
| Permian Resources Corp | 2.9% |
| BP PLC | 2.8% |
| Chevron Corp | 2.5% |
| Diamondback Energy Inc | 2.3% |
T. Rowe Price is engaging with companies on climate change, but its approach does not appear to be robust. The asset manager’s climate engagement strategy appears to focus on TCFD reporting and emissions disclosures and expanded its framework in March 2023 to include assessing if a company has a credible decarbonization plan and net zero 2050 target. It does describe a system for tracking and prioritizing engagements, but does not appear to use defined milestones for measuring engagement progress. The asset manager has a clear escalation strategy and has provided examples of escalation in its reporting.
T. Rowe Price is actively engaging with companies on climate, such as with NextEra on improving scope 2 and 3 emissions disclosures and deploying solar and electric vehicle infrastructure, as well as with Citigroup on managing risks around the energy transition surrounding high emitting companies that it finances. However, there is limited evidence of supporting company behavior change on climate. For example, engagements appear to have resulted in improved climate risk disclosure and it had discussions about scope 3 emissions with Devon Energy, but the company has decided to deploy its resources into scope 1 and 2 emissions. The asset manager does have a policy that informs proxy voting decisions about climate lobbying, but it is unclear if it is actively engaging on the topic. It is a member of several collaborative investor initiatives and has described its involvement with FAIRR, but given the lack of examples it is unclear how it has contributed to other climate initiatives.
T. Rowe Price has described in depth its stewardship governance structure and review processes. The asset manager is transparent about engagements, providing several named case studies in its firm-wide reporting as well as in individual fund reports. It is partially transparent about voting activities and discloses its voting record, but does not provide rationale for voting decisions.
The asset manager has demonstrated the use of shareholder authority on climate, and communicated its intent to vote for three dissident directors at ExxonMobil prior to the company’s AGM. It also voted against the re-election of six directors at Gold in 2022 as the company fell under its new Climate Transparency Gap guideline.
Insightia data suggests that T. Rowe Price has mixed support of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 4% in 2019 and increasing its support in 2020 at 21.7% and in 2021 at 43.2%. However, its support dropped significantly in 2022 at 3.4%.
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.
