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 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: $483B
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 |
---|---|
Southern Co | 18.5% |
Electric Power Development Co Ltd | 17.7% |
NTPC Ltd | 11.8% |
Engie SA | 9.9% |
Ameren Corp | 6.9% |
Dominion Energy Inc | 5.1% |
Enel SpA | 3.6% |
Nextera Energy Inc | 2.8% |
Idacorp Inc | 2.4% |
American Electric Power Company Inc | 2.3% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
Suzuki Motor Corp | 24.5% |
Volkswagen AG | 22.5% |
General Motors Co | 10.9% |
Toyota Motor Corp | 10.8% |
Hyundai Motor Co | 6.6% |
Stellantis NV | 6.6% |
Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 5.7% |
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd | 3.4% |
Honda Motor Co Ltd | 3.0% |
Ford Motor Co | 2.1% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
Arch Resources Inc | 71.7% |
Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 20.6% |
Peabody Energy Corp | 4.7% |
Glencore PLC | 1.0% |
CONSOL Energy Inc | 0.9% |
Warrior Met Coal Inc | 0.4% |
China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 0.3% |
NACCO Industries Inc | 0.2% |
Exxaro Resources Ltd | 0.1% |
Ramaco Resources Inc | <0.1% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
Exxon Mobil Corp | 14.3% |
TotalEnergies SE | 13.1% |
Novatek PAO | 7.5% |
EOG Resources Inc | 6.3% |
Chevron Corp | 6.3% |
Conocophillips | 6.2% |
Devon Energy Corp | 5.0% |
Equinor ASA | 4.8% |
Magnolia Oil & Gas Corp | 4.6% |
Pioneer Natural Resources Co | 4.4% |
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.
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 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.
T. Rowe Price appears to have had mixed engagement with sustainable finance policies in the US and Europe, generally advocating for less ambitious disclosure policy and opposing rules that limit the use of ESG factors in decision-making.
T. Rowe Price has recognized the systemic risk climate change poses to the financial system but has asserted that real economy regulation is needed to address this risk. In April 2022, T. Rowe Price joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C. In its 2019 Annual Report, T. Rowe Price stated concern about “overly prescriptive” ESG regulations. In a 2022 white paper, T. Rowe Price asserted that sustainable finance regulation needed to be coupled with real economy climate change policy in order to be effective.
T. Rowe Price has taken mixed positions on regulated corporate ESG disclosure. In its 2020 ESG Report, T. Rowe Price stated support for ESG disclosure regulation but voiced concern about countries taking different approaches to policy and creating a lack of global alignment. In September 2021 comments to the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), T. Rowe Price generally supported policy to improve ESG disclosure by asset managers and certain other financial institutions but did not support mandating disclosure of product-level scenario analysis. In response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) request for input on climate change disclosures in June 2021, T. Rowe Price stated support for mandatory disclosure in line with TCFD recommendations and Scopes 1, 2 and some Scope 3 greenhouse gas disclosures. However, after the SEC released its proposed climate disclosure rule in June 2022, T. Rowe Price raised concerns with the proposed Scopes 1 and 2 disclosure requirements, and did not support mandating Scope 3 disclosure. In comments to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in July 2022, T. Rowe Price did not support proposed Scope 3 disclosure requirements and outlined objections to the ISSB’s proposed governance reporting requirements.
In comments to the FCA in January 2023, T. Rowe Price opposed the development of a UK Taxonomy, stating that it would lead to the government picking “winners.”
In its 2021 Annual Report, T. Rowe Price asserted that it was a “vocal advocate” of ESG standard setting in the policy space. In January 2023, T. Rowe Price supported, with exceptions, the FCA’s proposed sustainable product labels. In August 2022 comments to the SEC, T. Rowe Price supported the Commission’s proposed ESG fund categories and advocated for the retention of the ‘Integration Fund’ category, but did not support a requirement for these funds to disclose how they consider portfolio greenhouse gas emissions. T. Rowe Price did not support the SEC’s August 2022 proposed extension of the Investment Company Names rule to funds with certain investment strategies, including ESG strategies, but the bulk of its opposition focused on funds with names like ‘growth’ and ‘value’ rather than ESG-related terms.
In 2020, T. Rowe Price opposed Department of Labor rules that sought to limit ESG investing and shareholder rights. In 2021, T. Rowe Price strongly supported the rollback of these rules and advocated for further permission to consider “participant preference,” including ESG preferences, in decision-making. In May 2022 however, T. Rowe Price did not support the Department taking further action to require fiduciaries to consider climate risk in decision-making.
In an October 2021 insights report, T. Rowe Price appeared to support efforts to require climate risk disclosure from banks, specifically the European Banking Authority’s proposed new Pillar 3 requirements for disclosing ESG risks.
T. Rowe Price has disclosed most of its industry association memberships but has not given details of the sustainable finance policy positions of these groups or actions taken to influence policy engagement.
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)
T. Rowe Price is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
David Oestreicher is on the Board of ICI.
David Oestreicher (Chief Legal Counsel, T. Rowe Price)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
T. Rowe Price is a member of ICI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
David Oestreicher is on the Board of ICI.
David Oestreicher (Chief Legal Counsel, T. Rowe Price)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
T. Rowe Price International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
T. Rowe Price International is a member of the Investment Association (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--