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: $335B
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 |
---|---|
Nextera Energy Inc | 9.3% |
RWE AG | 8.6% |
Enel SpA | 7.2% |
American Electric Power Company Inc | 5.6% |
Alliant Energy Corp | 3.7% |
Vistra Corp | 3.4% |
Duke Energy Corp | 3.1% |
Engie SA | 2.8% |
Ameren Corp | 2.8% |
Dominion Energy Inc | 2.7% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
Toyota Motor Corp | 22.5% |
Volkswagen AG | 10.8% |
General Motors Co | 8.5% |
Ford Motor Co | 7.2% |
Honda Motor Co Ltd | 5.2% |
Great Wall Motor Co Ltd | 5.1% |
Stellantis NV | 4.5% |
Renault SA | 4.5% |
Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.3% |
Hyundai Motor Co | 3.5% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
Peabody Energy Corp | 22.1% |
China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 19.6% |
Glencore PLC | 15.7% |
Coal India Ltd | 8.6% |
Arch Resources Inc | 7.8% |
Indika Energy Tbk PT | 4.4% |
Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 4.1% |
CONSOL Energy Inc | 3.6% |
Exxaro Resources Ltd | 3.0% |
NACCO Industries Inc | 2.3% |
Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
---|---|
EQT Corp | 10.2% |
Exxon Mobil Corp | 9.0% |
Conocophillips | 8.2% |
Shell PLC | 7.6% |
Chevron Corp | 6.6% |
BP PLC | 6.1% |
EOG Resources Inc | 5.6% |
Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 5.4% |
Antero Resources Corp | 5.2% |
Pioneer Natural Resources Co | 3.7% |
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.
TIAA, assessed through its asset manager arm Nuveen, appears to be engaging with companies around climate change to a limited extent. Nuveen does have set climate expectations for investee companies which it engages around, and an updated climate risk 2.0 initiative that has strengthened these expectations as of 2022. The asset manager has outlined its process to assess engagement effectiveness, seeking to determine whether companies have instituted change in three categories: transparency, accountability, and impact. It also appears to have an escalation response driven by engagement outcomes.
Nuveen has actively engaged companies on climate as a part of its climate risk initiative, including ExxonMobil and BP. The asset manager does not appear to be actively engaging on policy influence, it has supported a shareholder resolution at ExxonMobil on climate lobbying disclosures. Additionally, it has engaged with BP on policy and regulatory pressures and in 2022 the company disclosed its climate policy positions, supporting critical decarbonization measures such as increased regulation, however, it is unclear whether this is a result from the asset manager’s engagements. Nuveen is involved with several climate-related investor initiatives including CA100+, but has not provided any examples of collaborative engagements in its reporting.
Nuveen has described its stewardship governance structure and does appear to review stewardship policies and activities. The asset manager is partially transparent about engagements, only disclosing some case studies of companies it has engaged with. It has disclosed all proxy voting data and also voting rationale for shareholder proposals at S&P 500 companies.
There is limited evidence of the asset manager using shareholder authority to push companies to become Paris Aligned, but Nuveen has voted against directors at 77 companies that failed to meet expectations laid out in engagements as part of its Climate Risk Initiative.
Insightia data suggests that Nuveen is broadly unsupportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 21.8% in 2019 and 24.6% in 2020, with its support increasingly slightly at 44.9% in 2021, and 32.8% 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 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.
The Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) appears to have had somewhat mixed engagement on sustainable finance policy, along with its asset management arm Nuveen.
TIAA has called for global action to tackle climate change, supporting efforts to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C, and has called for government regulation to address the risks climate change poses to the financial system.
TIAA generally appears to support regulated corporate ESG disclosure. In a 2020 consultation on the EU’s Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy, Nuveen supported requiring companies to disclose ESG data in order to improve investor decision-making. In an interview with CNBC in 2021, Nuveen’s CEO Jose Minaya stated support for regulatory action to drive consistent disclosure standards. In a 2021 letter to the SEC, TIAA called for mandatory climate risk disclosure requirements informed by TCFD guidelines. However, TIAA took a mixed position toward the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rules in 2022, advocating for increased ambition in Scope 3 disclosure requirements but opposing certain qualitative risk management and assessment disclosure requirements. In its 2022 Climate Report, TIAA outlined its commitment to engaging with policymakers globally to highlight the need for a “robust disclosure regime.”
TIAA has outlined mixed positions with regard to policies on a taxonomy and ESG standards. In comments on the European Commission’s consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, Nuveen supported the EU’s taxonomy to provide clarity for issuers but cautioned that stringent requirements might deter companies from making incremental progress. In those same comments Nuveen suggested that creating an ESG benchmark would be ineffective and “would require the EU to ‘pick a winner’ among ESG research and ratings providers” which would be “inappropriate.” In a 2020 consultation, Nuveen advocated for additional flexibility in the Technical Expert Group’s proposed EU Green Bond Standard, cautioning that inflexible requirements would limit issuance. In 2022, TIAA opposed the SEC’s proposed extension of the Names Rule to ESG-branded funds, stating a preference for enhancing disclosures for these kinds of funds to combat greenwashing. In its comments on the SEC’s accompanying “Enhanced Disclosures” rule, TIAA did not support the proposed ‘Integration Funds’ category, writing that it was “overly broad.”
TIAA has taken a mixed position on incorporating ESG factors into investor duties. In 2020, TIAA opposed Department of Labor rules that sought to limit ESG investing and rollback shareholder rights, and opposed an SEC proposed rule that limited shareholder rights. In 2021, TIAA supported a Department of Labor proposal that reversed the 2020 rules limiting ESG investing, but took a more cautious approach when commenting on additional steps the Department could take to protect pensions and life savings from climate-related financial risk. Additionally, in 2022, TIAA outlined several concerns with the SEC’s proposed ESG disclosure rule for investors, not supporting quantitative disclosure requirements around proxy voting and engagement and portfolio Scope 3 emissions.
In a 2021 response to the New York Department of Financial Services proposed guidance for insurers on managing financial risks from climate change, TIAA supported the need for regulations that incorporate climate change into risk management.
Nuveen has disclosed some of its industry association memberships but with little detail of the sustainable finance policy positions of these groups.
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)
Jose Minaya is on the board of ICI
Jose Minaya (CEO, Nuveen)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Nuveen is a member of ICI's ESG working group.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jose Minaya is on the board of ICI
Jose Minaya (CEO, Nuveen)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Nuveen is a member of ICI's ESG working group.
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC and Nuveen are members of SIFMA.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Services, LLC and Nuveen are members of SIFMA.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
TIAA is a member of ACLI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Douglas Chittenden is on the board of ACLI, serving through 2022. As of March 2023, TIAA is no longer on the ACLI board.
Douglas Chittenden (Head of Client Relationships, TIAA)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
TIAA is a member of ACLI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Douglas Chittenden is on the board of ACLI, serving through 2022. As of March 2023, TIAA is no longer on the ACLI board.
Douglas Chittenden (Head of Client Relationships, TIAA)
--no extract--