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: $213B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 10.2% |
| RWE AG | 8.8% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 7.1% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 5.8% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 5.7% |
| Entergy Corp | 4.0% |
| Iberdrola SA | 4.0% |
| Vistra Corp | 3.7% |
| Alliant Energy Corp | 3.3% |
| Kansai Electric Power Co Inc | 2.7% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 23.0% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 8.4% |
| Stellantis NV | 7.6% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 7.3% |
| General Motors Co | 7.0% |
| Ford Motor Co | 6.4% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 6.3% |
| Volkswagen AG | 6.2% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.1% |
| Tesla Inc | 3.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Glencore PLC | 36.2% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 19.8% |
| Coal India Ltd | 17.1% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 9.1% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 5.6% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 4.8% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 1.9% |
| Alamtri Resources Indonesia Tbk PT | 1.7% |
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 1.2% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 12.8% |
| Shell PLC | 10.3% |
| BP PLC | 8.5% |
| Chevron Corp | 7.6% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 6.0% |
| TotalEnergies SE | 5.6% |
| ConocoPhillips | 5.2% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 3.8% |
| EQT Corp | 3.6% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 3.4% |
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 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.
