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.
UBS board’s Corporate Culture and Responsibility Committee (CCRC) and Board Risk Committee have oversight and approve the firm’s sustainability and impact objectives. Management-level committees are assigned various climate-related responsibilities, including the Sustainability and Climate Task Force, which monitors progress and provides assurance that climate risks and opportunities are sufficiently managed.
UBS outlines the climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant over different time horizons in its materiality matrix, and has clearly described the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization. The organization is transparent about climate-related risks on its lending, advisory, or investment business activities, for example, disclosing climate-related business exposure across its lending including exposure to carbon-related assets.
UBS is transparent about how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning over different business areas, including products and services, and supply chain The organization appears to have tested the resilience of its business strategy using a range of climate scenarios, and has participated in a climate risk stress test exercise and PACTA climate alignment testing. UBS has disclosed some implications of its scenario analysis on its strategy and business model, but not how it plans to respond to the effects identified.
UBS outlines some of its processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks, for example, using expert and industry-based views combined with UBS specific product information to inform its double-materiality approach. It considers climate-related risks in assessments of other risk areas, implementing a climate risk scorecard to integrate climate risks into credit risk, and assessing the group's assumptions on market risk correlation and liquidity.
UBS outlines some processes in place for managing risks, and discloses some details on its climate risk appetite. However, it does not define how it prioritizes, mitigates, transfers, accepts, or controls climate risk. UBS appears to integrate climate risk through its risk management framework. which includes risk identification and measurement, monitoring and risk appetite setting, risk management and control, and risk reporting processes.
UBS provides various key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including financing towards managing risks and opportunities, the percentage of its lending portfolio exposed to increased risk, and the incorporation of material climate-related risks into remuneration policies. The organization fully discloses Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but has only disclosed limited Scope 3 emissions such as those associated with business travel. It has also disclosed some Scope 3 Category 15 emissions and PCAF scores for some sectors, including fossil fuels and power generation.
UBS is a founding member of the UN convened Net Zero Banking Alliance and has set a net-zero by 2050 target, committing to transitioning its lending and investment portfolios to align with net-zero by 2050 or sooner pathways. UBS also reaffirmed its commitment to previous interim targets for oil and gas, real estate, and power generation, and added another sector target for cement, committing to reducing emissions intensity for its lending to cement companies for Scopes 1 and 2 by 15% (tCO2e/t) by 2030.
UBS has established coal financing exclusion policies and will not provide financing for new coal-fired power plants, or companies that generate more than 20% of their revenue or power production from coal. However, UBS does not outline criteria around expansion of existing coal mines or power plants, and does not appear to have outlined a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
UBS does not appear to have made statements surrounding the need to transition away from oil in the energy mix over time and therefore appears to be actively financing new or expansionary oil projects. It has set some exclusionary policies which limit financing of unconventional oil projects, but has not set exclusions for companies that generate revenue from unconventional oil. In terms of gas, UBS will provide financing for conventional and unconventional activities given due diligence, with no expectations on climate transition plans from companies.
UBS appears to be supportive of a future role of nuclear in the energy mix, and requires clients to meet international safety standards. Furthermore, the organization has communicated support for a low-carbon economy and has increased its sustainable investment in renewables.
FinanceMap’s Climate Governance and Policies analysis assesses statements financial institutions (FIs) are making on how they are incorporating climate issues into their decision-making and operations using FinanceMap’s matrix methodology. This methodology is adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and guidelines, Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or equivalent Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) initiative reporting, and IPCC and IEA technology statements. The TCFD provide guidance on 11 recommendations across four areas which are reflected in our matrix: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. Additional benchmarks have been introduced to strengthen the ambition of scoring criteria in the assessment of targets, which are supplemented by guidance from the NZBA or equivalent GFANZ initiatives.
Additionally, Science-Based Policy (SBP) benchmarks are used to measure alignment of an FIs technology positions with the science of climate change. These benchmarks are applied to an FIs internal policies on technologies including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables and also assesses its engagement with broader climate and energy policy issues such as advocacy on the role and importance of different strategy types in the future energy mix.
For each TCFD recommendation and technology, FIs statements are applied to a five point scoring scale ranging from +2 to -2, measuring alignment with the relevant benchmarks. The detailed scores for this FI are displayed below within each matrix cell.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions climate governance, targets and policies. 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.
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: $144B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Enel SpA | 8.2% |
| Engie SA | 6.7% |
| Iberdrola SA | 6.2% |
| RWE AG | 6.0% |
| Korea Electric Power Corp | 4.1% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 3.7% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 3.4% |
| Exelon Corp | 3.2% |
| Huaneng Power International Inc | 3.0% |
| Brazilian Electric Power Co | 2.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Toyota Motor Corp | 12.6% |
| Stellantis NV | 9.5% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 8.4% |
| Volkswagen AG | 8.3% |
| General Motors Co | 6.8% |
| Mercedes Benz Group AG | 6.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 5.5% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 4.7% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 4.6% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 3.9% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| China Shenhua Energy Co Ltd | 40.3% |
| Glencore PLC | 15.7% |
| Coal India Ltd | 9.4% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 9.0% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 8.4% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 4.6% |
| Peabody Energy Corp | 4.4% |
| Adaro Energy Indonesia TBK PT | 2.7% |
| CONSOL Energy Inc | 1.3% |
| Warrior Met Coal Inc | 1.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | 15.5% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 10.7% |
| BP PLC | 10.0% |
| Shell PLC | 9.8% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 6.7% |
| Chevron Corp | 3.3% |
| Eni SpA | 3.2% |
| Novatek PAO | 3.1% |
| NK Lukoil PAO | 2.8% |
| Canadian Natural Resources Ltd | 2.8% |
UBS appears to be a leading engager with companies around climate. The asset manager has a clear strategy for engaging with companies in all climate relevant sectors, for example, it has developed a climate materiality assessment and framework to facilitate research and engagement across 8 industries. There is a clear structure informing engagement and milestones to ensure engagement success. It has a robust escalation strategy and has outlined various elements it considers in making decisions about escalation activities.
The asset manager is actively engaging with companies to transition business models in line with the Paris Agreement. Its engagements with RWE has resulted in the company announcing the closure of all its hard coal power generation by 2030 and a phaseout plan for its lignite power stations by 2038. Further engagements in 2022 led the company to announce the acceleration of lignite plant closures from 2038 to 2030. Additionally, UBS is engaging with companies on climate policy influence. For example, as CA100+ lead with ENI, it engaged the company on its lobbying activities in support of the Paris Agreement. This led the company to publish its principles to define public policy positions on climate and assess participation in trade associations. UBS is a highly active collaborative engager on climate, having co-led engagements with Fortum Oyi, KEPCO, Rio Tinto and RWE.
UBS has clearly described its stewardship governance structure, roles, and responsibilities and appears to regularly review stewardship policies and activities. It is fully transparent about engagements, disclosing a multitude of case studies under key themes as well as a full list of companies. With regard to its proxy voting, it has disclosed voting data along with justifications and describes how voting decisions are made.
The organization appears to be willing to use its shareholder authority to engage companies to become Paris Aligned, submitting AGM statements at various companies but has not provided examples in its 2021 Stewardship Report.
Insightia data suggests that UBS is broadly supportive of AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 67.3% in 2019, 71.2% in 2020, 70.8% in 2021, and 75.8% 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.
UBS appears to be engaged in the EU on sustainable finance policy, while not supporting stringent regulatory intervention.
UBS has communicated support for keeping the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees and in a 2021 whitepaper, it supported action to achieve net-zero by 2050. In 2020 as well as 2021 and 2022. UBS Asset Management also co-signed investor letters to EU leaders and governments, respectively, advocating for action to achieve net-zero by 2050. In a joint statement in 2022, it also advocated for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework to mandate the alignment of financial flows with biodiversity goals. However, in prior messaging, UBS appeared to have supported measures that seemingly contradict this goal. For example, in a 2019 whitepaper the group appears to have stated support for the continued role for GHG emission intense investments and CEO Sergio Ermotti reportedly arguing against "moving too quickly". More recently, UBS showed continued support for continued investment in fossil fuels in a letter submitted to the Municipal Advisory Council of Texas in 2022. UBS Asset Management appears to be cautious about stringent, science-based regulatory intervention on sustainable finance, emphasizing in a 2019 whitepaper that the EU's Sustainable Finance Action Plan "must serve investors’ needs" and be “compatible with clients’ investment objectives”. Similarly, in a 2021 whitepaper, UBS acknowledged the risk of sustainable finance regulation but has not stated a clear position.
In its 2019-22 CDP responses, UBS advocated for the implementation of the TCFD's recommendations into disclosure frameworks, particularly in Switzerland. UBS also offered support for ambitious global sustainability standards in response to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2021. In an investor statement on 2022, UBS Asset Management supported the implementation of the TCFD and 1.5 pathway-aligned transition plans. Post COP15, UBS Asset Management advocated for policymakers to support the assessment and disclosure of nature-related impacts and dependencies in a joint investor statement in 2022, and it has further supported the alignment of disclosures with the TNFD in a 2023 website article.
UBS Asset Management appears to support a less stringent approach to the EU's taxonomy, raising concerns in a 2019 whitepaper that the taxonomy was too narrow and possibly supporting the inclusion of certain oil and gas activities in a green taxonomy. In a 2022 Financial Times article, a strategist at UBS supported the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the EU Taxonomy, arguing that “encouraging the use of the cleanest fossil fuels, like natural gas, over the dirtiest, such as coal, is an important step”.
In its 2021 CDP response, UBS appeared to support the integration of ESG factor into stress testing. However, in a 2021 whitepaper, it cautioned that models are in early phases and that differing standards, data taxonomies and scenarios will make interpretation more difficult for investors. UBS Asset Management did appear to support the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in a website article in 2021.
At the group level, UBS has described some broad policy positions in various whitepapers, while UBS Asset Management has listed policy positions and consultations it has engaged with in a whitepaper and in its stewardship reports. UBS has also disclosed some of its sustainability-related memberships in its sustainability report, but key indirect influence details, such as AFME board membership, are missing. UBS Asset management has disclosed some memberships to industry groups and some activities related to these groups, but has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of these organizations.
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)
Duncan Rodgers is a member of the board of directors for ISDA. (Last checked November 2023)
Duncan Rodgers (Head of ALM Strategy and Regional Treasury UK & FFT - UBS AG)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS is a member of ISDA.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Duncan Rodgers is a member of the board of directors for ISDA. (Last checked November 2023)
Duncan Rodgers (Head of ALM Strategy and Regional Treasury UK & FFT - UBS AG)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS is a member of ISDA.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Ralph Hamers is a board member at the IIF. As of September 2023, Serio Ermotti, the CEO of UBS, is on the IIF board.
Ralph Hamers (CEO, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Axel Weber is Chairman of the IIF. As of February 2023, this does no longer appear to be the case.
Axel Weber (Chairman of the Board of Directors, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Ralph Hamers is a board member at the IIF. As of September 2023, Serio Ermotti, the CEO of UBS, is on the IIF board.
Ralph Hamers (CEO, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Axel Weber is Chairman of the IIF. As of February 2023, this does no longer appear to be the case.
Axel Weber (Chairman of the Board of Directors, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Paolo Crocé is on the board of AFME (last checked September 2023).
Paolo Crocé (UBS Managing Director, Head of Global Markets, EMEA)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Paolo Crocé is on the board of AFME (last checked September 2023).
Paolo Crocé (UBS Managing Director, Head of Global Markets, EMEA)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS is a member of SIFMA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Naureen Hassan is on the board of SIFMA
Naureen Hassan (President, UBS Americas)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jeb Hensarling is on the board of SIFMA. As of February 2023, he has been replaced by Naureen Hassan.
Jeb Hensarling (Executive Vice Chairman, UBS Americas)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS is a member of SIFMA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, Naureen Hassan is on the board of SIFMA
Naureen Hassan (President, UBS Americas)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Jeb Hensarling is on the board of SIFMA. As of February 2023, he has been replaced by Naureen Hassan.
Jeb Hensarling (Executive Vice Chairman, UBS Americas)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Paul D'Aiutolo is an at-large member of the ARA board
Paul D'Aiutolo (CRPS® Senior Vice President–Investments, Senior Retirement Plan Consultant, UBS)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Paul D'Aiutolo is an at-large member of the ARA board
Paul D'Aiutolo (CRPS® Senior Vice President–Investments, Senior Retirement Plan Consultant, UBS)
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS AM participates in the UK Investment Association (IA) Working Group on climate change (UBS AM Annual Stewardship Report 2022).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS Asset Management 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)
UBS AM participates in the UK Investment Association (IA) Working Group on climate change (UBS AM Annual Stewardship Report 2022).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS Asset Management 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)
Natalie Horton is on the board of the MFA. As of February 2023, this does no longer seem to be the case.
Natalie Horton (Global Head, Capital Markets Financing & Americas Head, Global Markets Financing, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS AG is a strategic partner of the MFA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Natalie Horton is on the board of the MFA. As of February 2023, this does no longer seem to be the case.
Natalie Horton (Global Head, Capital Markets Financing & Americas Head, Global Markets Financing, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS AG is a strategic partner of the MFA
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS Asset Management is a member of ICI.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS Asset Management is a member of ICI.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, UBS is a member of UK Finance
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Beatriz Martin Jimenez is on the board of UK Finance. As of February 2023, this no longer seems to be the case.
Beatriz Martin Jimenez (Group Treasurer and UK CEO, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
As of February 2023, UBS is a member of UK Finance
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
Beatriz Martin Jimenez is on the board of UK Finance. As of February 2023, this no longer seems to be the case.
Beatriz Martin Jimenez (Group Treasurer and UK CEO, UBS)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
UBS is a member of UK Finance which is a national association member of EBF (last checked September 2023).
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of December 2021, UBS AG is an associate member of Japanese Bankers Association
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of December 2021, UBS AG is an associate member of Japanese Bankers Association
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS Asset Management and UBS (UK) Pension and Life Assurance Scheme are members of the IIGCC
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of February 2023, UBS Asset Management and UBS (UK) Pension and Life Assurance Scheme are members of the IIGCC
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source