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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $34.4B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area in 2020–2021.
Value Assessed: $69.8B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
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: $144B
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 |
|---|---|
| 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% |
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.
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 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.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
As of February 2023, 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)
As of February 2023, 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 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)
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--
UBS board’s Corporate Culture and Responsibility Committee (CCRC) has oversight of the organization’s climate strategy and approves annual climate-related objectives and plans. Management-level committees are assigned various climate-related responsibilities, but it is unclear what processes are used to ensure they monitor the progress of climate-related issues.
UBS considers climate-related risks and opportunities on its asset management and investment business activities and references some of the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material financial impact on the organization, including a climate risk heatmap. It outlines the climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant over different time horizons in its materiality matrix.
UBS is transparent about how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its corporate strategy planning. It provides examples for each pillar of its climate strategy and details how its asset management arm and banking arm are taking steps to address climate-related risks within its portfolios.
The organization appears to have tested the resilience of its business strategy using a range of climate scenarios, including those consistent with a 2°C or lower warming climate-scenario across various portfolios including its oil, gas, utilities, and mortgage portfolios as well as its balance sheet. In 2021, UBS participated in various scenario analysis and stress test exercises, including the Bank of England 2021 Climate Biennial Exploratory Scenario (CBES) and well as the European Central Bank (EBC) climate stress test.
UBS outlines some of its processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks. For example, the organization has conducted top-down and bottom-up analysis to assess the impacts of physical and transition risks on its portfolios. Additionally, it has piloted a transition risk heatmap that rates cross-sectoral credit risk exposure to climate sensitivity and plans to conduct a heatmap pilot for physical risks. In its 2021 Sustainability Report, it expanded its heatmap to cover both transition and physical risks.
It also outlines various processes to manage climate-related risks. For example, UBS manages its climate-related risks and opportunities via its environmental management system (EMS) and has an ESR Framework to help manage and mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment. However, it is unclear how the organization prioritizes, transfers, accepts or controls climate-related risks.
UBS appears to integrate climate-related risks into its overall risk management approach. For example, it is embedding climate risk into the organization’s risk appetite framework and operational risk appetite statement. In 2020, it launched a Group Risk Control Climate Risk Program to further integrate climate risk into existing risk control frameworks.
The organization is transparent about the key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities and discloses various metrics in its sustainability report and climate strategy, providing historical data and trends for the metrics.
UBS publishes Scope 1, Scope 2 emissions data and has some relevant Scope 3 emissions disclosure. For example, UBS discloses the amount and percentage of carbon-related assets, total exposure to climate-sensitive sectors, lending to climate-sensitive sectors, and weighted carbon intensity of its Climate Aware strategies. It has also begun measuring financed emissions and discloses metrics for the oil and gas, power generation, and residential and commercial real estate sectors.
UBS Asset Management was a founding signatory of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. In April 2021, UBS was announced as a founding member of the UN convened Net Zero Banking Alliance. In March 2022, UBS released its 2030 interim targets for three key sectors, including commitments to reduce the absolute financed emissions associated with loans to oil and gas companies by 71%, the emissions intensity associated with lending to power generation companies by 49%, and the emissions intensity for its residential real estate portfolio by 42% and its commercial real estate portfolio by 44%.
UBS has established coal financing exclusion policies and will not provide financing for new coal-fired power plants, greenfield thermal coal mines, or companies engaged in MTR operations. It has also updated its thresholds for financing existing coal-fired operations and thermal coal-mining companies. However, it does not appear to have set a timeline to exit the coal sector that aligns with IPCC guidance.
With regard to oil and gas, the organization requires enhanced due diligence for certain transactions related to liquefied natural gas, ultra-deepwater drilling, hydraulic fracturing, new oil projects in the Arctic, and greenfield oil sands projects. In 2021, it lowered its thresholds for financing companies with reserves or production in arctic oil and oil sands but appears to otherwise provide financing for expanding natural gas and other oil infrastructure given companies meet due diligence criteria.
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 it's sustainable investment in renewables. As a member of the NZBA and NZAMI, UBS has pledged to achieve net-zero emissions for its portfolios by 2050, but it has not yet aligned its energy financing portfolio with IPCC guidance.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source
Open PDF file of Data Source