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: $6.54T
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Entergy Corp | 8.6% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 7.0% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 6.7% |
| Vistra Corp | 5.6% |
| Southern Co | 5.0% |
| AES Corp | 4.0% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.9% |
| NRG Energy Inc | 3.9% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 3.4% |
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 3.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Ford Motor Co | 19.1% |
| General Motors Co | 16.8% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 10.4% |
| Stellantis NV | 6.2% |
| Tesla Inc | 5.4% |
| Volkswagen AG | 4.9% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 4.6% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 4.2% |
| Suzuki Motor Corp | 3.4% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 3.4% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 35.7% |
| Coal India Ltd | 19.2% |
| Glencore PLC | 12.2% |
| Yankuang Energy Group Co Ltd | 7.1% |
| China Coal Energy Co Ltd | 5.0% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc | 3.0% |
| NACCO Industries Inc | 2.6% |
| Whitehaven Coal Ltd | 2.3% |
| Banpu PCL | 2.2% |
| Bumi Resources Tbk PT | 2.1% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 12.9% |
| Chevron Corp | 8.3% |
| EQT Corp | 6.7% |
| Expand Energy Corp | 6.0% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | 5.8% |
| ConocoPhillips | 5.5% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 4.7% |
| BP PLC | 4.2% |
| Shell PLC | 3.5% |
| Occidental Petroleum Corp | 2.9% |
Vanguard does not appear to be firmly engaging with companies on climate. It has a framework informing its climate engagement strategy, for example, it listed oversight of strategy and risk including climate risk as one of its stewardship pillars, stating it looks for companies to exhibit sound climate change risk management. The asset manager states it develops engagement objectives and tracks engagement activity and progress, and may set milestones, but details on these processes lack granularity. Vanguard appears to have a limited escalation strategy and has demonstrated escalation responses following poor climate performance but it is unclear how it related to its wider engagement program.
The asset manager’s engagements on climate issues are primarily focused around upcoming climate-related shareholder resolutions. For example, it engaged with S&P Global to discuss a Say on Climate proposal to ratify the company’s emissions reduction plan and engaged with Bank of Montreal around a shareholder proposal asking the company adopt a policy to ensure its financing activities would not contribute to new fossil fuel supplies consistent with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions scenario. However, the asset manager states it does not seek to dictate a company’s strategy. Vanguard appears to have engaged with companies on climate policy influence, engaging with Glencore about its concerns regarding clarity of the company’s lobbying activities which appeared to contradict its stated commitments. Evidence suggests Vanguard is not collaboratively engaging around climate, withdrawing from NZAM in December 2022.
Vanguard has described its stewardship governance structure and has referenced how it assesses the effectiveness of stewardship policies and activities. It is transparent about engagements, providing numerous case studies in its stewardship reporting. Additionally, it is transparent about its voting record and has disclosed voting rationale for a sample of climate-related shareholder proposals.
The asset manager does not appear to have used its shareholder authority to drive companies to transition on climate.
Insightia data suggests that Vanguard has overwhelmingly opposed AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 1.8% in 2019 and 10.8% in 2020. Its support slightly increased in 2021 at 28.6% but decreased in 2022 at 4.5%.
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Vanguard appears to have limited engagement on climate-related policies, generally advocating for flexibility in any regulation on the financial sector.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: In 2021 Vanguard joined the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, supporting the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner. In December 2022, however, Vanguard withdrew from the initiative. Vanguard has reported engagement on climate-related regulation on its corporate website but does not specify details. Vanguard’s CEO, in a February 2023 Financial Times article, appeared to take the position that policy changes should occur at the level of the real economy rather than the financial system.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: Vanguard appears broadly supportive of the need for regulated corporate ESG disclosure, while taking more mixed positions on specific disclosure proposals. In its 2023 approach to climate change, Vanguard appeared to support for the need for policy to improve climate disclosure, and expressed support for aligning disclosure frameworks with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in its 2024 Investment Stewardship U.K. Regional Brief. However, in 2022 comments to the SEC on its proposed climate disclosure rule, Vanguard voiced concern that some aspects of the proposal were “overburdensome,” including Scope 3 disclosure requirements. Vanguard expressed similar concerns about Scope 3 disclosure requirements in 2022 comments on the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)’s Sustainability and Climate Disclosure drafts.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, and Benchmarks and ESG Ratings: Vanguard, in a 2023 Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) consultation did not appear to support a mandatory product labelling system. In a March 2023 meeting with the SEC, Vanguard engaged on the SEC names rule, but details of this engagement are unclear.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: Vanguard, in its 2023 SFDR European Commission consultation response expressed support for the aims of EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), however it is unclear whether it supports the continuation of an investor facing disclosure regime in the EU. Vanguard, in a 2022 meeting with ESMA appeared to not support the incorporating climate factors into investor duties, advocating for greater flexibility in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID II) requirements for considering sustainability preferences.
Industry Association Governance: The company has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, including the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) and the Council of Institutional Investors (CII) but appears to exclude a number of memberships, for example membership of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), Association of British Insurers and International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). It has not disclosed an account of its associations' climate-related policy positions and engagement activities.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q1 2025.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on climate 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 lobbying assessment, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate issues, as well as “real economy” climate change policies.
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 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 policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which InfluenceMap uses to assess financial institutions' 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.
