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.
Wells Fargo’s board appears to have direct oversight of management’s approach to climate-related risks and opportunities. However, reporting on how It sets and monitors climate-related goals and targets lack granularity. It has assigned climate-related responsibilities to management-level positions and committees and has provided some examples of how senior management is involved in the implementation of climate strategy.
Wells Fargo has stated it considers climate-related risks in determining its strategy and has referenced different types of climate-related risks in its reporting; however, it is unclear if it has considered these risks over different time horizons. The organization appears to use scenario analysis to assess the impact of climate-related risks to its risk profile but descriptions of these processes lack detail.
It has provided comprehensive examples of how it has considered the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on business planning, including engaging with clients, deploying sustainable finance, driving sustainable operations, and working with stakeholders to support climate action.
Wells Fargo has tested the resilience of its business strategy using climate scenarios and appears to have tested across a variety of scenarios, but disclosures lack detail. It participated in the Federal Reserve Bank’s Climate Scenario Analysis pilot to assess its real estate portfolio exposure to transition risk, but does not disclose the implications of its analyses or how it plans to respond to the impacts identified.
Wells Fargo discloses limited processes used for identifying and prioritizing climate-related risks. For example, the organization uses climate scenario analysis, including stress testing, to assess the impact of climate-related risk drivers to its profile. It has some processes in place to manage climate-related risks, including three lines of defense as well as various committees and groups responsible for managing risk, but descriptions of risk management processes lack detail. Wells Fargo appears to have integrated climate-related risks into its overall risk management, and has designed six initiatives to identify and incorporate climate risks into routine risk management activities.
The organization is transparent about some metrics related to climate, but does not disclose any key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. Wells Fargo discloses Scope 1, Scope 2, and relevant Scope 3 emissions data. It discloses absolute financed emissions for the oil and gas sector but power, automotive, steel, and aviation are disclosed using an emissions intensity metric.
Wells Fargo has set a net-zero by 2050 target, and in October 2021, it joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. In May 2022, it released its 2030 interim targets for its oil and gas and power portfolios in line with the NGFS Orderly Net Zero 2050 emissions pathway. It disclosed additional targets for the automotive, steel, and aviation sectors in July 2023. Its targets cover lending and debt and equity capital market facilitation.
Wells Fargo’s coal policy states that it will not provide financing or advisory services to clients deriving the majority of their revenues from the extraction of coal or mountaintop removal coal operations, but does not define a threshold for what proportion of revenue it will begin to exclude financing at. It also will not provide project financing for the expansion of or new coal mines or coal-fired power plants, although it will consider coal-fired power plants using CCS on a case-by-case basis. The organization does not appear to have outlined a coal phase out in line with IPCC guidance.
Regarding natural gas, it has developed activity-specific due diligence processes for activities in the Arctic region, hydraulic fracking, and offshore activities. However, it will otherwise still provide financing for expanding gas with no reference of CCS. It appears to have a similar position on oil financing, adding on specific due diligence processes for clients involved in oil sands and offshore oil.
Wells Fargo has committed $500 billion towards sustainable finance projects, including renewable energy, by 2030, and has outlined its progress towards this target including a breakdown of eligible categories of activities included in its goal.
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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $652B
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 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.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2022.
Value Assessed: $171B
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 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: $42.2B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| American Electric Power Company Inc | 39.1% |
| FirstEnergy Corp | 11.5% |
| Nextera Energy Inc | 9.9% |
| Duke Energy Corp | 4.6% |
| Exelon Corp | 3.8% |
| Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc | 3.2% |
| Southern Co | 3.1% |
| Dominion Energy Inc | 3.1% |
| Entergy Corp | 3.1% |
| Xcel Energy Inc | 2.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| General Motors Co | 52.6% |
| Kia Corp | 14.1% |
| Ford Motor Co | 10.2% |
| Stellantis NV | 8.2% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 6.1% |
| Mazda Motor Corp | 4.4% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 2.9% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.0% |
| Renault SA | 0.2% |
| Volkswagen AG | 0.2% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Peabody Energy Corp | 69.9% |
| Arch Resources Inc | 25.3% |
| Glencore PLC | 4.8% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Southwestern Energy Co | 25.2% |
| Devon Energy Corp | 17.4% |
| EOG Resources Inc | 14.2% |
| Callon Petroleum Co | 7.3% |
| Magnolia Oil & Gas Corp | 7.0% |
| Chord Energy Corp | 4.8% |
| Northern Oil and Gas Inc | 4.0% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 3.2% |
| Conocophillips | 3.2% |
| PTT PCL | 3.0% |
Wells Fargo appears to have had limited engagement on sustainable finance policy. Where it has engaged, Wells Fargo has taken top-line positions in support of sustainable finance regulation while outlining objections to the specifics of some policies.
In its 2022 TCFD Report Wells Fargo stated support for action to achieve net zero by 2050. In October 2021, Wells Fargo joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance, signaling a commitment to the goal of reaching net zero emissions by mid-century and in December 2023 congressional testimony CEO Charlie Scharf stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, a letter submitted to the Municipal Advisory Council of Texas in January 2022 shows evidence of Wells Fargo’s continued support for investing in fossil fuels. While Wells Fargo has acknowledged the risks climate change poses to the banking system and mentioned engagement with governments and policymakers on sustainable finance policies, its positions on and details of engagement with these policies are unclear.
Wells Fargo has stated topline support for the need for regulated corporate ESG reporting. In a comment letter to the SEC in June 2022, Wells Fargo outlined significant objections to the Commission's proposed climate disclosure rule, characterizing disclosure requirements as "overly prescriptive" and encouraging increased flexibility in emissions disclosures. In its 2022 CDP response, Wells Fargo stated that it supported the SEC’s climate disclosure rule “with major exceptions,” and in its 2022 TCFD Report it stated that it offered “support and constructive feedback” to the SEC on the proposal. According to California lobbying disclosures, in 2023 Wells Fargo lobbied on SB 253 and SB 261, California’s emissions and climate risk disclosure bills. Details of this engagement are unclear.
According to Iowa lobbying disclosures, in 2023 Wells Fargo opposed HSB 180, a bill that sought to discourage ESG investing by limiting state contracts with financial institutions that “boycott” fossil fuel companies. CEO Charlie Scharf engaged with a federal policymaker on similar legislation in 2021, according to reporting from the Washington Post. Details of this engagement are unclear.
According to Wells Fargo’s 2022 TCFD Report, it engaged via trade associations with US banking regulators on proposed climate risk management principles. A March 2022 memo from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) shows that Wells Fargo, as constituents of the Bank Policy Institute, met with the OCC to outline “challenges” to its draft principles for climate-related financial risk management. According to Iowa lobbying disclosures, in January 2024 Wells Fargo lobbied on SSB 3094, a bill that seeks to prohibit financial companies from using ESG factors in risk management. Details of Wells Fargo’s engagement are unclear.
Wells Fargo has disclosed a list of its "principal" industry associations but appears to exclude more than three industry associations which are engaged on sustainable finance policy including the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Canadian Bankers Association, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, and the Japanese Bankers Association. Moreover, Wells Fargo has not disclosed an account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities.
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)
Wells Fargo is a member of the IIF
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles Scharf is a Board Member of IIF.
Charles Scharf (Chief Executive Officer & President)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of the IIF
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles Scharf is a Board Member of IIF.
Charles Scharf (Chief Executive Officer & President)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of BPI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charlie Scharf is on the board of BPI.
Charles W. Scharf (CEO and President, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of BPI
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charlie Scharf is on the board of BPI.
Charles W. Scharf (CEO and President, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sol Gindi is on the board of SIFMA.
Sol Gindi (Head of Client Relationship Group, Wells Fargo Advisors)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022, Joe Nadreau is no longer on the board of SIFMA.
Joe Nadreau (Head of Independent Brokerage & Platform Services, Wells Fargo Advisors)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of SIFMA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Sol Gindi is on the board of SIFMA.
Sol Gindi (Head of Client Relationship Group, Wells Fargo Advisors)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
As of November 2022, Joe Nadreau is no longer on the board of SIFMA.
Joe Nadreau (Head of Independent Brokerage & Platform Services, Wells Fargo Advisors)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles Scharf is a member of the Financial Services Forum.
Charles Scharf (President and CEO, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles Scharf is a member of the Financial Services Forum.
Charles Scharf (President and CEO, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a strategic partner of the MFA.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Eamon McCooey (Wells Fargo Securities) is a Board Member of MFA. As of January 2023, this is no longer the case.
Mr. Eamon McCooey (Managing Director, Head of Prime Services)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a strategic partner of the MFA.
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Eamon McCooey (Wells Fargo Securities) is a Board Member of MFA. As of January 2023, this is no longer the case.
Mr. Eamon McCooey (Managing Director, Head of Prime Services)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles W. Schwarf is a member of Business Roundtable.
Charles W. Schwarf (CEO and President, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Charles W. Schwarf is a member of Business Roundtable.
Charles W. Schwarf (CEO and President, Wells Fargo)
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
Wells Fargo is a member of UK Finance, which is a member of EBF
not specified
--no extract--
Open PDF file of Data Source