Capital Group

InfluenceMap Score
C-
Performance Band
58%
Organisation Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Capital Group does not appear to be firmly engaging with companies around climate change. It is not transparent about its engagements, only disclosing details of its company engagements to clients. Capital Group does not transparently disclose its voting records. American Funds voting records for 2020 are available on its FAQ webpage, however, it has not updated the records on the designated webpage since 2017. As of 2020, it now appears to also disclose voting records for its European funds. In Responsible Investing reporting, it has stated that it does not disclose voting records unless legally required.

Capital Group appears to target companies for climate-related engagements using the TCFD framework. There appears to be a structure informing engagements but there is no clear evidence that engagements have clearly defined milestones. Capital Group has a limited escalation strategy that can include voting against companies at AGMs and informing management of the reasons for doing so. However, it is not prepared to escalate through public statements or the use of shareholder resolutions. It is further unclear whether divestment is used as an escalation strategy or as an alternative to continuing engagement.

Capital Group stated in 2016 reporting that it engages companies to transition to a low-carbon future, including oil and gas companies around climate-related risks, and in 2020 it successfully engaged with an oil and gas company around its business strategy and ESG considerations. However, it also implied it may not be engaging companies in line with the Paris Agreement as the policy and regulatory environment is not concrete currently and therefore does not justify transitioning business models. Due to limited reporting, it is unclear if Capital Group continues to hold this position.

Capital Group appears to be broadly unsupportive of Paris Aligned resolutions. It only supported 11.1% of annual general meeting (AGM) resolutions that InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement in 2018. This trend continued in 2019, with ProxyInsight data finding its voting support at 7.1%, and with a slight improvement in 2020 at 15.2% and 25.0% in 2021. For example, it generally voted against resolutions calling for adopting emission reduction targets and climate policy influence disclosure.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
0NSNANA
0NSNANA
1NSNANA
1NSNANS
11NANS
11NANS
0NSNSNS
11NSNS
NS-1NSNS
0NSNSNS
-1NSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

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.