Credit Agricole

InfluenceMap Score
D+
Performance Band
53%
Organisation Score
51%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
Montrouge, France
Brands and Associated Companies:
Amundi, Credit Agricole Assurances
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Crédit Agricole appears to be actively engaged on sustainable finance policy, with mixed positions. Crédit Agricole has stated support for a role for finance in reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement, and appears to support reform to make the financial sector more sustainable. Crédit Agricole and its asset management subsidiary Amundi appear to independently engage with policy, although both with mixed positions, addressing a range of different sustainable finance policy strands and with some differing positions.

In 2018-19, Amundi stated broad support for the taxonomy but argued against a prescriptive approach in consultation responses to the European Commission in 2018 and to the Technical Expert Group (TEG) in 2019, appearing to suggest a less rigorous approach based on transparency rather than science-based thresholds. In feedback to the Commission on the Renewed Strategy in 2020, Crédit Agricole advocated for the inclusion of more transitional activities in the taxonomy but opposed the expansion of the taxonomy to cover environmentally harmful activities. However, in response to the Commission in 2021, Crédit Agricole did recommend a one-year delay to the taxonomy’s implementation after the disclosures of non-financial companies are implemented.

In a consultation response to the European Commission in 2020, Amundi appeared to support an ambitious review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). It also advocated in a joint investor statement in 2021, for EU policymakers to increase the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD, former NFRD) in order to respond to the needs of investors in Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) disclosures.

Crédit Agricole stated broad support for the EU Green Bond Standard in the media in 2019. In feedback to the Commission in 2020, both Crédit Agricole and Amundi supported the need for EU level verification of the EU GBS. In 2020, an article on the EFAMA website featured Thierry Bogaty (Head of ESG Strategy at Amundi) stating top-line support for the EU Ecolabel but arguing for weaker green criteria on the basis that more investments would be eligible.

In feedback to the Commission in 2020, both Crédit Agricole and Amundi appeared to support for the consideration of adverse impacts on sustainability within fiduciary duty, but only where there is a clear mandate from the asset owner to do so. However, Amundi argued against the prescriptiveness of the proposed Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in comments to the European Supervisory Authorities’ (ESAs) consultation in 2020.

In its 2019 CSR report, Amundi disclosed some of the sustainable finance policies it is tracking with some details of engagement but did not describe positions taken. At the group level, Crédit Agricole has disclosed some general positions on its website, but has not referenced specific policies or described engagement activities. Amundi has listed its trade association memberships but has not clearly described the management of its indirect influence. There does not appear to be group level disclosure of indirect sustainable finance policy engagement, although Crédit Agricole has disclosed corporate membership of the board in financial reporting.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NSNS1NSNSNS
121110NS
0NSNS0NSNSNS
-12011NSNS
NSNS0-10NSNS
0NSNS10NANS
NS0NS0NSNSNS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
-1NANANANANANA
0NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
42%
 
42%
 
45%
 
45%
 
49%
 
49%
 
55%
 
55%
 
56%
 
56%
 
81%
 
81%
 
41%
 
41%
 
49%
 
49%
 
47%
 
47%
 
48%
 
48%

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.