Danske Bank

InfluenceMap Score
for Sustainable Finance
Performance Band
Organisation Score
Relationship Score
Copenhagen, Denmark
Official Web Site:

Sustainable Finance Lobbying Overview: Danske Bank appears to have had limited but mostly positive engagement on sustainable finance policy.

Top-line Messaging on Sustainable Finance Policy: Danske Bank has advocated for a role of finance in keeping global temperature to 1.5C and reach net-zero by 2050. In joint investor statements in 2021 and 2022 it further supported this goal. In its Sustainable Investment report in 2019 Danske Bank cautioned against prescriptive regulation or regulation that would penalize damaging activities. However, in its 2021 Responsible Investment report, Danske Bank appeared supportive of the EU's Action Plan on Sustainable Finance. In a 2022 joint statement, Danske Bank advocated for a global biodiversity framework to mandate the alignment of financial flows with biodiversity goals.

Position on Regulated Corporate ESG Disclosure: In 2020, Danske Bank supported an ambitious review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) in feedback to the Commission. In joint investor statements to governments in 2021 and 2022, Danske Bank supported mandatory implementation of the TCFD and 1.5 pathway-aligned transition plans. In a joint statement by the financial sector in 2022, it also advocated for policymakers to support the assessment and disclosure of nature-related impacts and dependencies.

Position on Taxonomies: Danske Bank stated top-line support for the EU taxonomy on its website in 2020 and in its 2021 Responsible Investment report. In feedback to the Commission in 2020 and 2021 sustainability report, it stated support for expanding the taxonomy to cover environmentally harmful activities.

Position on ESG Standards, Labels & Benchmarks: Danske Bank appears to have engaged the most on the EU's Ecolabel regulation, stating support for the policy in website articles and 2021 CDP response. However, in its 2019 response to the JRC's first questionnaire on the Ecolabel, Danske Bank took a more cautious position, suggesting that green criteria should not be too strict and that verification should be kept simple to keep costs down. In response to the Commission in 2020 it also supported the accreditation of verifiers of EU Green Bonds and standards for sustainability-linked bonds or loans. In its 2021 Responsible Investment report, Danske Bank also appeared to support EU’s climate benchmarks.

Position on Integrating ESG into Investor Duties: In feedback to the Commission consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, Danske Bank suggested that guidelines should be introduced to allow asset managers to understand fiduciary duties relating to sustainability but did not appear to support changes to the legal fiduciary duty framework. Danske Bank further did not appear to support the Commission’s suggestions to update the sustainability guidance and options offered to retail investors. However, it did state support for the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in its 2021 Responsible Investment report.

Lobbying Transparency: Danske Bank has disclosed some of its sustainable finance positions, although it lacks a clear dedicated disclosure of its policy positions and activities undertaken to influence these. Similarly, it has disclosed some of its memberships and board positions, but no further details on indirect influence governance.

Strength of Relationship

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.