HSBC

InfluenceMap Score
D+
Performance Band
58%
Organisation Score
49%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
London, United Kingdom
Brands and Associated Companies:
HSBC Global Asset Management
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

HSBC appears to be actively engaging on sustainable finance policy, with mixed positions. HSBC has consistently stated support for a role for finance in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, and appears to support reform to address short-termism in markets. More recently, HSBC and HSBC Global Asset Management advocated for action to achieve net-zero by 2050. HSBC has stated broad support for regulation on sustainable finance on its website but has appeared more cautious in its consultation responses to policymakers. Messaging from HSBC Global Asset Management appears to be more supportive of policy on sustainable finance than positions at the group level.

HSBC has been strongly supportive of improving regulated corporate ESG disclosure on its website in 2019, and in a consultation response to the Commission in 2020. In response to the European Commission’s consultation on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020 it also suggested that TCFD reporting should be mandatory. In response to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2020, HSBC further supported regulatory implementation of the TCFD for listed issuers and suggested greater ambition. HSBC restated this position in responses to the House of Commons’ Inquiry into decarbonization of the UK economy. However, in two Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) consultation in 2020 and 2021, subsidiary HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) proposed a delay to TCFD reporting requirements for occupational pension schemes.

HSBC Global Asset Management stated support for the EU's taxonomy in its 2019 Responsible Investment Review. However, at a group level, in feedback to the European Commission's Technical Expert Group (TEG) in 2019, HSBC appeared to argue for a less rigorous process for classification based on market-set standards rather than scientifically determined thresholds. In response to the Commission in 2020, HSBC did not appear to support the extension of the taxonomy to cover environmentally harmful activities.

HSBC Global Asset Management also stated high-level support for the EU Green Bond Standard in its 2020 Responsible Investment Review. However, at a group level, HSBC was less positive in its feedback to the TEG in 2019, suggesting that high standards should be balanced against not constraining "market development" and suggesting a less rigorous accreditation scheme. It also suggested additional criteria and thresholds should be clarified for non-EU issuers in response to the European Commission in 2020.

Similarly, despite HSBC Global Asset Management stating high-level support for the inclusion of ESG issues in fiduciary duty, in a 2019 ESMA consultation HSBC supported related policy to integrate ESG considerations into client advice but argued it should be introduced gradually and still consider non-ESG products in suitability assessments for clients who have expressed preferences for ESG products. On its 2021 Responsible Investment Review, HSBC Global Asset Management supported EU disclosures regulation (SFDR).

In response to the Commission and CDP in 2020, HSBC supported the inclusion of ESG factors in prudential regulation and incorporating ESG factors into risk management, respectively.

HSBC Global Asset Management has a disclosure of its public policy advocacy with some details of positions taken, but there does not appear to be group-level disclosure. HSBC has disclosed its trade association memberships but has not given any further details of its governance of indirect influence. At the subsidiary-level, HSBC Global Asset Management has also disclosed some of its association memberships, but no other details around indirect influence.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NS01NSNSNS
11NS1111
1NS1-1-1NSNS
12011NSNS
1NSNS-11NSNS
1NSNS0NSNSNS
1NSNS0NSNSNS
NSNS11-2NSNS
0NANANANANANA
0NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
41%
 
41%
 
48%
 
48%
 
55%
 
55%
 
56%
 
56%
 
37%
 
37%
 
58%
 
58%
 
42%
 
42%
 
42%
 
42%
 
52%
 
52%
 
47%
 
47%
 
48%
 
48%
 
49%
 
49%
 
43%
 
43%
 
81%
 
81%
 
71%
 
71%

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.