J.P. Morgan

InfluenceMap Score
C
Performance Band
61%
Organisation Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
New York, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
J.P. Morgan, J.P. Morgan Asset Management, Chase
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

JP Morgan Chase (JP Morgan) does not appear to be strongly engaging with companies around climate change. It is partially transparent about its engagements, providing summary information on its ESG report and anonymized case studies on its website and stewardship reporting. It is transparent about its AGM voting record, and provides voting justifications for key votes in its annual stewardship report.

JP Morgan has a framework that informs engagement based around five main priorities and related themes, which includes climate risk and climate risk disclosure. Engagements appear to follow a structure, and as of 2020, include milestones to measure progress. There are clear escalation responses, and penalties should companies not comply with requests. However, it is not clear that there is a structure, with for example timelines, informing when specific actions should be taken.

It is unclear whether JP Morgan is engaging to transition companies in line with the Paris Agreement due to limited disclosure. It appears to be engaging around corporate disclosure related to climate change and in line with the TCFD, however, it does not appear to be driving company behavior or business model change on climate beyond increasing climate risk disclosure. JP Morgan provides some examples of climate engagements resulting in improved climate disclosurein its 2020 Investment Stewardship Report. JP Morgan became a signatory to the CA100+ initiative in February 2020, although it is unclear how actively it is participating in the initiative.

JP Morgan does not appear to engage with companies on climate lobbying. Its voting policy states it generally votes against resolutions calling for political contributions or trade association spending disclosure.

ProxyInsight data suggests that J.P. Morgan has a mixed support of climate change resolutions which InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 5.6% in 2019, 48.1% in 2020 and 54.8% in 2021. This included opposing resolutions requesting climate risk disclosure, the setting of GHG emissions targets, renewable energy goals and reporting on climate related lobbying.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NSNANA
2NSNANA
11NANA
12NANS
11NANS
0NSNANS
-1NSNANS
0NSNSNS
-10NSNS
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.