Schroders

InfluenceMap Score
D+
Performance Band
53%
Organisation Score
52%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
London, United Kingdom
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Schroders appears to be actively engaging on sustainable finance policy, generally cautioning against stringent regulatory intervention and arguing for regulation to focus on transparency. Schroders has stated support for the Paris Agreement and, in a joint statement in 2020, the EU's 2050 net-zero goal. Schroders has also stated support for reform to address short-termism in markets. Schroders does not appear to be fully supportive of the EU's approach to sustainable finance regulation, cautioning in a 2021 whitepaper that regulatory standards being too prescriptive are a risk for regulation to be effective.

Schroders has generally been very supportive of improving regulated corporate ESG disclosure, and has supported the mandatory implementation of the TCFD's recommendations in its 2019-2020 CDP responses as well as producing a joint statement in 2020 calling for an ambitious review of the NFRD. During 2019-21, Schroders appeared to have mixed positions on corporate disclosure. It did caution against more rigorous disclosures in feedback to the European Commission's Technical Expert Group (TEG) and against prescriptive disclosure requirements in feedback to the European Commission. However, it advocated for increased ambition of regulated corporate disclosure in response to consultations from the UK’s FCA in 2020 and the US’ SEC in 2021.

Schroders has argued for a less rigorous approach to the taxonomy, based on transparency requirements over strict science-based thresholds in a 2018 Sustainable Investing Report and in response to the FCA in 2019. In response to the Commission in 2020, it opposed the development of a taxonomy of environmentally harmful activities. Similarly, in multiple website articles in 2021 it argued that the taxonomy could be overly technical and cautioned against the risks of “blacklisting”.

In its 2019 Sustainable Investment Annual Report, published in 2020, Schroders stated support for a stringent EU Green Bond Standard. In feedback to the TEG, Schroders also appeared to support stringent green criteria but argued against the need for a legislated accreditation scheme and cautioned against overlapping disclosure requirements. In response to the Commission in 2020, it supported the verification for the EU Green Bond Standard, however, it appeared to oppose all new ESG labels and standards suggested by the Commission (e.g. investment funds, ESG benchmark, sustainability-linked bonds).

Schroders has supported policies to integrate ESG factors into investor duties, although with some exceptions. In 2018, Schroders called for weaker wording in the European Commission's proposal on updates to MiFID II to integrate ESG preferences in the advice investment firms give to clients. In 2019, Schroders opposed the integration of the impacts financial firms have on sustainability in Solvency II and IDD in feedback to EIOPA. Schroders also raised concerns about trustees consulting with members on their ESG preferences in feedback to the UK's Department for Work and Pensions in 2018.

In its 2018 Sustainable Investment Report, Schroders described their position on the UK Stewardship Code as supporting a stronger mechanism for holding signatories to account but also supporting language that emphasized a more limited scope focused on 'material stakeholders', rather than wider society. In the same report, Schroders argued that regulatory developments in the EU in this area should focus on transparency over stringent regulatory requirements. Its response to the Commission in 2020 suggests that it only supports the inclusion of ESG preferences in advice to retail investors as guidance, and it has not supported sustainable products as a default investment option nor incorporating adverse ESG impacts into fiduciary duty. Similarly, in response to the ESA’s SFDR consultation on investor ESG disclosure in 2020, Schroders argued for a less prescriptive approach and suggested asset managers should lead in considering material issues.

In its 2019-2020 Sustainable Investment Annual Reports, Schroders made a clear disclosure of its policy positions and engagement activities. It has also listed its trade association memberships on its website, and has disclosed some details of indirect engagement in its 2019 Sustainable Investment Report, but not in the 2020 version.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
NSNSNS0NSNSNS
121NSNSNSNS
0NS00NSNSNS
NS2202NSNS
0NSNS-10NSNS
1NSNS00NSNS
0NS0-1NSNSNS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
2NANANANANANA
1NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
48%
 
48%
 
71%
 
71%
 
56%
 
56%
 
42%
 
42%
 
49%
 
49%
 
55%
 
55%
 
52%
 
52%
 
47%
 
47%
 
49%
 
49%
 
81%
 
81%

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.