UBS

InfluenceMap Score
D+
Performance Band
55%
Organisation Score
49%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Financials
Head​quarters:
Zurich, Switzerland
Brands and Associated Companies:
UBS Asset Management
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

UBS appears to be engaged in the EU on sustainable finance policy, while not supporting stringent regulatory intervention. On social media, UBS has communicated support for keeping the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees and in a 2021 whitepaper, UBS supported action to achieve net-zero by 2050. In 2020, UBS Asset Management also co-signed an investor letter to EU leaders advocating for action to achieve net-zero by 2050. However, in prior messaging, UBS appeared to have supported measures that seemingly contradict this goal. For example, in a 2019 whitepaper the group appears to have stated support for the continued role for GHG emission intense investments and CEO Sergio Ermotti reportedly arguing against "moving too quickly".

UBS Asset Management appears to be cautious about stringent, science-based regulatory intervention on sustainable finance, emphasizing in a 2019 whitepaper that the EU's Sustainable Finance Action Plan "must serve investors’ needs" and be “compatible with clients’ investment objectives”.

In a 2019 whitepaper, UBS Asset Management stated support for policy to improve the quality and harmonization of regulated corporate ESG disclosure and Huw van Steenis, Chair of the Sustainable Finance Committee, supported in a whitepaper regulated corporate disclosure in line with the TCFD. In its 2019-21 CDP responses, UBS advocated for the implementation of the TCFD's recommendations into disclosure frameworks. Alex Weber, chairman of UBS bank, also appeared to support a regulatory European approach to sustainability disclosures in a 2021 media article.

UBS Asset Management appears to support a less stringent approach to the EU's taxonomy, raising concerns in a 2019 whitepaper that the taxonomy was too narrow and possibly supporting the inclusion of certain oil and gas activities in a green taxonomy. Similarly, Huw was Steenis, chair of sustainable finance at UBS, argued in a 2021 Washington Post article that the taxonomy may be too binary. In media articles in 2019, UBS Asset Management also argued that the taxonomy should be flexible and advocated for the use of the less rigorous taxonomy proposed by the Institute for International Finance.

In its 2021 CDP response, UBS appeared to support the integration of ESG factor into stress testing. However, in a 2021 whitepaper, it cautioned that models are in early phases and that differing standards, data taxonomies and scenarios will make interpretation more difficult for investors.

At the group level, UBS has described some broad policy positions in various whitepapers, while UBS Asset Management has listed policy positions and consultations it has engaged with in a whitepaper and in its Stewardship report. UBS has also disclosed some of its sustainability-related memberships in its sustainability report, but key indirect influence details, such as AFME board membership, are missing. UBS Asset management has disclosed some memberships to industry groups and some activities related to these groups, but has not given details on the sustainable finance policy positions of these organizations.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
NSNSNSNSNS0NS
11NS-1NS0NS
0NSNSNSNSNS0
1211NS1NS
0NSNSNS-1NSNS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
0NSNSNSNSNSNS
0NS1NSNSNSNS
-1NANANANANANA
0NANANANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
41%
 
41%
 
52%
 
52%
 
49%
 
49%
 
55%
 
55%
 
37%
 
37%
 
58%
 
58%
 
49%
 
49%
 
42%
 
42%
 
42%
 
42%
 
56%
 
56%
 
49%
 
49%
 
47%
 
47%
 
48%
 
48%
 
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.