Royal London Group

The financial institution publishes an engagement report on sustainability impact topics and maintains a gender balance of 40-60% at the senior executive level. It has a plan to align stewardship activities with targets and links senior executive remuneration to specific sustainability criteria. Responsibility for implementing the sustainability strategy is assigned to various functions, teams, or committees.

The institution discloses a list of trade associations that it is a member of, along with positions taken in lobbying and political engagement on sustainability. Key sectors, clients, and investees for climate engagement are transparently identified, as well as sectors with significant nature-related impacts. It engages with these entities to support strategies for nature protection and restoration and forms partnerships to influence action on nature-related impacts.

The institution provides examples of how its offerings support climate adaptation and resilience, monitors its Scope 1-2 emissions, and tracks other scope 3 categories. Emissions across all scopes are reduced in line with interim targets. Additionally, the institution discloses the monetary value of products, services, and capital provided to small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as operational details by country, such as employee numbers or revenue.

The financial institution has a stewardship policy supporting environmental and social best practices but could be better aligned with its sustainability strategy. Although it engages with stakeholders on lobbying and public policy, it has the opportunity to provide more details on specific actions taken. The institution is phasing out support for fossil fuel projects lacking a 1.5°C strategy and should present a timebound plan for this transition. A strategy for the protection and restoration of nature, particularly in priority sectors, is also recommended.

The financial institution commits to respecting the ILO’s fundamental rights at work but could strengthen this commitment by formalising it in a policy document. It has the opportunity to require suppliers to uphold these human rights and to publicly formalise its prohibition of bribery and corruption. Additionally, a public policy statement clarifying its stance on political contributions is recommended. While the institution identifies sustainability impacts in its value chain, it could enhance transparency regarding its assessment process.

Furthermore, disclosing the breakdown of clients by income group and processes to avoid unintended divestment from low-income countries is advised. The risk assessment process should include risks related to ILO fundamental rights, with a mitigation strategy for identified risks. Lastly, providing examples of actions taken regarding salient human rights issues from recent assessments is recommended.

This scorecard refers to information in English which was publicly available by July 15 2024. AuM and Total assets are stated in USD for comparability and have been calculated based on reported local currency values multiplied by applicable IMF currency converter values.