Mizuho head office in Chiyoda, Tokyo. Photo: Lombroso via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)Mizuho Financial Group is one of three Japanese megabanks, along with Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group.The Mizuho Financial Group offers a broad range of service including banking, trust banking and securities, and other business related to financial services through its group companies. Under the umbrella of the holding company Mizuho Financial Group, their major group companies include Mizuho Bank (MHBK), Mizuho Trust & Banking (MHTB) and Mizuho Securities (MHSC). Muziho Bank became a signatory of the Equator Principles in October 2003, and was the chair bank of the Equator Principles Association from May 2014 until April 2015.
[this profile covers the holding company Mizuho Financial Group, unless indicated otherwise]
| Website | https://www.mizuho-fg.com/index.html |
| Headquarters |
1–5–5, Otemachi, Chiyoda–ku
100–8176 Tokyo
Japan
|
| CEO/chair |
Tatsufumi Sakai President & Group CEO |
| Supervisor | |
| Annual report | Annual integrated report 2020 |
| Ownership |
listed on NYSE, Osaka Securities Exchange & Tokyo Stock Exchange
Mizuho's shareholder structure can be accessed here. |
A bank can obtain a total of 200 policy points for its overall fossil fuel policies; 120 possible points for oil and gas policies and 80 possible points for coal policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-50 points), followers (50.5-100 points), front runners (100.5-150 points) or leaders (150.5-200 points).
The scores for a bank's policies restricting expansion of fossil fuels - in each area, prohibitions against financing projects and/or companies expanding that area - are aggregated into a fossil fuel expansion policy score.
The point-based policy ranking for fossil fuel expansion consists of the following distribution:
A bank can obtain a total of 89 policy points for its fossil fuel expansion policy. Based on this score, banks are then classified as laggards (0-22.25 points), followers (22.25-44.5 points), front runners (44.5-66.75 points) or leaders (66.75-89 points).
For each of the six subsectors, 20 possible policy points can be obtained, so a bank can obtain a total of 120 policy points for its oil and gas policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-30 points), followers (30.5-60 points), front runners (60.5-90 points) or leaders (90.5-120 points).
The point-based policy ranking above assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for tar sands projects.
None (0), weak exclusion (1.5), moderate exclusion (3), strong exclusion (4)
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand tar sands.
None (0), weak exclusion (3), strong exclusion (5)
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for tar sands.
None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in tar sands above a certain threshold.
None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its tar sands policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for Arctic oil and gas projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand Arctic oil and gas.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for Arctic oil and gas.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in Arctic oil and gas above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its Arctic oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for offshore oil and gas projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand offshore oil and gas.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for offshore oil and gas.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in offshore oil and gas above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its offshore oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for fracked oil and gas projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand oil and gas fracking.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for oil and gas fracking.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in oil and gas fracking above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its fracking policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for LNG projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand LNG.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for LNG.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in LNG above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its LNG policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for other/conventional oil and gas projects.
None (0), weak exclusion (1.5), strong exclusion (4)
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand other/conventional oil and gas.
None (0), weak exclusion (3), strong exclusion (5)
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for other/conventional oil and gas.
None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in other/conventional oil and gas above a certain threshold.
None (0), enhanced due diligence/Equator Principles commitment (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)
A bank can obtain a total of 20 policy points for its other/conventional oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-5 points), followers (5.5-10 points), front runners (10.5-15 points) or leaders (15.5-20 points).
For both coal mining and coal power, 32 possible policy points can be obtained, while for other coal,16 possible policy points can be obtained. So a bank can obtain a total of 80 policy points for its coal policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-20 points), followers (20.5-40 points), front runners (40.5-60 points) or leaders (60.5-80 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for coal mining projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal mining.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal mining.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal mining above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 32 policy points for its coal mining policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-8 points), followers (8.5-16 points), front runners (16.5-24 points) or leaders (24.5-32 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for coal power projects.
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal power.
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal power.
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal power above a certain threshold.
A bank can obtain a total of 32 policy points for its coal power policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-8 points), followers (8.5-16 points), front runners (16.5-24 points) or leaders (24.5-32 points).
The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:
1) Restriction on direct financing for coal infrastructure projects.
None (0), weak exclusion (1), strong exclusion (3)
2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal infrastructure.
None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)
3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal infrastructure.
None (0), exposure reduction (1), weak phase-out (2), strong phase-out (4)
4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal infrastructure above a certain threshold.
None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (4), full exclusion (5)
A bank can obtain a total of 16 policy points for its coal infrastructure policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-4 points), followers (4.5-8 points), front runners (8.5-12 points) or leaders (12.5-16 points)
Project name reporting status of Equator Principles signatories for each financial institutions' most recent reporting period.
Mizuho Financial Group's web page on corporate social responsibility can be accessed here.
Mizuho Financial Group is reporting on the implementation here.