At all times, we listen to and engage with a diverse set of stakeholders who are interested in or directly affected by our company’s business. As part of this stakeholder engagement process, we listen to the feedback of our constituents, including shareholders, to help inform our decisions and our approach to disclosure. We do this through a variety of ongoing engagement and activity, including our National Community Advisory Council (NCAC), a forum made up of senior leaders from civil rights, consumer advocacy, community development, environmental, research, and other organizations who provide external perspectives, guidance and feedback on our business policies and products.
We also utilize ESG frameworks and ratings to guide our disclosures. ESG frameworks include: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), CDP, and the World Economic Forum's International Business Council stakeholder capitalism metrics (WEF IBC). ESG ratings include Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), Sustainalytics and S&P. As regulators are increasingly focused on ESG, we are incorporating those recommendations into our materiality approach.
We then apply an internal lens through our risk management principles, an ESG Committee, and a particular focus on climate change and racial equality. The result is a dynamic, ongoing process to weigh this information and produce a view on how various priorities are ranked in terms of importance to core business success and importance to external stakeholders.
To initially establish our baseline, we worked with a third party, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), which used our Operating Principles and focus on Responsible Growth as a framework to conduct interviews and analysis. Issues were weighted, prioritized and plotted on the following ESG Materiality Assessment Map according to their relative degree of importance. The Materiality Map was then reviewed and approved by the company’s ESG Group and Global ESG Committee. It is important to note that all issues on the Map — regardless of where they fall — were, and still are relevant to the company. These issues were drawn from a broader set of potential areas, many of which were deemed not to be pertinent to the bank. For clarity, we grouped issues as Governance, Environment, Society, or People (i.e., dividing Social issues into external and internal categories).
We used the results of our ESG Materiality Assessment as well as our ongoing approach to materiality to guide our ESG reporting and disclosures and to ensure transparency into ESG issues of greatest importance.