JPMorgan Ethics

1. B
C
D
R
B
C
D
R
NR
This scorecard presents the EthicsGrade Baseline assessment of technology governance maturity at
JP Morgan Chase based on publicly available information. Our methodology is developed from Ethical
by Design (Radclyffe & Nodell, 2020) which sets out how digital ethics questions can be measured and
managed as ESG issues.
In Q2 2022, JP Morgan Chase
scored 63.57 out of 100. JP
Morgan Chase currently
sits in the 83rd
percentile
of all companies rated by
EthicsGrade and has the 3rd
rank when compared to 11 of
its peers.
Figure 1: Rating calculated in Q2 2022 using EthicsGrade Model v7.6. The model considers 344 data
points which are then weighted. The aggregate score leads to the overall rating which is highlighted
above.
RATING COMPARED TO PEER GROUP
Figure 2: JP Morgan Chase peer comparison rank: 3rd
. Each of the columns represents a peer, with
JP Morgan Chase’s score highlighted. The rows show each company’s ratings for each of the six key
themes covered in the scope of the EthicsGrade model. The colour coding corresponds to the relative
score for each section in the model against all companies rated.
RATING COMPARED TO ALL COMPANIES
Figure 3: JP Morgan Chase global rank: 58th
. Each slice represents a company result across six
coverage areas in the EthicsGrade ESG model.
MATURITY ASSESSMENT
It is increasingly important for companies
to integrate ethical principles in their digital
transition, and to ensure such transition is
appropriately monitored and governed. This
is apparent to all stakeholders, and we expect
it to be fully embedded in ESG strategies and
reporting requirements. Example of this include
voluntary initiatives being established since the
publication of draft EU regulations on AI in April
2021.
EthicsGrade ratings are mapped against the
various stages of ‘organisational learning’ as
defined by The Path to Corporate Responsibility
(Zadek). Like other aspects of a company’s ESG
strategy, the challenge is how to radically shift
from being rated as ‘defensive’ or ‘compliant’ to
being a civic leader in industry digital transition.
For further information on our methodology please visit: www.ethicsgrade.io/research
Figure 4: Adapted from The Path to Corporate Responsibility by Simon
Zadek, published by Harvard Business Review. Visit our website for further
information on the relationships between digital governance and Zadek’s
research.
Structure
Public Policy
Technical Barriers to Trust
Ethical Risk
Data Privacy
Sustainability
Structure
Public Policy
Technical Barriers to Trust
Ethical Risk
Data Privacy
Sustainability
JP Morgan Chase
SCORECARD: JP MORGAN CHASE
63.57
C

2. Attracting and retaining top AI skills in the sector is harder than in other
industries. Therefore, ensuring human capital is effective and engaged
is a critical factor. Ensuring adequate engagement from important stakeholders is also critical to
maximising investment returns from human capital and ensuring stakeholder alignment.
Transparency of operational controls is a development opportunity across
the industry and peer-group. Establishing (in the public domain) what
procedural controls are established, the standards to which the company develops and operates and
the risks that are being monitored will help reduce risk and improve stakeholder perception.
In the event of a reputational risk materialising, reliance on the company’s
compliance with regulatory frameworks may likely be insufficient. It is
important that the company takes a cautious approach to the implementation of new AI-based
systems before the risks associated with their implementation are identified and mitigated.
There is a heightened focus on the sector from policy makers, which could
lead to regulatory intervention in the medium term. Ensuring the company
scores well compared to peers will help deflect attention to elsewhere in the sector. However, a more
pro-active approach with policy makers should help mitigate the potential impact of AI related risk.
KEY RISK FACTORS FOR JP MORGAN CHASE
To develop a scorecard, EthicsGrade investigates whether the existing governance protocols and
stakeholder engagement activities demonstrate appropriate levels of technological governance. Based
on our analysis of JP Morgan Chase, we have identified the following key risk factors:
research@ethicsgrade.io www.ethicsgrade.io/research
ESG ratings are an important metric for investors and other
stakeholders. Many organisations develop ESG ratings and
rely on information in the public domain alongside data
supplied by the companies they evaluate as a basis for
their assessments.
Our methodology is developed from Ethical by Design
(Radclyffe & Nodell, 2020) which sets out how digital
ethics questions can be measured and managed as ESG
issues.
Our initial assessment is this ‘baseline’ review which is
based solely on publicly available sources to understand
digitalisation governance. This is superseded by our
‘benchmark’ review for companies which engage with us
and provide us with non-public information that we use to
further refine our assessment.
Once we have conducted a baseline assessment of
an organisation, we communicate our findings to the
company in focus prior to publishing the rating on our
website and to our clients who license our data feeds. We
invite each organisation to participate in our ‘InsideView’
survey which is a structured model of issues material to
the organisation in question and enables us to gather
evidence which we use for further analysis.
Companies who engage with our InsideView survey
receive a detailed ‘benchmark’ report which demonstrates
their peer-comparison against various topics relevant to
their operations, and a summary ‘InsideView’ scorecard is
published in place of our ‘baseline’ report via our website
and through our data-feeds.
No non-public information is published via our InsideView
scorecard, only aggregated data which is a derivative and
combination of the public and non-public sources. We
offer to all companies who participate in our InsideView
survey the opportunity to engage further with us in
discussion on the analysis we’ve conducted so they
may better understand the implications of our findings.
We encourage organisations who have controls that
are superior to those we’ve evidenced through our
assessment to highlight this work as well as share their
plans for future development.
Organisations that engage with us in this way are
recognised by investors and other stakeholders who care
about ESG as more trustworthy in their digital transition.
For further information on EthicsGrade™ ratings and the services
we offer, please visit our website.
INFORMATION SOURCES