The dramatic growth of the green bond market in 2021 has been matched by the growth of green bond funds. But how do we know the bonds are indeed green or just being greenwashed? In the Lonsec Sustainability webinar, we look at what green bonds are, the difference between green issues and green issuers, and how to monitor issuers’ commitments to ensure that the money is actually being allocated towards green assets and projects.

Joining Tony Adams, Head of Sustainable Investment Research at Lonsec Research are Katie House, Partner Sustainability, at Affirmative Investment Management, and Xuan Sheng Ou Yong (Sheng), Green Bonds & ESG Analyst APAC at BNP Paribas Asset Management.


Copyright © 2022 Lonsec Research Pty Ltd (ABN 11 151 658 561, AFSL No. 421445) (Lonsec). This video is subject to the copyright of Lonsec. Except for the temporary copy held in a computer’s cache and a single permanent copy for your personal reference or other than as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this video may, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, micro-copying, photocopying, recording or otherwise), be reproduced, stored or transmitted without the prior written permission of Lonsec.

This video may also contain third party supplied material that is subject to copyright. Any such material is the intellectual property of that third party or its content providers. The same restrictions applying above to Lonsec copyrighted material, applies to such third party content.

Important information: Any express or implied rating or advice is limited to general advice, it doesn’t consider any personal needs, goals or objectives. Opinions expressed by the presenters are their own.  Before making any decision about financial products, consider whether it is personally appropriate for you in light of your personal circumstances. Obtain and consider the Product Disclosure Statement for each financial product and seek professional personal advice before making any decisions regarding a financial product.

Australia’s electricity sector is the nation’s single largest source of greenhouse gas pollution, accounting for about a third of our total greenhouse gas emissions.

Extreme weather events related to climate change such as prolonged drought, bushfires, heatwaves and storms are becoming increasingly prevalent. Despite this, we are yet to see a consistent policy framework for lowering the energy sector’s carbon emissions. There have been several attempts such as the introduction of the Clean Energy Act 2011, which was subsequently repealed and the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) which included both reliability and emission reduction obligations, but ultimately didn’t eventuate. Rather than targeting emissions, federal policy has focused on encouraging investment in renewables technology via schemes such as the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target and the Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme. Ultimately, a clear national policy framework that facilitates the decarbonisation of the Energy Utility Sector, whilst simultaneously ensuring the stability and security of supply, has not eventuated.

This lack of a nationally co-ordinated approach to manage a transition has resulted in the States each adopting their own policies, some more aggressive than others, but with most targeting net zero by 2050.

Issued by Lonsec Research Pty Ltd ABN 11 151 658 561 AFSL 421 445 (Lonsec). Warning: Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Any advice is General Advice without considering the objectives, financial situation and needs of any person. Before making a decision read the PDS and consider your financial circumstances or seek personal advice. Disclaimer: Lonsec gives no warranty of accuracy or completeness of information in this document, which is compiled from information from public and third-party sources. Opinions are reasonably held by Lonsec at compilation. Lonsec assumes no obligation to update this document after publication. Except for liability which can’t be excluded, Lonsec, its directors, officers, employees and agents disclaim all liability for any error, inaccuracy, misstatement or omission, or any loss suffered through relying on the document or any information. ©2021 Lonsec. All rights reserved. This report may also contain third party material that is subject to copyright. To the extent that copyright subsists in a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material. Any unauthorised reproduction of this information is prohibited. 

New obligations under the FASEA Code of Ethics introduced in 2020 require advisers to meet new ‘ethical and responsible investment obligations’ to their clients. Standard six of the code requires advisers to actively consider each client’s broader long-term interests and likely circumstances, which means that clients should be questioned about their investment preferences around ESG and responsible investing including ethical issues.

However, the market is dominated by different terminology that can be confusing. Product names are often misleading and current approaches to investment ratings fall short in distinguishing between the various features sought by clients.

We demystify 4 common misconceptions in environmental, social and governance (ESG) and Responsible Investing, providing greater clarity around terminology and the distinct investment approaches. By better understanding the  different approaches and how to assess them, advisers can be better prepared to meet their obligations and be in position to have more meaningful discussions with their clients and to provide solutions that better meet their clients’ needs.

Myth 1: ESG and Responsible Investment are the same thing 

ESG Investment and Responsible Investment are used interchangeably within the investment community, and are often, but not always, intended to mean the same thing.

The term ESG is widely used in many contexts and it means different things to different people. In reality, ESG is simply an acronym that specifically refers to environmental, social and governance factors.

Until recently, ‘ESG Investment’ typically referred to an investment approach that prioritised companies with better environmental, social practices and governance – a logical approach that has been shown to reduce potential risk and potentially improve returns. Nowadays the term is often used as a catch all to describe a broader set of investment approaches that involve consideration of environmental, social and governance factors or deliver specific outcomes of a responsible or ethical nature., better described as Responsible Investment.

Responsible Investment refers to a set of approaches that deliver outcomes of a responsible nature. This is explored further in myth 2.

Myth 2: ESG and Responsible Investment strategies are all alike

Responsible Investment strategies (or, as many still say, ESG strategies) are not all alike. They incorporate a variety of different approaches and techniques intended to deliver specific outcomes. Here we identify six distinct strategies which all fall under the banner of ‘Responsible Investment’:

  1. Traditional ESG strategies typically seek to reduce investment risk through focusing on companies with better “E”, “S” and “G” practices. However, other ESG strategies may focus on different outcomes – indeed, looking for companies that are improving their ESG practices is an equally valid approach and may provide better potential returns.
  2. Ethical strategies aim to avoid or reduce investments in areas of ethical concern, such as gambling or tobacco. The scope of their exclusions and related materiality thresholds may vary considerably.
  3. Low Carbon strategies seek to deliver lower carbon emissions or carbon intensity, typically through investments in companies with inherently lower emissions, but not necessarily in companies that are directly contributing to global decarbonisation.
  4. Directly contributing to achieve a desired outcome is more the remit of Sustainably Themed strategies. As the name suggests, these strategies are focused on investing in companies that are in some way ‘sustainable’ and often aligned with sustainability objectives such as the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
  5. Impact Strategies should provide intentional and measurable environmental or social outcomes. This has historically been possible only through direct or private investments, although the term is now being widely used by more mainstream listed sustainably themed funds.
  6. Engagement Strategies seek to achieve better environmental, social or governance outcomes through stewardship activities such as engagement with boards and management teams and targeted voting.

It is important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive. Many ESG or Responsible Investment products align with two or more of these approaches. A sustainably themed strategy can also be ethical, but it may not be low carbon or high ESG scoring. A strategy whose ESG outcomes are delivered via engagement may be most effective if invested in companies with poor sustainability or governance, or environmental laggards requiring improvement.  What is appropriate depends on what each strategy is seeking to achieve, and no ESG strategy will be able to do all things well.

Additionally, the way in which the strategies are implemented will result in significantly different portfolios. Approaches such as negative screening, positive screening, best-in-class, or quantitative scoring will all results in different holdings.  A passive ‘sustainability’ strategy that reduces or eliminates holdings in poor sustainability performers will provide a very different portfolio to an active ‘sustainability’ strategy (such as Nanuk’s New World Fund) which invests only in companies that meet high sustainability thresholds.

Each approach outlined above will lead to different underlying holdings and different outcomes for investors, both in terms of performance and ESG or responsible attributes.

Myth 3: ESG ratings provide a good assessment of ESG products. 

ESG and Responsible Investment encompasses a range of approaches so no single score can adequately measure the quality of a single product across all these approaches.

Many research houses are now providing ESG or sustainability scores, most notably Morningstar whose Sustainability Score (which is actually an ESG risk rating rather than a measure of ‘sustainability’) is widely referenced by advisers. Unfortunately, in many cases these scores do not provide a good measure of whether an ESG or Responsible Investment product is delivering what it should.

This is easy to understand when considering individual companies:

  • A company like Mastercard may have good ESG practices and a high ESG score, and be low carbon, but will not necessarily provide strong sustainability related outcomes.
  • A company like Phillip Morris may also have strong ESG practices and a high ESG score, and be low carbon, but is unlikely to be considered ethical by many.
  • Vice versa, companies like Tesla or Waste Management may provide strong contributions towards environmental outcomes but will not necessarily have low carbon emissions relative to banks or technology companies and may not score well on traditional ESG metrics.

What should be obvious is that separate measures are required to assess a Fund’s performance in each aspect of ESG or Responsible Investment.

Some researchers have started to develop targeted measures, such as Lonsec’s 5 Bees Sustainability Scores, but, as with traditional ESG scores, there are not yet standardised measures of sustainability or ethicalness and such measures can still differ depending on providers.

In the future it is likely we will see greater standardisation of terminology and the emergence of better measures of sustainability, impact, ‘ethicalness’, and low carbon alignment to complement the more widely available measures of ESG best practice.

Similarly, for now, there is no standardisation of product naming. Many funds bear names that include words like ‘sustainability’ that infer certain expectations for their approach and holdings.

In the meantime, the best advice for advisers is to truly understand what clients are seeking and then consider whether the portfolio holdings and the manager’s stewardship activities align with those expectations.

Myth 4: A good ESG product is a good investment

There seems to be a growing belief or acceptance that a product that is good from an ESG perspective is likely to deliver good investment outcomes.

It should be clear that ESG or Sustainability Ratings are assessments of only those aspects of a product, not the product’s potential to meet investment objectives or its suitability within a client portfolio.

Companies within responsible investment funds might be less likely to be involved in environmental disasters, human rights issues and corporate scandals that could negatively affect their investment performance. Companies involved in providing sustainable technologies may benefit from strong growth in these areas and this has already been reflected in the strong investment performance of many of these companies.

However the old adage – past performance is no indication of future performance – remains true, and the increasing interest and investment in ESG and sustainability leaders today may end up detracting from future performance.  At Nanuk Asset Management we continue to focus on actively generating returns from investments in a universe of listed equities exposed to the broad themes of environmental sustainability and resource efficiency, and looking beyond the most prominent names for opportunities with better return potential.

Advisers need to balance appropriately the responsible objectives with their investment goals and find products that are able to deliver the right balance between the two.

Footnote

  1. https://sdgs.un.org/goals

To find out more about Nanuk Asset Management, visit www.nanukasset.com

Issued by Lonsec Research Pty Ltd ABN 11 151 658 561 AFSL 421 445 (Lonsec). Warning: Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Any advice is General Advice without considering the objectives, financial situation and needs of any person. Before making a decision read the PDS and consider your financial circumstances or seek personal advice. Disclaimer: Lonsec gives no warranty of accuracy or completeness of information in this document, which is compiled from information from public and third-party sources. Opinions are reasonably held by Lonsec at compilation. Lonsec assumes no obligation to update this document after publication. Except for liability which can’t be excluded, Lonsec, its directors, officers, employees and agents disclaim all liability for any error, inaccuracy, misstatement or omission, or any loss suffered through relying on the document or any information. ©2021 Lonsec. All rights reserved. This report may also contain third party material that is subject to copyright. To the extent that copyright subsists in a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material. Any unauthorised reproduction of this information is prohibited. 

Like many others, the COVID-19 lock-downs were an opportunity to develop new hobbies. One of my new hobbies was to join a film club. A few months ago, we watched ‘The Graduate’ starring a young Dustin Hoffman as the eponymous graduate ‘Benjamin’. A key moment in the film involves a friend of Benjamin’s parents advising him to get into plastics because “there’s going to be a great future in plastics.”

And of course, in the 1960s, when the film was set, getting into plastics would have been great advice. The success of that industry has brought plenty of benefits, but too much plastic has also of course created lots of problems that we are living with now.

If you are talking to a graduate today, I think the advice might be to get into sustainability or even into ‘ESG’. Certainly, that seems to be the ambition of a lot of young analysts today. But might we be storing up future trouble by embracing ESG too unquestioningly?

Like selling wheatgrass to a cancer patient

Tariq Fancy certainly thinks so. Mr Fancy is the ex-Chief Sustainable Investment Officer at BlackRock. He doesn’t just think that ESG is ineffective as other critiques have asserted. In a 40-page essay he claims that ESG is actively dangerous. After leaving BlackRock in 2019, he concluded that ‘our work in sustainable investing was like selling wheatgrass to a cancer patient’. Not only ineffective, but actively damaging because it delays the patient from receiving effective therapies.

Juxtaposed with this view is the argument set out in Sir Ronald Cohen’s book ‘Impact – Reshaping capitalism to drive real change’. This sets out a manifesto for a new way of thinking about finance, putting positive impact at its heart. The book argues that finance can have an enormously positive impact in addressing the critical challenges facing the world today. So who is right?

ESG focuses on reducing investment risk

The first thing to say of course is that ESG and impact investing are not the same. Fancy characterises ESG as being like ‘good sportsmanship’. For Blackrock perhaps ESG is about trying to get companies to be better corporate citizens. But for most of the market, ESG investing is mainly about managing risk. Recognising that the world is changing, investors analyse exposure to material ESG issues, and assess how well-equipped companies are to mitigate these risks.

ESG investing processes may indeed help to avoid risk (we think they can) but this is not the same as reducing impact in the real world. Divesting a portfolio of carbon stocks is a good way to decarbonise a portfolio, but this divestment does little to decarbonise the economy. (We argue that divestment can have important socio-political ramifications but recognise that divestment itself will have little immediate effect on carbon emissions.) Fancy is wrong to characterise ESG investing as nothing more than making ‘vague promises to be responsible’. But he is right to call out asset managers who claim ESG investing alone can save the world.

Impact investing focuses on creating positive impact

Impact investing in contrast is explicitly about creating positive impact in the real world. It puts impact at the heart of the investment case and seeks to measure the positive impact in the real world.  ESG is concerned about real world impacts on companies. Impact investing is focused on a company’s impact on the real world.

Is there a business case for ESG?

Fancy also takes issue with claims that there is a financial case for addressing ESG issues (what he calls ‘the overlap between purpose and profit’). Improvements in ‘operational’ ESG – reducing energy use, hazardous waste generation, health and safety incidents – can deliver improvements in financial performance. However, we’d agree that it is an altogether greater challenge to claim a business case when the core product is under-attack. We have seen oil and gas companies improve their health and safety track record over recent decades. It has been much more difficult to get them to give up on their core product.

Impact investors, in contrast, invest in companies that sell products and services that help to reduce carbon emissions and create positive impacts. These are businesses that are enabling a transition to a zero carbon and more sustainable economy. And by enabling this transition, they also benefit from it because they sell more of their products and services. In these cases, revenue growth goes hand-in-hand with more positive impact.

How exactly companies and their investors create positive impact is beyond the scope of this article but is something that we will be addressing in greater depth in a forthcoming white paper.

Regulatory change

Like anyone confronted with the reality of climate change, Fancy believes that society needs to respond systemically and change the entire economy’s relationship with carbon. We wholeheartedly agree. In fact, 456 investors representing $41 trillion in assets also agree. This group, which included WHEB, signed a ‘Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis’ calling for urgent regulatory action to tackle climate change.

For these investors, ESG is not intended to delay regulatory change. Far from it. They are advocating for regulatory change and believe it necessary and urgent. This advocacy isn’t an alternative to ESG investing, but a complement to it. Some investors may be using ESG as a smokescreen aimed at delaying regulation. Tariq Fancy’s critique should be aimed directly at them.

Visit Pengana to find out more

Pengana Capital Limited (Pengana) (ABN 30 103 800 568, AFSL 226566) is the issuer of units in the Pengana WHEB Sustainable Impact Fund (ARSN 121 915 526) (the Fund). A Product Disclosure Statement for the Fund (PDS) is available and can be obtained from our distribution team or website. A person should obtain a copy of the PDS and should consider the PDS carefully before deciding whether to acquire, or to continue to hold, or making any other decision in respect of, the units in the Fund. This content does not contain any investment recommendation or investment advice, and has been prepared without taking account of any person’s objectives, financial situation or needs. Therefore, before acting on any information contained herein,  a person should consider the appropriateness of the information, having regard to their objectives, financial situation and needs. None of Pengana, WHEB Asset Management LLP (WHEB), or their related entities, directors, partners or officers guarantees the performance of, or the repayment of capital, or income invested in the Fund. An investment in the Fund is subject to investment risk including a possible delay in repayment and loss of income and principal invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. The value of the investment can go up or down.

 

With issuance of green, social and sustainability bonds expected to hit a record $650 billion this year, Schroders’ Head of Sustainable Credit Saida Eggerstedt tackles the topic of greenwashing.

“We are in a boom era for borrowing linked to sustainability criteria,” according to Saida Eggerstedt, Schroders’ Head of Sustainable Credit.

In 2020, the global issuance of green bonds alone totalled $226 billion as governments and companies sought finance for planet-friendly initiatives, Bloomberg has revealed. That’s compared to about $40 billion at the end of 2015. Global issuance of green, social and sustainability bonds will hit a record $650 billion in 2021, a 32% increase over last year, according to Moody’s Investor Service.

But while green bonds are clearly in fashion, there is less agreement about their definitions and the standards underpinning them (see below).

Saida says: “The recovery from the global pandemic has been fuelling this expansion, as governments across the world are looking to stimulate economies and create jobs while committing to ambitious environmental targets.”

“This is being met eagerly by institutional investors wanting to meet their own ESG objectives and seeking returns in an unrewarding global fixed income market,” Saida explains.

However, as the pandemic pushes sustainability bonds from niche to mainstream, she warns: “There are concerns that asset selection standards or sustainability objectives of issuers might not be as high or as tight as they could be, which could leave some open to accusations of greenwashing.”

Green, social and sustainability-linked bonds explained

Green bonds, which have so far hogged the limelight, are issued by governments and companies specifically to fund new and existing projects with environmental benefits – such as renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

Saida cites GetLink, the company which runs the Channel Tunnel linking Britain to mainland Europe, as a recent example. It issued green bonds last year to finance clean energy projects such as low-carbon transport and wind farms.

“Britain will issue its first green government bond this year to tackle the climate crisis and aid recovery from the pandemic. Germany, France and the Netherlands are among countries to have issued green bonds already, and the European Commission said in September last year that 30% of the EU’s coronavirus recovery programme should be funded this way.”

Meanwhile social bonds have funded a range of causes from access to education, affordable transportation, and food supply protection. According to Bloomberg, the issuance of social bonds increased seven-fold last year, partly due to the response to Covid-19.

Saida says: “The pandemic saw the International Finance Corporation, the global development institution and sister organisation to the World Bank, issue bonds to reduce the economic impact on developing countries, for example”.

Sustainability-linked bonds are a hot topic at the moment. The issuer commits explicitly to future improvements in sustainability outcomes across the business within a predefined timeline.

For example, Italian energy company Enel and Brazilian pulp and paper producer Suzano have issued bonds that link the cost of capital to their objectives to decarbonise the production process.

Saida says: “High profile examples include the French luxury goods brand Chanel and UK retailer Tesco. Schroders itself converted its corporate credit facility into an ESG-linked one in 2019 – with pricing dependent on performance on diversity targets, ESG investment integration and use of renewable energy.”

Are there global standards?

“The lack of accepted global principles is one of the biggest challenges,” Saida says.

Investor trade body The International Capital Markets Association has launched both green and sustainability-linked bond principles but these are voluntary standards outlining how issuers can use funds and keep investors informed.

Meanwhile, the Climate Bonds Initiative, an international not-for-profit, has its own criteria and describes its scheme as a “Fair trade-like labelling scheme for bonds”.

The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures is helping to standardise climate-related financial reporting, which in turn should improve clarity around green bonds.

Saida says: “The fact is many companies aren’t quoted on one of the world’s major stock markets. Some of them are smaller companies which need bond-holder stewardship and engagement to improve their transparency and accounting. I think bond-holders have a big role to play, sometimes alongside their equity colleagues.”

Some markets are clearly ahead of others in the sustainable investing journey, but it is not a straightforward picture, Saida says. “Europe is leading with the US and Asia showing momentum. That is important for reaching global sustainability targets. I am positively surprised by the Emerging Market issuers. Recent bonds, linked to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, from a Brazilian company are very advanced, even looking at issues such as workers’ mental health, for example.”

Asking questions, monitoring outcomes

Investors and asset managers must do their homework to assess a bond issuer’s credentials and targets and to monitor sustainable outcomes.

The oil and gas sector’s first green bond was issued by Repsol in May 2017 raising €500 million, with the Spanish giant claiming the finance would help it cut CO2 emissions by 1.2 million tonnes within three years. However, the money was to go towards upgrading and making more efficient its existing fossil fuel refineries.

Saida says: “The Repsol green bond should remind investors how important it is we ask questions around what constitutes a valid target or key performance indicator. There is also the issue of monitoring how the money is spent.”

Saida continues: “Investors must undertake due diligence and not just believe issuers’ promises that the money they get from a green or other ESG bond is used solely for appropriate projects. There are even fears some companies could be opportunistic and try to access cheaper funding while waiting for suitable initiatives to come along. It is clear that bonds must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

Important Information

The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.

Important Information:
This material has been issued by Schroder Investment Management Australia Limited (ABN 22 000 443 274, AFSL 226473) (Schroders) for information purposes only. It is intended solely for professional investors and financial advisers and is not suitable for distribution to retail clients. The views and opinions contained herein are those of the authors as at the date of publication and are subject to change due to market and other conditions. Such views and opinions may not necessarily represent those expressed or reflected in other Schroders communications, strategies or funds. The information contained is general information only and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Schroders does not give any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of information which is contained in this material. Except insofar as liability under any statute cannot be excluded, Schroders and its directors, employees, consultants or any company in the Schroders Group do not accept any liability (whether arising in contract, in tort or negligence or otherwise) for any error or omission in this material or for any resulting loss or damage (whether direct, indirect, consequential or otherwise) suffered by the recipient of this material or any other person. This material is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for, accounting, legal or tax advice. Any references to securities, sectors, regions and/or countries are for illustrative purposes only. You should note that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. Schroders may record and monitor telephone calls for security, training and compliance purposes.

Important information: Any express or implied rating or advice is limited to general advice, it doesn’t consider any personal needs, goals or objectives.  Before making any decision about financial products, consider whether it is personally appropriate for you in light of your personal circumstances. Obtain and consider the Product Disclosure Statement for each financial product and seek professional personal advice before making any decisions regarding a financial product.