CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE By Guido Moret, Head of Sustainability Integration Credits at Robeco*
Although investors are increasingly embracing sustainable investing, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Sustainable investing means different things to different people, and their investment goals can vary considerably. Nevertheless, there have been some very interesting developments in this ever-evolving field – not least in credit and fixed income investments.
Launched in 2015 and often used as the basis for impact investing, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) take the quest for sustainability to the next level by making integration tangible and measurable.
In recent years, it’s become increasingly apparent that incorporating sustainable investing (SI) into an investment strategy doesn’t detract from performance. In contrast, professional investors intentionally seek to leverage SI and the payoff is two-fold; not only are they likely to benefit financially, but the ability to give to the greater good is also a driving force.
Investors are increasingly looking to create more sustainable portfolios. The natural consequence of moving from an exercise of pure financial gain to one that equally recognises non-monetary gains is leading to the emergence of a new investment industry – it’s an industry that has evolved from wealth creation, to one of wealth creation and well-being. And the UN’s SDGs are fundamental to this shift.
Investors are becoming increasingly interested in investment products that contribute to the realisation of these goals and at the same time offer attractive returns. But with 17 goals and 169 targets -such as the elimination of poverty and hunger, decent work and growth, sustainable cities and communities – the SDGs address a very broad range of issues, some of which have conflicting impacts on each other.
There are many intuitive reasons why it’s essential to incorporate SDG considerations into investment strategies. In an increasingly renewables-powered global economy, it is easy to foresee that the business models of companies such as coal miners, oil producers and fossil fuel-based electricity generators will come under severe pressure. Although less obvious, the same applies to car manufacturers that do not adapt quickly enough to a world of electric vehicles.
The financial consequences – in the form of fines, compensation and potential license withdrawals – can be very material for companies that fail to act in accordance with the SDGs. Environmental spills, bribery, money laundering and miss-selling are a few examples. Ignoring the SDGs could therefore ultimately affect every investor, reinforcing the relevance of SDG-linked investment strategies.
Those companies that offer solutions to help achieve the SDGs may well be the winners of the future as well as attractive investment candidates.
The UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that between $US 5 and 7 trillion per year will be needed to achieve these goals within the desired timescale. As governments alone are unlikely to be able find such huge sums of money, the UN has explicitly asked the private sector, including asset owners, to contribute as well. According to a survey among Dutch institutional investors carried out by the Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development, SDGs are on the agenda of pension fund boards, although most of them have yet to integrate SDGs into their portfolios.
Using clear, objective and consistent guidelines it is possible to deal with some of the challenges faced by screening companies for their SDG preparedness. These guidelines include analysis of:
Then, based on this information, a credit portfolio can be created that not only makes a positive contribution to the UN SDGs but also delivers attractive financial returns.
But the fact that a credit has made it through the SDG screening is never the only reason to invest in it. A fundamental credit analysis should be conducted, and a position only taken if it offers attractive valuations relative to its fundamentals.
As an example, Robeco’s Credits team has applied its SDG framework to a credit universe of over 600 names. This universe is diversified in terms of sectors and consists of investment grade, high yield, and emerging issuers. The overall outcome was that 60% of the companies were assessed as making a positive contribution to the SDGs; 24% of companies received a negative SDG score; and 16% received a neutral ranking. In 10% of cases, the scores were adjusted in steps 2 and 3.
It’s difficult to approach SDGs purely through sectors. Nevertheless, based on the framework analysis applied, grid operators and companies in the banking, health care, utility and communications sectors generally have a strong SDG profile, while companies in the food and beverage, automotive and energy sectors generally have a weaker one.
The weaker SDG profile of companies in the food and beverage sector might seem somewhat surprising. Intuitively, one would expect the food and beverage sector as a whole to contribute significantly to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Unfortunately, however, the opposite turns out to be the case. Both SDG 2 and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) require healthy and nutritious food. And herein lies the problem. Most food and beverage producers add too much sugar and/or fat to their products. The result is unhealthy high-calorie foods that are helping fuel the global obesity epidemic.
More and more food manufacturers are adapting their product palette to tackle this, but the proportion of healthy foods they produce is generally still far below the thresholds defined in our SDG framework.
Another challenging industry from an SDG perspective is the energy sector. In our SDG framework both the E&P (exploration and production) and oil services (oilfield services and refining) industries are assessed as negative. We currently categorise natural gas as an ‘intermediate’ energy source and believe it could facilitate the transition to a global economy based entirely on renewable sources of energy. Those E&P companies at which over 65% of production consists of natural gas actually receive a positive-low impact SDG score, while those with 45% receive a neutral impact score. An additional requirement is that companies in this industry should not engage in fracking.
Unfortunately, there are very few companies that are able to achieve these thresholds.
Other sectors that generally do not do particularly well in the SDG assessment are the aerospace, defense, tobacco, and gaming industries. Sectors that have a more positive impact from an SDG perspective include telecoms, banks, grid operators, and healthcare/pharmaceutical companies.
So, while it is easy for asset managers to talk about sustainability, it is much more challenging for them to implement it. Compounding the lack of a clear definition is the challenge of measuring the impact sustainable investors make.
Nevertheless, it is clear that applying various dimensions of sustainability to credit portfolios – including exclusion, ESG integration, engagement, environmental footprint reduction, green bonds and alignment with the UN SDGs – and using financially-material ESG information, will lead to better-informed investment decisions with the added bonus of providing benefits to society.
*Robeco was one of the first asset managers to launch an SDG Equities product and the very first to launch an SDG Credits product.
Originally published in Money Management July 18th, 2019