The 2024 Robeco Global Climate Investing Survey of 300 institutional and wholesale investors provided fascinating insights into the state of play of climate investing. Some 62% of investors see climate change as being central to their investment policies, and 69% have a net-zero commitment, or are in the process of making one.
It means that investors’ commitments have held strong, in spite of a widespread realization that the policy momentum is weakening: 49% of investors think that the climate transition will be ‘too little, too late’, and 41% believe that the goals of the Paris agreement are no longer achievable.
This may appear as a contradiction, but when looking at investors’ plans for capital allocation, it starts to make more sense. Traditionally, allocations to low-carbon strategies and climate solutions have dominated the approach to climate investing. But there is a new kid on the block: 63% of investors are (or will be) allocating capital to transition strategies, focusing on high-emitting companies with credible plans to lower those emissions. This is shown in the chart below:
Source: Robeco Global Climate Investing Survey, May 2024
What is transition investing?
Transition investing targets companies who may be at the beginning of this journey to combat climate change. Historically, policies on transition financing differed from region to region, leading to inconsistent definitions and unclear labels for investments.
This meant that it was safest to focus on financed emissions as a core metric in portfolios, leading many institutional investors to steer away from carbon-intensive industries. This reduced accounted emissions in portfolios, but not necessarily real-world emissions.
And despite massive commitments to net zero from governments, industry and investors worldwide (equivalent to 92% of global GDP), real-world emissions have continued to rise. So while net zero continues to be the horizon, the immediate job at hand is to support and accelerate climate action by high-emitting companies. In other words: climate transition finance.
Measuring climate transition finance
The need to define transition finance was addressed by a G20 report highlighting 22 high-level principles for transition finance.1 The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) subsequently updated its Climate Transition Finance Handbook to include guidance for issuers in the ‘hard-to-abate’ sectors and extend the existing Green, Social and Sustainable (GSS) Bond Framework to facilitate transition financing.
This guidance is critical because transition finance comes with a significant risk of greenwashing. The guidance from authorities and market standards bodies emphasizes the need for robust measurement of the ambition, intentionality and credibility of company transition plans.
At Robeco, we have operationalized this in three measures which help to identify eligible investments supporting the concept. These are climate transition leaders, climate solutions providers, and GSS bonds. Let’s deal with each one in turn.
Climate transition leaders
We identify these companies through our Climate Traffic Light assessment of their degree of alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement, taking into consideration the common but differentiated responsibilities of different nations.
The degree of alignment is determined by assessing two questions. The first is to ask whether the company’s projected emissions are in line with its required sector decarbonization pathway under a well below 2 °C scenario, regionally adjusted where needed. The second is to find out if the company has verified credible targets for achieving its emission-reduction plans.
The chart below shows the traffic light distribution per sector based on its market weight in the MSCI World Index. From this perspective, a large part of the index appears to be well in line with the Paris Agreement – it’s largely green.
Source: Robeco, July 2024
But what matters for the climate transition are the carbon-intensive sectors. So, the second chart shows the same numbers, but now weighted by their carbon footprints. This time it becomes very clear that misaligned and partially aligned companies are dominating the index in terms of climate impact. They are concentrated in the high-emission sectors, and so an increased effort should be made to bring these into alignment.
Source: Robeco, July 2024
It’s a similar story in the bond market. The charts below show the traffic light distribution for the same sectors but compared with the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond Index. The first chart shows sector distribution by market weight and the second by carbon footprint.
Source: Robeco, July 2024
Source: Robeco, July 2024
Climate solution providers
These are companies providing solutions to enable climate change mitigation. They are often found in industrial sectors and therefore may have reasonably high-carbon-intensive processes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA) both provide lists of which technologies, activities and services can substantially contribute to mitigating climate change and thus constitute climate solutions.
Jurisdictions like the EU and the Monetary Authority of Singapore are establishing taxonomies to identify activities which they see as contributing significantly to climate change mitigation and adaptation, both of which can be considered climate solutions.
GSS bonds
For fixed income investors, various instruments and types are available to help finance the transition. Our focus is on green bonds, where the proceeds will be exclusively applied to finance eligible climate projects. To combat greenwashing, Robeco has developed a proprietary five-step analysis to properly conduct selection and monitoring of GSS bonds.
The analysis is designed to ensure that only those GSS bonds that adhere to internationally accepted principles and which truly have an impact are eligible for the portfolio. The analysis is in line with the most recent regulatory developments on sustainable finance and applies to both corporate and government bonds.
Transition means exactly that
So, where to look for opportunities? Many companies are taking steps to transition their business models toward low carbon, but may lack in ambition or in delivery, earning an amber traffic light. We believe that transition strategies should also selectively invest in these companies, combined with active engagement to accelerate and enhance the company’s transition plan.
Our stewardship strategy focuses on material sustainability issues, which provides additional insights for portfolio construction. It’s a win-win: aiding organizations in adopting good transition practices while deepening our understanding of each industry’s unique challenges and opportunities.
Engaging with public and private entities and with policymakers on their transition plans keeps us at the forefront of this changing landscape. This in turn provides us with information to refine our assessments and generate alpha. Our approach to transition brings insight and foresight; incorporating these into our portfolios should bring impact and returns.
This article is an excerpt of a special topic in our five-year outlook.
See all articles in this series時刻把握我們最新市場觀點及電子報
接收荷寶電子報,率先閱讀最新洞察分析,並構建最綠色的投資組合。
Footnote
1 https://g20sfwg.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-G20-Sustainable-Finance-Report-2.pdf
免責聲明
本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。