ESG: assessing business practices.
At Lombard Odier, we take a three-tiered approach to understanding the sustainability of a company’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices, considering long-term metrics, short-term metrics and impact metrics.
Source: LOIM. For illustrative purposes only
Long-term metric: A multi-lens perspective on long-term sustainability
While simple ESG scoring methodologies can be a useful guide to assessing which companies have more sustainable practices than others, we find they do not generally reveal who is making real, measurable progress over time. They can also naturally favour larger companies with the resources to spend on creating transparency around their social and environmental practices. In order to understand these dynamics better and generate a more meaningful outcome, we introduced our proprietary ‘CAR’ methodology in 2012.
CAR scoring methodology
CAR stands for ‘Consciousness’, ‘Action’ and ‘Results’. It sorts through vast amount of raw ESG data to better differentiate between the talkers, the do-ers and the real achievers. We place a greater emphasis on the ‘R’ when arriving at the final score to give our investment teams a much deeper understanding of genuine corporate sustainability.
Short-term metric: Controversy scoring to understand short-term sustainability risk
Serious corporate responsibility failings tend to materialise, in the short term, in the form of controversies. The impact of these events can be meaningful for investors because they create reputational issues, often leading to lower market performance.
To understand this risk in the short term, we look at companies’ exposure to controversies and gauge the severity of these issues, applying a “Controversy Score” from 0 to 5, where 0 is no concern and 5 is a major concern. Companies with scores of 4 and 5 can be screened out of portfolios as a way to limit portfolio risk. We have implemented an internal policy under which trading in level 5 controversy companies is restricted without further explanation and validation at CIO level.
We also seek to engage with companies featured on the controversies’ list as a way to mitigate risk.
Classification of incidents following standards by United Nations Global Compact Principles
Source: LOIM. For illustrative purposes only
Impact metrics
In analysing how well companies are positioned for the transition to a CLIC™ (Circular, Lean, Inclusive, and Clean) economy, we believe it is important to understand the impact they have from a socio-economic context. The level of opportunity a company faces in terms of growth or competitive advantage will be materially affected by its impact and warrants close analysis. We also believe it is important for investors to easily understand what impact they are accountable for.
We have developed a series of impact metrics relating to carbon emissions and water consumption to address two specific needs: to help portfolio managers pick the right stocks; and to help end investors more easily understand what they are accountable for.
On carbon emissions, we look at the total production and emissions scope of a company including production, energy usage and its supply chain. Our methodology for reporting carbon emissions is aligned with the final recommendations of the Taskforce for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD).
For water we look at both how much the company has purchased as well as its direct withdrawal from water sources.
We then calculate two different ratios for each metric: first, the intensity ratio, which is the level of carbon emissions or water consumption per revenue unit which can be used to compare the carbon and water intensity of a company versus its peers; second, we calculate the investment ratio, which is the level of carbon emissions or water consumption per investment unit as a way of identifying a company’s accountability.
Source: LOIM. For illustrative purposes only
Carbon metrics
-
Absolute carbon emissions: measures the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by a company over a year. Our methodology covers all 3 scopes (including scope 3 upstream and scope 3 downstream) both at company-level and at portfolio-level. When aggregating the carbon footprint of a portfolio, one cannot just calculate a weighted average of the absolute emissions of the underlying companies, it needs to be proportional to the total amount of all investments held in the company (both debt and equity). Therefore, we use the carbon investment ratio.
-
Carbon investment ratio: this is equal to the absolute carbon emissions of a company per unit of market capitalisation + debt (or in other terms: Enterprise Value minus Cash). Therefore, when measuring the carbon footprint of a portfolio, the weighted average of the carbon investment ratios of the underlying companies are calculated. This figure is the carbon emission per million US dollars invested in the portfolio and multiplying it by the amount invested will provide the carbon footprint of the portfolio.
-
Carbon intensity: the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of revenue generated by a company. The intensity of a portfolio is the weighted average intensity of its underlying companies. We consider the portfolio as a company composed of the weighted average of its positions. Our methodology covers all 3 scopes (including scope 3 upstream and scope 3 downstream) both at company-level and at portfolio-level.
-
Temperature alignment: This proprietary tool uses a robust, science-based framework to strategically analyse portfolio temperature alignment across all of our portfolios. Click here to find out more about our LO Portfolio Temperature Alignment Tool.
Sovereign bonds: In order to calculate the impact metrics for sovereign bond portfolios, we calculate carbon emissions at a country level using Bloomberg data. Additionally, we use annual World Bank data to measure the absolute level of carbon emission within a country. We obtain the intensity ratio by dividing this amount by the GDP (current USD). In order to calculate the country’s carbon investment ratio we will apply the following formula:
(Country total CO2 emissions x government revenues in % of GDP) / (GDP x government debt in % of GDP)
insights.
- investment viewpoints
Cool as ice? Why hard-to-abate sectors can be net-zero investment opportunities
Carbon-intensive businesses in hard-to-abate sectors are not necessarily risks for climate-aware investors – they can present opportunities.
- investment viewpoints
Investing in solutions to keep Earth within Planetary Boundaries
Six of the nine Planetary Boundaries have already been crossed. How do we invest in solutions that help us course correct and find our way back to safety?