investment viewpoints

Designing temperature alignment metrics to invest in net zero

Designing temperature alignment metrics
Thomas Höhne-Sparborth, PhD - Head of Sustainability Research

Thomas Höhne-Sparborth, PhD

Head of Sustainability Research
Michael Urban, PhD - Chief Sustainability Strategist

Michael Urban, PhD

Chief Sustainability Strategist

The private sector is increasingly aware of the physical and transitional risks and opportunities associated with climate change. Implied temperature rise (ITR) metrics provide an effective means of quantifying this challenge.  

The Paris Agreement’s overarching objective is to keep “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. However, Earth is currently on track for a 3.2°C warming by 2100, with further temperature increase thereafter, according to the UNEP.  In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also found that to contain global warming to 1.5°C, our remaining carbon budget sat at around 420GtCO2 (for a two-thirds chance of success). In the three years spanning 2018 to 2020, we have collectively spent nearly a quarter of that budget, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

 

Which companies are prepared for the climate transition?

Consequently, financial institutions—both private and public—are rapidly rethinking how they assess risks and rewards and are working towards developing innovative ways of pricing what we term Climate Value Impact (CVI). In essence, CVI provides a quantified notion of whether companies are likely to be positively or negatively exposed to the physical as well as the political-economic effects of the climate transition. CVI encompasses transitional, physical and liability risks. Arguably, transitional risks are, as of today, the most material to investment decision-making because of the ongoing acceleration of climate mitigation responses. These transition risks include:

•    The impact of regulation that may cause some businesses to lose their license to operate.
•    Rising capital expenditures and increased operating costs linked to the abatement of emissions through decarbonisation technologies.
•    Rising expenditures linked to carbon prices and taxes.
•    Demand destruction as consumers and businesses move away from selected products or services such as fossil fuels, air travel, combustion engines and meat.

We can distinguish three main categories of companies with respect to their CVI profile:

•    Companies insulated from carbon risks: This category includes companies in various sectors where the climate transition is expected to have limited financial impact. This includes most low-carbon sectors, where the costs of transition are generally low, with some exceptions. These companies tend to have a lower exposure to CVI. As such, investors may have a higher tolerance for companies that are not yet achieving rapid reductions in their emissions given that they are in a position to transition with relative ease (at limited costs and over a comparatively shorter time frame).

•    Companies in sectors facing market opportunities: Companies in these sectors are generally positively-exposed to the climate transition. They tend to offer products and services that stand to benefit from increased demand as the transition progresses (i.e. renewable energy companies and electric vehicles manufacturers). These companies tend to be positively exposed to CVI, sometimes significantly so. For these companies, while reducing their own emissions can unlock competitive advantages compared to other solution providers, they generally remain well-positioned in the market as a whole. 

•    Companies in sectors facing high transitional impact: This generally includes high-emitting industries which are critical to the climate transition (i.e. energy, steel, glass and cement, etc.) where climate laggards face significant risks, but where transitioning leaders may access significant market gains. These companies are highly exposed to  CVI, and whether this exposure is positive or adverse will largely depend on their transitional strategies. This is likely the most material category to meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and concomitantly possibly the most important category for investors to understand.

 

Assessing investment climate performance

Implied temperature rise (ITR) metrics, a critical building block of CVI, are now rapidly gaining traction in the investment community. Indeed, ITR metrics have a fundamental role to play in helping distinguish climate leaders from climate laggards within individual sectors and industries. Their scenario-based analysis and assessment of companies' projected emissions is also a necessary ingredient for the subsequent analysis of exposure to abatement costs, carbon prices and other financial dynamics. Although ITR metrics are relevant to all three categories of firms presented above, they are particularly salient to distinguish between high-emitting transition leaders and laggards in order to manage the CVI of investment portfolios. 

ITR metrics allow investors to assess their investment(s)’ climate performance—be it that of individual securities or of entire portfolios—against a reference benchmark. To say a company has a 1.5 °C temperature is to say that global warming could be limited to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels should the entire economy undertake an equivalent level of decarbonisation. This metric brings a forward-looking perspective to carbon footprinting metrics, which assess historical emissions.  

In this paper, we first review the state of the art of temperature alignment metrics. Secondly, we formalize a theoretical framework to guide the design of ITR metrics. Thirdly, we provide an in-depth description of the fair share carbon budget approach which resolves previously identified problems in using absolute emissions versus intensity based emissions to compute temperature metrics. Fourthly, we offer a case study to discuss, in light of empirical evidence, the strengths and weaknesses of different methodological choices. To conclude, we discuss limitations and offer ideas for future research efforts.
 

Informazioni importanti.

RISERVATO AGLI INVESTITORI PROFESSIONISTI

Il presente documento è stato pubblicato da Lombard Odier Funds (Europe) S.A., una società per azioni di diritto lussemburghese avente sede legale a 291, route d’Arlon, 1150 Lussemburgo, autorizzata e regolamentata dalla CSSF quale Società di gestione ai sensi della direttiva europea 2009/65/CE e successive modifiche e della direttiva europea 2011/61/UE  sui gestori di fondi di investimento alternativi (direttiva AIFM). Scopo della Società di gestione è la creazione, promozione, amministrazione, gestione e il marketing di OICVM lussemburghesi ed esteri, fondi d’investimento alternativi ("AIF") e altri fondi regolamentati, strumenti di investimento collettivo e altri strumenti di investimento, nonché l’offerta di servizi di gestione di portafoglio e consulenza per gli investimenti.
Lombard Odier Investment Managers (“LOIM”) è un marchio commerciale.
Questo documento è fornito esclusivamente a scopo informativo e non costituisce un’offerta o una raccomandazione di acquisto o vendita di titoli o servizi. Il presente documento non è destinato a essere distribuito, pubblicato o utilizzato in qualunque giurisdizione in cui tale distribuzione, pubblicazione o utilizzo fossero illeciti. Il presente documento non contiene raccomandazioni o consigli personalizzati e non intende sostituire un'assistenza professionale in materia di investimenti in prodotti finanziari. Prima di effettuare una transazione qualsiasi, l’investitore dovrebbe valutare attentamente se l’operazione è idonea alla propria situazione personale e, ove necessario, richiedere una consulenza professionale indipendente riguardo ai rischi e a eventuali conseguenze legali, normative, creditizie, fiscali e contabili. Il presente documento è proprietà di LOIM ed è rivolto al destinatario esclusivamente per uso personale. Il presente documento non può essere riprodotto (in tutto o in parte), trasmesso, modificato o utilizzato per altri fini senza la previa autorizzazione scritta di LOIM. Questo documento riporta le opinioni di LOIM alla data di pubblicazione.
Né il presente documento né copie di esso possono essere inviati, portati o distribuiti negli Stati Uniti d’America, nei loro territori e domini o in aree soggette alla loro giurisdizione, oppure a o a favore di US Person. A tale proposito, con l’espressione “US Person” s’intende un soggetto avente cittadinanza, nazionalità o residenza negli Stati Uniti d’America, una società di persone costituita o esistente in uno qualsiasi degli stati, dei territori, o dei domini degli Stati Uniti d’America, o una società di capitali disciplinata dalle leggi degli Stati Uniti o di un qualsiasi loro stato, territorio o dominio, o ogni patrimonio o trust il cui reddito sia soggetto alle imposte federali statunitensi, indipendentemente dal luogo di provenienza.
Fonte dei dati: se non indicato diversamente, i dati sono elaborati da LOIM.
Alcune informazioni sono state ottenute da fonti pubbliche ritenute attendibili, ma in assenza di una verifica indipendente non possiamo garantire la loro correttezza e completezza.
I giudizi e le opinioni qui espresse hanno esclusivamente scopo informativo e non costituiscono una raccomandazione di LOIM a comprare, vendere o conservare un titolo. I giudizi e le opinioni sono validi alla data della presentazione, possono essere soggetti a modifiche e non devono essere intesi come una consulenza di investimento. Non dovrebbero essere intesi come una consulenza di investimento.
Il presente documento non può essere (i) riprodotto, fotocopiato o duplicato, in alcuna forma o maniera, né (ii) distribuito a persone che non siano dipendenti, funzionari, amministratori o agenti autorizzati del destinatario, senza il previo consenso di Lombard Odier Funds (Europe) S.A. ©2021 Lombard Odier IM. Tutti i diritti riservati.