ReportWire

Tag: esg

  • December Global Regulatory Brief: Green finance | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    European Commission proposes simplified transparency rules for Sustainable Financial products

    The European Commission has proposed a set of amendments to the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) to make sustainability disclosure rules simpler, clearer, and more cost-efficient. The revisions aim to reduce reporting burdens for financial market participants (FMPs), make disclosures more understandable for retail investors, and introduce a clear categorisation system for sustainable financial products.

    Context

    The SFDR, in force since March 2021, established the EU’s transparency framework for sustainability-related financial products. However, the Commission’s recent review found the framework overly complex, costly to implement, and unintentionally used as a labelling regime, leading to investor confusion. The proposed changes are part of the Commission’s broader effort to streamline EU financial regulation, consistent with the February 2025 “Omnibus I” simplification package.

    Key takeaways

    • Streamlined Entity-Level Disclosures:
      • Entity-level reporting on “principal adverse impacts” will be deleted from SFDR to eliminate overlap with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
      • Only large FMPs covered under CSRD thresholds will be required to disclose their environmental and social impacts.
      • This reform significantly reduces duplication and compliance costs for smaller firms.
    • Simplified Product-Level Disclosures:
      • Product disclosures will be limited to essential, comparable, and meaningful sustainability data.
      • The aim is to improve investor understanding and comparability while reducing complexity for product manufacturers.
      • Retail-oriented presentation standards will be introduced to improve clarity.
    • Introduction of Three Product Categories:
      • Sustainable: Products investing in assets that already meet high sustainability standards.
      • Transition: Products supporting entities or projects on a credible path toward sustainability.
      • ESG Basics: Products applying general ESG integration or exclusion strategies without qualifying as sustainable or transition investments.
      • Categorized products must ensure at least 70% of investments align with their sustainability strategy and must exclude harmful sectors (e.g., human rights violators, tobacco, prohibited weapons, high fossil fuel exposure).
      • ESG-related product names and marketing claims will be restricted to products within these categories.

    Next steps

    The Commission’s proposal will now proceed to the European Parliament and EU Member States (Council) for consideration under the ordinary legislative procedure. At a future date, the Commission will issue implementing rules setting out the technical specifications for disclosures and category criteria.

    Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) consults on UK ESG Ratings Regime

    The FCA has launched a comprehensive consultation setting out the detailed regulatory framework for the UK’s new ESG ratings regime. The proposals combine baseline FCA rules with tailored requirements covering transparency, governance, conflicts of interest, and stakeholder engagement. The consultation is open until 31 March 2026 and final rules are expected in Q4 2026, with the regime going live on 29 June 2028.

    Context

    The consultation follows HM Treasury’s secondary legislation bringing ESG rating providers within the FCA perimeter. The FCA seeks to reduce harms arising from inconsistent or opaque ESG ratings and to align the regime with IOSCO recommendations.

    Key takeaways

    Given that this will be a newly regulated sector, the FCA are proposing to do the following:

    • Apply many existing baseline rules to rating providers that apply to most other FCA-regulated firms, ensuring that there is a consistent approach. Some of the existing baseline standards include the following:
    • Threshold Conditions (COND): The minimum conditions, set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), that a firm must satisfy, and continue to satisfy, to get and keep its permission. The TCs are not part of this consultation, but the FCA is open to feedback on applying COND to ESG rating providers.
    • Principles for Business (PRIN): A general statement of the fundamental obligations that firms must comply with at all times. The FCA is further proposing that ESG rating providers must always comply with Principle 7 on “Communications with clients”, while also noting that ESG rating providers cannot treat their clients as ‘eligible counterparties’ for the purposes of PRIN 3.4.1R and PRIN 3.4.2R.
    • Systems and Controls (SYSC): Sets out how firms must organize their businesses, manage risk and maintain effective internal systems and controls. One of its purposes is to underline Principle 3: ‘A firm must take reasonable care to organize and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems’.
    • Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR): How firms must allocate responsibilities, certify key staff and apply conduct rules to promote accountability and good governance. The proposal for SM&CR is to classify ESG rating providers as “Core Firms” under SM&CR, unless a regulated firm undertakes other activities and has been categorized as an Enhanced firm will keep this Enhanced status, even if it also provides ESG ratings.
    • General Provisions (GEN): General rules that apply to all firms, including statutory disclosure statements and use of the FCA name or logo.
    • Introduce tailored rules where existing baseline requirements (mentioned above) are not appropriate or not proportionate to address the risks of harm. It is important to note, is that these rules are building on the IOSCO recommendations. These rules focus on the following areas:
      • Transparency: Minimum disclosure requirements for methodologies, data sources and objectives, so users better understand the ratings and rated entities understand how they are assessed.
      • Systems and Controls: Requirements for robust arrangements to ensure the integrity of the ratings process, including quality control, data validation and methodology reviews.
      • Governance: Requirements to maintain operational responsibility over the ratings process, including any outsourcing, to ensure appropriate oversight and compliance with the regime.
      • Conflicts of interest: Requirements to identify, prevent, manage, and disclose conflicts of interest at the organizational and personnel level, to maintain the ratings’ independence and integrity.
      • Stakeholder engagement: Requirements to provide rated entities with the opportunity to correct factual errors, procedures to allow other stakeholders to provide feedback and a fair complaints-handling procedure

    Source: FCA Consultation Paper (p.7), Overview of proposed regime

    Next steps

    The FCA is welcoming feedback on the draft rules and any questions. The deadline to respond to the consultation is 31 March 2026. The FCA expects to finalize the rules by Q4 2026. The FCA authorizations gateway intends to open in June 2027. The regime go-live is on 29 June 2028. An overview of the timeline can be found in the Consultation Paper on page 8.

    Brunei launches Sustainable Finance Roadmap to drive ESG integration

    The Brunei Darussalam Central Bank (BDCB) has introduced the Sustainable Finance Roadmap (SFR) to guide the financial sector in embedding environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into financial practices. The roadmap aims to support the country’s transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy and strengthen financial stability through sustainability integration.

    Context

    The SFR aligns with Brunei’s broader sustainability agenda outlined in three key policy documents:

    • Brunei National Climate Change Policy (BNCCP) – strategies for a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy.
    • Economic Blueprint for Brunei Darussalam – aspirations for a dynamic and sustainable economy under Wawasan Brunei 2035.
    • Financial Sector Blueprint (FSBP) 2016–2025 – vision for a competitive and innovative financial sector.

    Key takeaways

    • Definition: Sustainable finance under the SFR integrates ESG factors into financial decision-making to promote sustainable growth and long-term social well-being.
    • Vision: A sustainable and climate-resilient financial sector.
    • Purpose: Provide strategic direction for ESG adoption across financial institutions.
    • Time Horizon: 2025–2030 (6 years).
    • Goals:
    1. Increase readiness to manage sustainability-related risks.
    2. Facilitate development of sustainable financial products and services.
    3. Enhance adoption of ESG practices in business models and strategies.
    1. Robust Sustainability Risk Management Framework – strengthen capabilities and policies to manage ESG risks.
    2. Innovative Sustainable Products and Services – promote financial products supporting national sustainability initiatives.
    3. International Cooperation – boost Brunei’s role in regional and global sustainable finance efforts.
    4. Knowledge, Skills, and Talent Development – build capacity among regulators, industry, and consumers for ESG integration.

    Next steps

    • Implementation of the roadmap begins in 2025, with milestones set through 2030.
    • Financial institutions are expected to align strategies with the roadmap and develop ESG-compliant products.
    • BDCB will issue supporting policies and frameworks to operationalize the roadmap’s pillars.

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Does climate leadership drive financial performance, or is it the reverse? | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    On the other hand, firms might choose to set targets, not because of a belief in direct benefits to their bottom line, but because of competitive positioning. Companies might want to strategically signal to the market that climate action is a priority for them, to stay afloat with target-setting activity amongst their peers, thereby preserving their reputation with stakeholders like investors and customers. In other words, their motivations might be more extrinsic. If this is more often the case, we might expect target adoption to occur more frequently when a company’s financial conditions can accommodate it.

    Decoding who sets targets and why

    We analyzed a large universe of publicly listed companies to understand the relationships between firm-level financial performance and the presence of climate targets, considering three different target types. We used data available on the Bloomberg Terminal (ESGD CARBON TARGETS ) to look at whether companies had set any GHG target at all, a net zero target and finally, an SBTi externally validated target. Profitability was measured through the latest value for EBITDA margin (EBITDA/Revenue). We first grouped the entire sample into 10 equally sized bins in terms of profit margins. Figure 1 below illustrates the proportion of each group (decile) with a climate target of each type. The overall prevalence of these target types differs as expected, with generic GHG targets being the most frequently set (48%), followed by net zero targets (28%) and finally SBTi-validated targets (13%).

    However, a more notable takeaway is that a clear increasing trend is seen with net zero target-setting through the profitability bins. There is also a rise in the portion setting more generic GHG targets, and SBTi-validated targets as profitability increases, but the pattern isn’t quite as clear. In all cases there is an obvious drop-off in targets in the low-profit groups. This suggests that climate target setting falls down the list of priorities for firms that are more cost constrained and operate with thinner margins.

    Naturally, some sectors populate the higher profit bins more often. It is well understood that due to the cyclicity of economic sectors, different business models, technology maturity and reliance on R&D, some sectors are inherently more profitable than others. At the same time, we would expect target adoption to be more frequent in some sectors than in others. To illustrate this further, Figure 2 shows the sector mix through the profit margin deciles on the left pane, reflecting the fundamental characteristics of economic sectors.  The right pane shows the sector mix of net zero target setting companies in the same groups. We can see that the greater prevalence of target adoption is partially a sector story.

    Sector composition of A) companies per profitability decile, and B) net zero target setters per profitability decile.

    Utilities occupy a greater share of the most profitable group, and we might also expect them to set climate targets more frequently than firms in other sectors. The sector is very high-emitting and also has many opportunities to decarbonize through viable and scalable low carbon alternative technologies. Conversely, health care companies tend to operate on thinner margins and (arguably) we might expect firms in this sector to be less likely to set climate targets, acknowledging that they are less material from an emissions standpoint.

    We then repeated the analysis but took a more sector-neutral approach. In this case, companies are assessed on their level of profitability relative to their sector peers. The highest decile bin is comprised by the most profitable 10% of companies in each sector, and the lowest decile bin by the least profitable 10% in each sector. This counteracts the effects of sectoral differences in profitability and concentration. Interestingly, the monotonic pattern is still mostly preserved, as demonstrated by Figure 3. Once again, it is with net zero targets that we see adoption rising most steadily in line with the level of profitability versus sector peers.

    Share of firms with a target by EBITDA-margin decile within sector (bars)

    To formally test for a positive monotonic association, the rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s ρ) was calculated in each of the cases above. When this value is closer to 1, it is evidence that the prevalence of targets increases consistently as profitability rises. When the corresponding p-values are smaller (i.e. closer to zero) it indicates that the observed trend is less likely to have occurred by chance. Table 1 below summarises these investigations and demonstrates how the trend is clearest with net zero targets. While the relationship does become slightly weaker after sector neutralisation, with the increase in targets plateauing after decile 7, it is still a noteworthy finding.

    Strength of positive relationship by climate target type

    Maximizing reputational risk-to-reward

    The trend is strongest with net zero targets over the other types, and we explored some reasons why this might be the case. For the more generic GHG target adoption, this might be because less profitable companies (e.g. bins 3-4) perceive it as low risk to make some kind of emissions reduction commitment, without being too precise in terms of the level of ambition, and without the oversight and scrutiny of an external validation process. Whereas for SBTi targets, the additional hurdles needed to set and validate targets, as well as a perception of short-term costs, might be enough to constrain adoption even among some of the more profitable companies.

    Net zero targets might be something of a middle ground for companies: a strong signal of ambition with an apparent link to wider climate goals through an industry-recognized term, but without the scrutiny and administrative overhead incurred by an external validation process. And this is where we see target adoption rising most steadily in step with stronger profit margins. Companies may send a strong signal of ambition to the market but with a relatively moderate process cost. Note that the mechanisms described here are simply plausible explanations consistent with what we have observed from this analysis, but they do not yet establish causality.

    Profit margins or sector: which matters more?

    We wanted to investigate this more explicitly and tease apart how much sector membership is responsible to target adoption, versus the “profitability effect”. We fit a simple additive logistic model to predict whether a given company has set a net zero target or not, including sector-level fixed effects as well as information on profitability within sectors. The model is not designed for accurate firm-level predictions, but rather as a tool to help us understand and explain the overall patterns of target adoption.

    Averaging across sectors, the model estimates that firms in the top profitability decile have about 2.5× higher probability of having a net zero target than those in the bottom decile (≈33% vs 13%, +20 percentage points). It also reveals that profitability is a more dominant driver of net zero target status than sector membership, at least in this specification. When we decompose the model’s predicted probability surface, about two-thirds of the variation (≈63–65%) is tied to profitability, and about one-third (≈35%) to sector membership. Figure 4 visualizes the probability grids by sector and profit margin deciles, with the model’s predicted values on the left and the observed values on the right.

    How sector and profitability shape net zero adoption based on model-implied probabilities and empirical shares by sector × within-sector profitability decile.

    This model is coarse given its simple design, so naturally it will not match every sector and decile combination exactly. Nevertheless, it is helpful to quantify and communicate the broad patterns seen in the data and demonstrates how each of the key dimensions of profitability and sector shape the landscape of corporate net zero target-setting.

    From surface-level signals to deep credibility assessments

    This analysis supports the hypothesis that profitability enables climate target-setting, rather than the reverse. The results suggest that healthier profit margins provide the headroom a company needs to set climate commitments. This intuitively aligns with resource-based theories around corporate sustainability, according to which only firms with sufficient financial slack can afford to engage in voluntary sustainability initiatives. This is not to say that profitable firms cannot also be genuine climate leaders, but the strength of the pattern we’ve observed suggests that targets often function more as indicators of financial capacity than as reliable proxies for decarbonization intent.

    There are limits to what this analysis can establish, given its cross-sectional nature. Future research should look to add a temporal dimension, for example through longitudinal testing and events studies that factor in the cyclicity of profit margins and the precise timing of target announcements. This would help to further determine directionality and address whether climate leadership drives financial performance, or the reverse.

    For investors, this analysis builds upon an already familiar idea: that climate targets on their own are a weak and incomplete signal of climate ambition. Companies may be establishing targets only once their financial conditions allow, rather than being climate leaders regardless of whether they are facing headwinds or tailwinds. A net zero target is best substantiated when it is accompanied by a comprehensive and realistic climate transition plan, which outlines governance and oversight, incentives, decarbonisation levers and plans around transition finance. Investors taking into account disclosed climate ambition therefore may wish to further distinguish between companies setting surface-level climate commitments and those with deep decarbonisation intentions by integrating analysis using a much broader set of transition credibility indicators.

    The findings also have a clear implication for portfolio construction. Investors that use climate target status for as a screen or universe filter might be embedding a profitability/quality tilt, which can diminish exposure to other styles. Investors may wish to note this potential bias and how it could affect factor exposures.

    Technical notes

    The starting universe for the data collected for this analysis was the BESGCOV, which includes approximately 17k companies across markets globally. After accounting for coverage across relevant data fields, the core analysis covers approximately 15.1k companies.

    Determining the larger driver of net zero target adoption (within sector profitability versus sector membership) was achieved through ANOVA-style split in combination with a Shapley split of explainable deviance. Variance splits are reported on both the probability and deviance scales; results are consistent across both tests.

    Data on company climate targets is available on the Bloomberg Terminal at ESGD CARBON TARGETS .

    Data on company transition plan credibility is available on the Bloomberg Terminal at ESG NETZ and ESGD TRANSITION PLAN .

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • November Global Regulatory Brief: Green finance | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    Key takeaways

    • Scope reduction:
      • Sustainability reporting will apply only to firms with over 1,750 employees and net turnover above €450 million.
      • Due diligence duties will apply solely to companies with over 5,000 employees and turnover above €1.5 billion.
    • Simplified reporting standards:
      • Reporting requirements under the CSRD will involve fewer qualitative disclosures; sector-specific standards will become voluntary.
      • Large firms cannot compel smaller suppliers to provide more data than required by voluntary templates, protecting SMEs from cascading obligations.
    • Due diligence obligations:
      • A risk-based approach will replace blanket requirements. Large companies may rely on existing information and engage smaller partners only as a last resort.
      • The requirement to prepare climate transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement will be removed.
      • Liability will be established and enforced at national level only (no EU-wide requirement).
    • Digital portal:
      • The European Commission will establish an EU-wide online portal offering templates, guidelines, and free access to all sustainability reporting obligations.
      • The platform will complement the European Single Access Point (ESAP) initiative.

    Next steps

    Trilogue negotiations between the Parliament, EU Member States, and European Commission will begin on 18 November 2025, with the objective of finalising the legislation by end-2025.

    Singapore government launched initiatives to support the development of high-integrity carbon markets

    Summary

    The Singapore Government has announced a series of coordinated initiatives to advance the development of high-integrity carbon markets, reinforcing the city-state’s role as a leading regional hub for climate finance and sustainability solutions. The initiatives, jointly led by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS), Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Enterprise Singapore (EnterpriseSG), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), focus on three key areas: providing guidance for companies on the use of carbon credits, fostering an industry-led buyers’ coalition to drive credible demand, and introducing a new grant scheme to support financial institutions’ participation in carbon markets.

    Together, these measures aim to catalyse market growth, strengthen confidence in carbon credit integrity, and channel capital into credible projects that contribute to the global transition towards net zero.

    In more detail

    Carbon markets play an increasingly important role in facilitating global decarbonisation by mobilising private capital towards emission reduction and removal projects. However, their growth has been constrained in recent years by weak demand, limited supply of high-quality credits, and gaps in market infrastructure. To address these challenges, Singapore is introducing a comprehensive framework that strengthens both demand and supply while enhancing transparency and governance.

    A key component of this framework is the publication of the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) Guidance, developed by NCCS, MTI, and EnterpriseSG. The guidance provides a clear framework for companies on how to incorporate carbon credits into their decarbonisation strategies in a credible and transparent manner. It outlines principles for identifying high-integrity carbon credits, determining appropriate usage, and disclosing credit utilisation within corporate sustainability reporting. Developed in consultation with industry experts, academics, and international organisations, the guidance will be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains aligned with global best practices and evolving standards.

    To complement the guidance, Enterprise Singapore is engaging with major corporates across Asia to form an industry-led buyers’ coalition that aligns and aggregates regional demand for high-quality carbon credits. The coalition is expected to enhance liquidity, provide stronger demand signals to project developers, and help scale the pipeline of credible carbon projects across Asia and beyond. Details on its structure and implementation are expected in 2026.

    In parallel, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) will launch a Financial Sector Carbon Market Development Grant to strengthen the financial sector’s role in carbon markets. Financial institutions play a vital part in the carbon value chain — from project financing and structuring to insurance, trading, and risk management. However, early participation has been limited by high upfront costs and the complexity of developing new capabilities in this emerging field. The new grant, supported by S$15 million over three years until 2028 from the Financial Sector Development Fund, will help offset these challenges. It will support the establishment or expansion of financial institution teams engaged in carbon market activities, as well as defray costs associated with developing innovative financing structures, conducting due diligence and verification, managing risks, and purchasing carbon credit insurance. Applications will open on 1 November 2025, with details on eligibility and process available through the MAS website.

    Through these initiatives, Singapore seeks to build a robust and trusted carbon market ecosystem, underpinned by integrity, transparency, and strong participation from both corporates and financial institutions. This effort builds on previous government actions, including the Carbon Project Development Grant launched at COP29 and ongoing Article 6 partnerships with international counterparts. Collectively, they form part of a broader strategy to scale up credible carbon finance and promote sustainable economic growth.

    Next steps

    The Singapore Government agencies will work closely with industry to promote adoption of the new VCM guidance and encourage companies to align their decarbonisation strategies with its principles.

    For the financial sector, MAS will begin accepting applications for the Carbon Market Development Grant in November, prioritising projects that demonstrate strong potential to build market capacity or innovation. This phase is expected to lay the groundwork for sustained institutional participation in carbon financing, trading, and risk management.

    EnterpriseSG will continue discussions with leading corporates to finalise the framework for the buyers’ coalition, with the goal of launching it in 2026. The coalition is expected to create a coordinated demand base that drives investment in verified, high-integrity carbon projects.

    Over the medium term, Singapore will deepen collaboration with international partners through initiatives such as Article 6 cooperation and the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, enhancing cross-border trust and supporting the development of scalable, transparent carbon markets.

    These efforts reinforce Singapore’s long-term vision of a credible, efficient, and high-integrity carbon market ecosystem that supports global climate goals while positioning the financial and corporate sectors for sustainable growth.

    HKMA to issue new guidance on bank climate risk management good practices

    The HKMA is preparing to roll out additional supervisory guidance on managing climate-related financial risks, highlighting three key trends observed in the banking industry.

    In more detail

    In a recent speech, Hong Kong Monetary Authority Executive Director Carmen Chu confirmed that climate risk is a financial risk impacting bank operations, collateral values, and cash flows. The HKMA is committed to solidify Hong Kong’s position as a leading sustainable finance hub by building a climate-resilient financial system, and support sustainable development in Asia and further afield. Central to this is to build a financial system that is truly climate-resilient. The Supervisory Policy Manual (GS-1) offers guidance on the essentials of climate-related risk management for banks. and two rounds of climate risk stress tests.

    HKMA has supplemented this guidance by issuing circulars sharing tools and best practices that exceed minimum requirements. Furthermore, both the pilot and second rounds of sector-wide climate risk stress tests have been used to help banks enhance their methods for measuring and assessing climate exposures.

    Following recent industry consultations and examinations, the HKMA plans to issue new guidance focusing on good practices adopted by Authorized Institutions, grouped under three themes:

    • Quantitative Frameworks: A move toward measuring climate risk with numbers, such as using metrics and limits in risk appetite statements, and leveraging financial technology (fintech) for more efficient risk management.
    • Data-Driven Approaches: Banks are bridging data gaps by utilizing tailored ESG questionnaires, alternative datasets, and proxy methods to incorporate climate factors into credit decisions.
    • Holistic Views: Banks are increasingly embedding climate considerations across all traditional risk disciplines, including operational, market, liquidity, and reputational risks. The Whole Industry Simulation Exercise (WISE) focus on “extreme weather” reinforces the need for holistic operational resilience.

    What’s next

    The HKMA is set to release additional guidance that will provide the best practices observed in the industry to further strengthen climate risk management among banks.

    HKMA to issue new guidance on bank climate risk management good practices

    The HKMA is preparing to roll out additional supervisory guidance on managing climate-related financial risks, highlighting three key trends observed in the banking industry.

    In more detail

    In a recent speech, Hong Kong Monetary Authority Executive Director Carmen Chu confirmed that climate risk is a financial risk impacting bank operations, collateral values, and cash flows. The HKMA is committed to solidify Hong Kong’s position as a leading sustainable finance hub by building a climate-resilient financial system, and support sustainable development in Asia and further afield. Central to this is to build a financial system that is truly climate-resilient. The Supervisory Policy Manual (GS-1) offers guidance on the essentials of climate-related risk management for banks. and two rounds of climate risk stress tests.

    HKMA has supplemented this guidance by issuing circulars sharing tools and best practices that exceed minimum requirements. Furthermore, both the pilot and second rounds of sector-wide climate risk stress tests have been used to help banks enhance their methods for measuring and assessing climate exposures.

    Following recent industry consultations and examinations, the HKMA plans to issue new guidance focusing on good practices adopted by Authorized Institutions, grouped under three themes:

    • Quantitative Frameworks: A move toward measuring climate risk with numbers, such as using metrics and limits in risk appetite statements, and leveraging financial technology (fintech) for more efficient risk management.
    • Data-Driven Approaches: Banks are bridging data gaps by utilizing tailored ESG questionnaires, alternative datasets, and proxy methods to incorporate climate factors into credit decisions.
    • Holistic Views: Banks are increasingly embedding climate considerations across all traditional risk disciplines, including operational, market, liquidity, and reputational risks. The Whole Industry Simulation Exercise (WISE) focus on “extreme weather” reinforces the need for holistic operational resilience.

    What’s next 

    The HKMA is set to release additional guidance that will provide the best practices observed in the industry to further strengthen climate risk management among banks.

    The Central Bank of Bahrain proposes new rules to introduce Sustainable and Sustainability-Linked Debt Instruments

    Summary

    The Central Bank of Bahrain (CBB) is proposing new regulatory rules to introduce and govern the issuance of Sustainable Debt Securities (SDS) and Sustainability-Linked Debt (SLD) instruments in Bahrain. These rules are intended to align with international sustainability standards, enhance market transparency, and support Bahrain’s broader ESG goals.

    The consultation invites feedback on the proposed additions to Volume 6 of the CBB Rulebook, which focuses on the offering of securities and collective investment undertakings.

    Key proposals include

    New Chapter on Sustainable Instruments: Addition of a new chapter in Volume 6 (Offering of Securities Module) covering requirements for SDS and SLD instruments.

    Eligible Instruments: Applies to bonds, sukuk, and similar debt instruments that are either:

    • Labelled as “green,” “social,” or “sustainability” (SDS), or
    • Sustainability-linked (SLD) with ESG performance targets.

    Disclosure Requirements: Issuers must provide pre-issuance frameworks and post-issuance reports aligned with international principles (e.g., ICMA Green Bond Principles, Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles).

    Verification and Reporting: Mandatory third-party external reviews (pre- and post-issuance). Ongoing annual updates are required for transparency.

    SLD-Specific Obligations: For SLDs, key performance indicators (KPIs), sustainability performance targets (SPTs), and impact of failure to meet SPTs must be clearly disclosed.

    Label Use: Use of sustainability-related labels must be justified with robust documentation.

    Next steps

    The CBB is soliciting comments from stakeholders until 30 October 2025.

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • October Global Regulatory Brief: Green finance | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    Key takeaways

    • MEPs propose that only companies with more than 1,000 employees and over €450 million in annual turnover be required to undertake sustainability reporting. 
    • Firms falling outside the scope would report Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and EU Taxonomy data on a voluntary basis following Commission guidance. Large companies would be prohibited from demanding sustainability data beyond these voluntary standards from smaller partners.
    • Sector-specific reporting would become voluntary and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) would focus on quantitative disclosures to ease cost and compliance burdens.
    • The Commission would establish a free online portal with templates, guidelines, and reporting information to complement the European Single Access Point.
    • Obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) would apply only to EU firms with over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, or foreign companies meeting the same EU turnover threshold. 
    • Companies would face national, rather than EU-level, liability for due diligence breaches, with fines capped at 5% of global turnover.
    • Large firms would still be required to prepare a transition plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.

    Next Steps

    The European Parliament is due to adopt the position in a plenary sitting next week, after which interinstitutional negotiations with the EU Member States (Council) and Commission are expected to begin in late October or November to finalise the legislative text under the Omnibus package.

    MAS appoints new Chief Sustainability Officer

    The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has appointed Ms. Abigail Ng as its new Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), effective October 6, 2025. Ms. Ng, currently the Department Head of the Markets Policy & Consumer Department, will take over from Ms. Gillian Tan, who had concurrently held the CSO role with her duties as Assistant Managing Director (Development & International) since October 2022. This transition marks the move to a dedicated CSO role as MAS’s sustainability agenda enters a more mature phase.

    Key takeaways

    • The leadership change reflects MAS’s decision to dedicate the CSO role as its Sustainability Group (SG) agenda matures. The outgoing CSO, Ms. Gillian Tan, will focus on her position as Group Head of the Development & International Group.
    • Under Ms. Tan’s three-year tenure, the Sustainability Group spearheaded several significant initiatives to advance sustainable finance in Asia, including:
    • Finance for Net Zero Action Plan: A strategy aimed at mobilizing financing to support Asia’s shift to a low-carbon economy.
    • Singapore-Asia Taxonomy: An effort to establish consistent and clear standards for sustainable financing.
    • Key Transition and Blended Finance Initiatives: The launch of the Transition Credits Coalition (TRACTION) and the Financing Asia’s Transition Partnership (FAST-P) to accelerate the energy transition.
    • Talent Development: The Sustainable Finance Jobs Transformation Map to boost skills and competencies within the sector.
    • The incoming CSO, Ms. Abigail Ng, is expected to leverage her extensive background in sustainability issues, including her experience in formulating sustainability disclosure policies and collaborating with international and diverse stakeholders, to lead the Sustainability Group in its next phase.

    Next steps

    Looking ahead, there would likely be continued focus on MAS’ key efforts like the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy and blended finance platforms (TRACTION, FAST-P). Given Ms. Ng’s expertise in policy, her tenure may also bring greater focus to sustainability disclosure requirements. This dedicated leadership structure reinforces the MAS’s commitment to advancing Singapore’s role as a key regional hub for sustainable finance.

    Switzerland to align due diligence law with EU CSDDD

    The Swiss Federal Council has announced plans to introduce a corporate due diligence law aligned with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). A draft legislative proposal is expected by March 2026 based on the EU’s final framework following adoption of the first Omnibus package.

    Context

    The initiative follows renewed political momentum in Switzerland, spurred by a popular initiative launched in summer 2025 with support from over 280,000 citizens and a broad civil society coalition. 

    Key takeaways

    • Swiss government will design its due diligence law in line with the EU’s CSDDD framework.
    • Announcement responds to strong domestic political and civil society pressure.
    • Signals convergence of Swiss and EU approaches to sustainability and responsible business conduct.
    • Companies headquartered or operating in Switzerland should anticipate tighter requirements on human rights and environmental due diligence, particularly for multinationals with cross-border operations.

    Next steps

    • Draft legislation to be presented by March 2026.
    • Text will be coordinated with the EU’s final CSDDD as amended under the Omnibus simplification package.

    FCA publishes letter on sustainability-linked loans market

    The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a letter highlighting progress in the overall functioning of the sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) market since its last review in 2023. The letter highlights the importance of robust internal controls, governance frameworks, and transparency in SLL arrangements. 

    Key takeaways

    Overall, the FCA recognises that – despite headwinds – the SLL market has matured, with firms adopting better practices and stronger product structures. Specifically, the FCA noted: 

    • Improvements in the quality of SLL structuring, including more robust KPIs and stronger governance processes; 
    • Post-transaction monitoring could be a tool to inform self-assessments of existing approaches to SLL provision and help ensure internal frameworks evolve to account for best practice; 
    • Regulated firms should remain alert to risks of misleading disclosures and ensure sustainability claims are accurate and appropriately communicated. 

    Next steps: Firms should continue to review their internal systems and governance arrangements for SLLs in light of the FCA’s observations. The FCA will continue to work closely with the UK’s Transition Finance Council as it drives forward the UK Government’s recommendations to promote a credible transition finance ecosystem.

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Does physical climate risk carry a financing premium? | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    For this analysis we chose to retrieve data representing a company’s average asset damage rate over the 2030 time horizon considering all hazards. However, users of the data can specify exposures to specific hazards, and across any time horizon through 2050 in 5-year intervals. Descriptive analysis of these indicators reveals that across sectors, the average interquartile range (i.e. the middle 50% of companies in each sector) equates to approximately 1O points (see Figure 1 below). We therefore use +10 points as a benchmark throughout the analysis, to signify the typical spread between a more exposed and a less exposed company in the same sector.

    Why is the climate risk signal hard to detect?

    Initially, descriptive analysis of the raw firm-level data is unconvincing in supporting the hypothesis. Physical risk exposure indicators show no simple unconditional correlation with WACC, neither globally across firms, nor across country averages. Firms in some countries tend to have both high WACC and high physical risk exposure (e.g. Brazil), but the relationship is noisy and inconsistent, as you can see in Figure 2. This warranted further investigation through regression analysis to control for region, sector and firm-size which can all influence
    financing costs alongside physical climate risk exposure.

    Median Physical Risk Exposure and WACC of Firms Per Country of Risk

    Evidence of a physical risk premium

    We estimate a cross-sectional ordinary least squares regression of WACC on physical risk exposure, controlling for economic sector, region, and size. This was carried out to test whether markets globally price physical risk exposure after accounting for structural factors. The model provides evidence that physical risk exposure is associated with a positive change in WACC, specifically +22bps per +10 climate risk points. It is statistically significant (p-value <.001) and consistently positive across the 95% confidence interval (12-31 bps).

    When country fixed effects are added the link becomes less conclusive, which likely reflects that much of the variation in WACC occurs between countries, and that limited within-country variation in physical risk makes it harder to detect. This does not overturn the global finding, but suggests the pricing operates more across countries and regions than strictly within them.

    It’s also important to note that the effect does not map neatly onto country averages. As shown previously (Figure 2), there is no apparent correlation between the median physical risk exposure and median WACC by country. Together these results imply that markets may be pricing physical risk into financing costs, but that they’re not simply applying a straightforward ‘country risk premium’ to firm-level WACC. Instead, the pricing signal appears across the global universe of firms rather than a simple country-average effect.

    What are the hotspots for climate risk and financing costs?

    We then looked to understand if physical risk is priced more strongly in some regions and sectors than in others. This was done by producing models with interaction terms as well as fitting a series of subsample models, specific to regions and sectors, to test them explicitly. Indeed, it was revealed that the effect of physical risk on WACC for companies was more pronounced and more reliable in certain cases.

    When studying sectors, companies in Materials and Utilities had the most robust results, experiencing on average +56bps and +45bps WACC per +10 point increase in physical risk (see Figure 3 below). Similarly, firms in Communications experience +62bps, but the finding is less conclusive. All other sectors had coefficients lower than the global effect. This finding is quite theoretically consistent, suggesting that capital markets are attuned to the fact that asset-intensive sectors with typically higher PPE (Property, Plant & Equipment) values are more exposed to the physical impacts of climate change, and are actively factoring this into risk premia.

    Effect of Physical Risk Exposure on Firm WACC by Sector

    Regionally, the results suggest that higher physical risk (+10) is associated with higher WACC in the predominantly emerging market regions of Latin America (+94bps) and Asia (+25bps), while controlling for sectoral differences (see Figure 4 below).

    Effect of Physical Risk Exposure on Firm WACC by Region

    What physical climate risk premiums mean for investors

    Capital markets appear to be pricing physical climate risk exposure into the cost of capital for firms. Overall firms with higher physical risk exposure (+1 O} face a +22bps premium in WACC, even after controlling for sector, region and size. The effect is not visible in the raw data or country aggregates, yet it appears markets are pricing this in subtly across the global cross section of firms. Furthermore, the effect is heterogeneous thus far, with the premium found to be more strongly evident and pronounced in infrastructure-heavy sectors (Materials, Utilities), as well as some emerging-market regions (Latin America, Asia). This aligns with theoretical expectations, with the evidence pointing to investors penalizing sectors and geographies generally perceived to be more highly exposed to physical disruptions.

    Future research should aim to further test the explanatory power of physical risk exposure for financing costs alongside additional macro-economic controls and credit ratings, as well as determining whether markets are pricing exposure to certain climate hazards more strongly than others.

    A broader takeaway for investors is that a financial premium is potentially already being attached to physical risk exposure. Investors should look to fully integrate physical risk factors into valuations, discounted cash flow models, asset allocations and wider investment processes to maintain risk-adjusted returns as markets increasingly wake up to the realities of climate change. Corporates on the other hand should note that by demonstrating resilience to physical risk – through disclosure of climate risk assessments and clear adaptation plans they may be able to lower their financing costs moving forward.

    To learn more about Bloomberg’s Sustainable finance solutions: click here

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Power shift: Should investors pay attention to renewable energy adoption? | Insights | Bloomberg Professional Services

    [ad_1]

    Financial performance and renewable energy adoption

    When renewable energy costs become competitive with or lower than traditional fossil fuel alternatives, transitioning to renewables can directly lead to cost savings and therefore enhance corporate profitability. However, a critical consideration for investors is whether companies adopting renewable energy realize measurable improvements in financial performance, and whether these improvements are reflected in stock valuations.  

    To investigate this, we analyzed companies within the Bloomberg World Large & Mid Cap Index (Bloomberg ticker: “WORLD Index”), a broadly diversified, float market-cap-weighted global equity benchmark index representing approximately 85% of global market capitalization of the measured markets. In aggregate, Bloomberg’s sustainable finance data covers about 97% of the index’s constituents and 99% of its market value as of December 2024. In particular, the analysis employs the Bloomberg field “Percentage of Renewable Energy Consumed” (Field Id: SA011) as the primary determining factor. Companies lacking data on renewable energy consumption were excluded to maintain analysis integrity.  

    Disclosure rates for renewable energy use vary moderately across sectors and geographic markets. Figures 3a and 3b illustrate that most sectors disclose at rates between 50% and 80%, with Consumer Staples (74.5%), Consumer Discretionary (63.0%), and Communications (62.1%) leading. Geographically, developed markets generally exhibit strong disclosure rates, whereas certain emerging markets show significantly lower levels. While these variations introduce variability in data availability, the disclosure patterns do not indicate extreme biases toward specific sectors or regions, thereby providing a reasonably balanced dataset for subsequent analysis.  

    Disclosure Percentages by Top 10 Global Market as of December 31, 2024

    We conducted a sector-neutral analysis by sorting companies with available data on a quarterly basis into quintile portfolios based on renewable energy consumption, employing the following methodology:  

    • Sector-specific stock selection: Within each sector, companies were ranked and assigned to quintiles based on their percentage of renewable energy usage.  
    • Sector weight matching: Portfolios were rebalanced quarterly to match benchmark sector weights, eliminating sector-driven biases.  

    Figures 4a and 4b summarize performance outcomes for equal-weighted and market value-weighted quintile portfolios from February 2017 to May 2025.  

    Equal-weighted Quintile Portfolio Performance, Feb 2017 – May 2025
    Market Value-weighted Quintile Portfolio Performance, Feb 2017 – May 2025

    Key findings

    The analysis reveals a distinct pattern: companies in the highest quintile for renewable energy consumption achieved higher returns and superior Sharpe ratios (which measures risk-adjusted returns) compared to companies in the lowest quintile. Notably, this outcome persists across both equal-weighted and market value-weighted methodologies, indicating that performance differences are not driven purely by company size.  

    However, the observed outperformance did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. This may be due to the limited historical period and moderate magnitude of the observed differences. Additionally, uneven disclosure rates and resulting data gaps could also have influenced these results.  

    To further investigate whether this observed outperformance can be specifically attributed to renewable energy consumption rather than incidental exposure to other factors, we conducted a return attribution analysis using Bloomberg’s Multi-Asset Class Fundamental risk model (MAC3) for equities. We formed equal-weighted long-short portfolios within the WORLD Index universe, going long the companies in the highest quintile and short those in the lowest quintile based on sector-specific levels of renewable energy consumption.

    Note that this return attribution is based on monthly down-sampled risk exposures from MAC3, which are produced at a daily frequency. As a result, the attribution results shown here are approximations and may not precisely match analyses performed in PORT tool available via the Bloomberg Terminal.  

    A significant portion of the returns from these long-short portfolios could not be explained by conventional factors such as Industry, Country, Currency, or Equity Style (e.g., value, quality), termed the “selection effect”. In our analysis, this effect accounted for 1.0% out of the 2.4% annualized returns of the long-short portfolio, suggesting meaningful financial materiality linked explicitly to the level of renewable energy usage.  

    Equal-Weighted Long-Short Portfolio Active Return Attribution, Feb 2017 – May 2025

    suggest financial benefits linked to greater renewable energy adoption, warranting further examination using extended timeframes and broader datasets for definitive validation. Investors, whether explicitly focused on energy transition or not, may therefore benefit from studying and incorporating this signal into their investment processes.  

    [ad_2]

    Bloomberg

    Source link

  • The Cost of Limiting Shareholder Voice: How New Restrictions Threaten Economic Growth

    [ad_1]

    Restricting shareholder proposals undermines the checks and balances that protect markets, innovation and social responsibility. Unsplash+

    Illegal child marriages. Coerced sterilization. Debt bondage. Until recently, shareholders had the right to raise such human rights concerns through formal proposals to corporate boards, a right protected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for nearly a century. Recent regulatory and interpretive changes, however, are creating new challenges for this fundamental avenue for accountability.

    The sugar cane industry, for example, has become emblematic of harmful supply chain practices, involving some of the most visible and widely reported examples of concerning business practices. Companies including Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Mondelez have faced investigations into alleged labor abuses, including debt bondage. At Pepsi’s 2025 annual meeting, shareholders sought to submit a proposal requesting a report on the company’s efforts to address human rights violations in its supply chain. The company excluded the proposal, citing SEC staff’s revised interpretation of Rule 14a-8, outlined in Staff Legal Bulletin 14M (SLB14M). 

    SLB14M provides guidance on the application of Rule 14a-8, which allows eligible shareholders to submit proposals for inclusion in a company’s proxy statement. The bulletin also specifies circumstances under which companies may exclude these proposals. Citing that revised interpretation, Pepsi argued that the reported abuses occurred in franchise operations (which are “expected” to follow a code of conduct), not in Pepsi’s direct supply chain, and that the franchise sales were not “significantly related” to Pepsi’s business. Essentially, Pepsi claimed that the source of the ingredients sold under its brand did not materially affect its own business because the company itself did not purchase them. The SEC agreed with Pepsi, preventing shareholders from voting on the proposal. 

    Pepsi did not dispute reports that its products sold in India were allegedly made with sugar obtained through a supply chain linked to debt bondage and coerced hysterectomies. Instead, the company contended that these issues were unlikely to materially impact its operations. According to the SEC’s interpretation, shareholders may only make proposals with significant financial implications for the company itself, no matter the broader social or environmental consequences.

    While SEC rules often shift with administrations, this case reflects a larger trend: a narrowing of shareholder voice. Several recent developments illustrate the pattern:

    Collectively, these developments constrain shareholders’ capacity to influence corporate behavior towards more sustainable or ethical practices. Critics of shareholder engagement argue that investors should focus solely on financial returns, treating social and environmental considerations as irrelevant. This is a false dichotomy on two levels. First, environmental and human rights issues often carry real financial risks. Second, systemic harm—from environmental degradation to inequality—affects the broader economy and threatens the diversified portfolios and returns of investors.

    The economic opportunity in sustainable business practices

    The sugar supply chain demonstrates both the risks and opportunities for companies and investors. Brands derive tremendous value from reputation. The perception that Pepsi products are linked to labor abuses can erode consumer trust and is a significant concern for the company. Addressing these issues presents an opportunity to safeguard brand equity and strengthen customer loyalty. For shareholders, engagement extends beyond a single company’s prospects. Human rights and sustainability issues influence global economic conditions, which in turn impact the returns of diversified investors. By encouraging companies to adopt responsible practices, shareholders can help stabilize markets, support GDP growth and mitigate systemic risk. 

    The path forward: strengthening market-based solutions

    Notably, this regulatory shift is occurring under a Republican-controlled administration and Congress, which has historically advocated for private property rights. Policymakers should ensure that proposal mechanisms remain consistent with free-market principles, enabling investors to allocate capital efficiently and hold companies accountable. If financial market rules are being revised, it should not be forgotten that the strength of our economy is based on a free capital market, which allows investors to fund a broad array of enterprises that create authentic value over the long term. 

    Limiting shareholder voice affects far more than greenhouse gas emissions and DEI. It alters the balance of power in capital markets, shifting decision-making from investors to executives and politicians. Investors are losing the power to push back when corporate executives risk the future of the company or the economy to boost profits. And this doesn’t just harm investors. This means our markets will become less effective allocators of capital, as decisions are made by unrestrained executives driven by short-term incentives or politicians swayed by political maneuvering, rather than by a commitment to the integrity of capital markets. 

    The innovation opportunity

    Recent SEC actions show the practical consequences. In March, SEC staff allowed Wells Fargo to exclude a proposal on workers’ rights and collective bargaining, a proposal that observers note likely would have been allowed a few months prior. Limiting shareholder engagement reduces opportunities for market-driven innovation in workforce development, climate solutions and sustainable growth strategies. Climate issues illustrate the stakes vividly. Analysts project that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions could reduce global GDP by 50 percent between 2070 and 2090. Economic modeling suggests that decisive global climate action could lead to a $43 trillion gain in net present value to the global economy by 2070. Investor engagement can accelerate the transition to cleaner energy and sustainable business models, creating economic opportunities while mitigating systemic risks. Ignoring investors’ voices on these matters rejects the role that capital has played in creating the economic engine of the U.S. economy.

    Workers depending on 401(k) plans, such as those in the American Airlines plan, could face real financial consequences if investor oversight is curtailed. Estimates suggest that the current trajectory of emissions could depress the entire equities market by up to 40 percent. The fossil fuel industry’s shortsightedness and the current administration’s policies are exacerbating the environmental crisis and creating economic and retirement instabilities. 

    Limiting shareholder voice threatens far more than individual investors. It weakens the very mechanisms that keep U.S. markets dynamic, resilient and capable of driving long-term growth. The muzzling of investors is part of a larger story: environmental data is being scrubbed from federal websites, critical scientific inquiry is being stalled and dissenters are being penalized. Historically, U.S. markets and democracy alike have relied on open debate and the free flow of information. Undermining shareholder oversight is part of a broader erosion of transparency that threatens both markets and the very norms that underpin a free society. Shareholder input is not a political preference but a market stabilizer, an innovation driver and a critical check on corporate governance. Preserving this function is essential to sustaining the economy, the integrity of capital markets and the broader social and environmental systems on which long-term prosperity depends. 

    The Cost of Limiting Shareholder Voice: How New Restrictions Threaten Economic Growth

    [ad_2]

    Rick Alexander

    Source link

  • Sister activism: Nuns push for change through stock investments – MoneySense

    Sister activism: Nuns push for change through stock investments – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Faith-based shareholder activism dates back to 1970s

    Up until the 1990s, the nuns had few investments. That changed as they began to set aside money to care for elderly sisters as the community aged.

    “We decided it was really important to do it in a responsible way,” said Sister Rose Marie Stallbaumer, who was the community’s treasurer for years. “We wanted to be sure that we weren’t just collecting money to help ourselves at the detriment of others.”

    Faith-based shareholder activism is often traced to the early 1970s, when religious groups put forth resolutions for American companies to withdraw from South Africa over apartheid.

    In 2004, the Mount St. Scholastica sisters joined the Benedictine Coalition for Responsible Investment, an umbrella group run by Sister Susan Mika, a nun based at a Texas monastery who has been working in the field since the 1980s.

    The Benedictine Coalition works closely with the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, which acts as a clearinghouse for shareholder resolutions, coordinating with faith-based groups—including dozens of Catholic orders—to leverage assets and file on social justice-oriented topics.

    The Benedictines have played a key role at ICCR for years, said Tim Smith, a senior policy advisor for the centre. It can be discouraging work, where the needle only moves slightly each year, but he said the sisters “have the endurance of long-distance runners.”

    The resolutions rarely pass, and even if they do, they’re usually non-binding. But they’re still an educational tool and a means to raise awareness inside a corporation. The Benedictine sisters have watched over the years as support for some of their resolutions has gone from low single digits to 30% or even a majority.

    Gradually environmental causes and human rights concerns have swayed some shareholders, even as a growing backlash foments against investments involving ESG (environmental, social and governance concerns).

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Save money, save the planet: Our favourite products and strategies for eco-friendly living – MoneySense

    Save money, save the planet: Our favourite products and strategies for eco-friendly living – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Clean with cheaper, greener cleaning products

    I’m a die-hard fan of Tru Earth laundry strips, which are detergent without the liquid and the bulky plastic bottle. They’re really easy to use—just tear off a strip and toss it into the washing machine as it fills up. Tru Earth sells three package sizes. I order the mega-pack of 384 strips ($149, which works out to $0.39 per load before sales tax), and I split it with friends. I like the fragrance-free option, but you can also choose “Fresh Linen” and “Lilac Breeze” scents. The strips are free of parabens, phosphates, dyes and bleach, and they’re hypoallergenic and vegan. Plus, Tru Earth is a Canadian company, and it also makes eco-friendly fabric softener, dishwasher tabs and more.

    —Jaclyn Law, managing editor

    Eliminate paper towels

    Swedish dishcloths are great for wiping kitchen counters or tables. Made from cellulose and cotton, they’re anti-bacterial, super-absorbent and fast-drying, and they last for months—vendors claim they replace 15 to 17 rolls of paper towels. They’re also machine-washable (dishwasher or washing machine), and they come in loads of fun, colourful designs. And when you’re done with them, they’re compostable and biodegradable. Swedish dishcloths cost about $3 to $8 each, and they’re widely available from retailers like Canadian Tire, iQ Living and Nellie’s Canada. They make great gifts, too!

    —J.L.

    Dry laundry the old-fashioned way

    I like to hang clothes and towels until they’re almost dry, then give them a five-minute tumble in the dryer at low heat for softness. Since we moved last summer, we no longer have a clothesline or even a good place to hang one. We may have to just get a drying rack we can put on the deck.

    —Michael McCullough, acting editor

    Cut dishwasher tabs in half

    We chop our dishwasher tabs in half. A full tab leaves a soapy residue that can result in mould buildup over time. It’s not necessary to use the whole tab unless you have hard water (water with a high mineral content). An appliance repairman recommended this.

    —M.M.

    Downsize your living space

    My environmental footprint shrank dramatically when I downsized. My 750-square-foot bungalow requires way less energy to heat and cool than my old three-storey townhouse. On winter nights I crank down the thermostat and use an electric blanket to keep warm.

    —Stephanie Griffiths, CFA, consulting editor

    Invest in energy-efficient heating

    Our big green investment since moving was converting from an old oil furnace to a heat pump, along with improving the ductwork, windows, etc. We also installed an efficient wood-burning fireplace insert to provide heat during power outages.

    —M.M.

    Bundle up and turn down the heat

    I’ve decided to make use of the cozy gifts from the holidays. Things like slippers, reading socks, weighted blankets and oversized hoodies always felt like a waste of money and definitely not things I would buy for myself. But in working from home, I’ve decided to make use of them. Other than being super comfy, I’ve noticed that my thermostat is three to four degrees lower than it was before. When added up, I discovered that it saves me almost $75 a month.

    —Lisa Hannam, editor-in-chief

    Reduce your fuel and energy consumption

    Both our family vehicles are Toyota hybrids, which is as much a gas-expense-saving strategy as an environmental or status gesture. When driving in ECO Mode, you can further improve gas mileage. Inside our home, we use appliances during periods when electricity costs less and run things like dishwashers or washing machines on eco-mode to save water and energy.

    —Jonathan Chevreau, investing editor-at-large

    Become an amateur trash collector

    We live by the lake and walk along it every day, appreciating the beauty of the trees and water. We take the time to pick up other people’s garbage, mostly plastic water bottles and cardboard coffee cups, which are eyesores, especially the bright red Timmie’s cups and green Starbucks cups. This is not a great hardship as garbage cans are regularly distributed along the way, making us wonder why so many people litter when it’s a 10-foot walk to a nearby bin. We operate on the broken window theory: if a window broken deliberately is not fixed ASAP, vandalism soon spreads. Same with litter: if there are more than two or three bits of garbage, people seem to feel less compunction about adding to the litter.

    —J.C.

    Enjoy eco-friendly homemade bottled water

    I find the little things you do can multiply over time and pay big dividends. Kind of like saving or paying down debt, a little bit at a time. We use a sparkling water maker at home with reusable bottles. It saves money, it produces less waste and it is much healthier than soda or juice. Since it is something we can use every day, it makes a big cumulative impact on our environmental footprint. It is amazing how bottled water has become such a big market, especially in a country where our tap water is pretty good. A filtration system and water flavour drops can make your tap water taste great.

    —Jason Heath, CFP, columnist and consulting editor

    Eat less meat

    For me, vegetarianism is a personal preference rather than an eco-strategy. Yet studies show avoiding meat and dairy is the single most effective way to reduce your environmental footprint. Side effects may include improved health, reduced cruelty to animals and lower grocery bills. What’s good for the planet is good for me, too.

    —S.G.

    Read more about saving money in Canada:




    About MoneySense Editors

    MoneySense editors and journalists work closely with leading personal finance experts in Canada. Since 1999, our award-winning magazine has helped Canadians navigate money matters.

    [ad_2]

    MoneySense Editors

    Source link

  • Attention, ESG investors: Canada’s biggest carbon-emitting public companies – MoneySense

    Attention, ESG investors: Canada’s biggest carbon-emitting public companies – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    That has implications for all of us. As the Bank of Canada puts it, “whatever path is chosen, delaying action heightens the risks to the financial sector and to the entire economy.” But thanks to a new report, Canadian investors now have greater insight into which companies are lagging.

    Climate Engagement Canada introduces Net Zero Benchmark assessments

    To help both individual and institutional investors in Canada make informed investment decisions, multiple industry initiatives are working to create and improve reporting on how companies approach climate and other ESG (environmental, social and governance) issues. Historically, both in Canada and globally, ESG reporting has been limited at best. But now, as demand for rigorous, usable data grows, fresh resources are emerging. One of these is the new Net Zero Benchmark Company Assessments from Climate Engagement Canada (CEC).

    The 41 participants in the CEC initiative include major organizations such as Canada Post, Hydro Québec and McGill University, as well as financial companies like BMO Global Asset Management, AGF Investments and Vancity. CEC’s focus is to engage with publicly traded Canadian corporations that have the highest direct and indirect GHG emissions—among them large grocery chains and transportation and energy companies—and its goal is to measure these organizations’ commitment to climate action and progress toward net-zero.

    “This is an attempt to understand what actions companies have taken so that investors can be more effective in pinpointing what companies they should target and on what specific climate issues,” says Tim Nash, founder of Good Investing, a Toronto firm that offers research and coaching to support DIY sustainable investors. “The more specific investors can be in saying to companies, ‘this is what we want,’ the easier it’s going to be for corporations to be able to meet those investor expectations.”

    Nash adds that it’s no surprise that “a lot of investors right now want to see strong climate change policies and leadership from Canadian corporations.” A 2023 survey by the Responsible Investment Association found that among a group of Canadian institutional asset managers and asset owners, 76% said that minimizing investment risk over time was among their top three reasons to choose responsible investing, and 93% said they consider a company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when making investment decisions.

    What’s in the Net Zero assessments?

    The Net Zero Assessments focus on the top reporting or estimated GHG emitters on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). Nash describes the assessments as “robust and comprehensive”—there’s a lot of detail involved. The key documents released in December are an outline of what the benchmark’s 10 indicators mean and a colour-coded spreadsheet ranking each company on each indicator as either Yes (green), Partial (yellow) or No (red) for 2023. Spoiler alert: there’s not a lot of green. Most of the 41 companies on the list have at least partially set medium-term GHG reduction targets, while only 15 have set short-term targets—all of them partial. Other indicators include whether the company has a decarbonization strategy, a goal to reach net-zero by 2050 and a climate advocacy position in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, among others.

    Which Canadian public companies have net zero ambitions and targets?

    Below is part of the Net Zero Assessments colour-coded spreadsheet, displaying the first four indicators (net-zero ambitions, long-term targets, medium-term targets and short-term targets), to give you a glimpse of how the 41 companies are faring. (View the full spreadsheet at Climate Engagement Canada.)

    Slide the columns right or left using your fingers or mouse to see even more data, including returns and strategy. You can download the data to your device in Excel, CSV and PDF formats. To reorder the data, tap the header’s arrow you want to compare.

    [ad_2]

    Kat Tancock

    Source link

  • Banks face pressure to stop financing use of coal in steel production

    Banks face pressure to stop financing use of coal in steel production

    [ad_1]

    Metallurgical coal is dumped onto a pile in Ceredo, West Virginia, in 2017. Climate groups are pressuring banks to stop financing the energy source, which is used to heat blast furnaces in the steelmaking process.

    Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg

    Sustainable finance advocates are pressuring five of the six largest U.S. banks to stop financing metallurgical coal, an emissions-heavy energy source used to heat blast furnaces in the steelmaking process.

    In a letter to the banks on Thursday, climate groups called for commitments to “end all dedicated financial services” for the development and expansion of metallurgical coal projects and related infrastructure.

    Metallurgical coal contains a higher amount of carbon, as well as ash and moisture, than thermal coal, which is more commonly used to generate power.

    The climate groups argue that banks should include metallurgical coal in their phase-out plans and increase lending to “key enabling sectors” for the steel industry’s “transition.”

    “It is essential that other energy sources are identified for both steelmaking and power generation, and that all coal remains in the ground,” the letter states.

    The letter was signed by 67 climate organizations globally, including BankTrack, the Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club, and sent to 50 large financial institutions around the world.

    The U.S.-based recipients were Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. Those five banks provided a combined $29.6 billion to finance metallurgical coal projects since 2016, according to the letters.

    BofA, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley declined to comment. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan did not respond to requests for comment.

    In a March report, Citi committed to reducing the carbon exposure of its loan portfolio by 2030 in four sectors: steel, auto manufacturing, commercial real estate and thermal coal mining.

    For the steel industry, Citi committed to reaching a score of zero, which is the best possible score under the Sustainable STEEL Principles, a reporting framework developed by the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on decarbonization efforts.

    Citi had previously committed to reducing 90% of emissions from thermal coal mining by 2030, based on a 2021 baseline.

    JPMorgan Chase has set a 2030 target to reduce 30% of its emissions tied to the steel industry based on a 2019 baseline. BofA, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley did not set 2030 targets to reduce their portfolio emissions from the steel industry.

    Ariana Criste, who leads the steel campaign at Industrious Labs, one of the sustainable finance groups that signed the letter, said that metallurgical coal continues to be a “blind spot” for the financial industry.

    “If the U.S. banking industry and the global banking industry continue to underwrite and enable the steel industry to rely on this outdated fossil fuel,” Criste said in an interview, “the green steel future is going to continue to remain out of reach.”

    The activists are targeting not only banks, but also the steel industry, saying that steel production should be decarbonized or phased out to help meet commitments to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

    Over the last decade, climate activists have pressured banks and other companies to stop funding greenhouse gas-emitting industries, and also to provide more transparency about their carbon footprints.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Stutts

    Source link

  • Responsible investing is growing in Canada. Which ESG factors matter most? – MoneySense

    Responsible investing is growing in Canada. Which ESG factors matter most? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    According to the 2023 Canadian Responsible Investment Trends Report, released on Oct. 26 by the Responsible Investment Association (RIA), the answer is yes: investors continue to prioritize responsible investing, and more growth is expected as local and international reporting standards improve. Survey responses are from Canadian institutional asset managers and asset owners who answered questions in mid-2023. The data shared paints a picture of the industry on Dec. 31, 2022. Here are some highlights from the report.

    About half of assets under management are invested responsibly

    With $2.9 trillion of assets under management in responsible investments (RI) in Canada, this is no small industry. And while this number is a slight decrease from the previous year, that’s a product of market conditions: it actually reflects a higher proportion of all Canadian professionally managed assets than in 2021, and RI’s market share has grown from 47% to 49%.

    Responsible investing is a risk management strategy

    You might think the main motivation for anyone choosing responsible investing is what’s in the ESG acronym: environmental, social and governance factors. And while those are definitely important—14% of survey respondents said their organization’s primary reason for choosing RI was to fulfill its mission, purpose or values—there are many other factors at play. One of the big ones? A common goal for any type of investment: minimizing risk and maximizing value.

    In fact, 35% of organizations surveyed said that minimizing risk over time was their primary reason for choosing responsible investing, and a further 41% ranked it second or third. And 61% said that improving returns over time was one of the top three factors influencing their choice to prioritize ESG investments.

    Another issue that mattered to many respondents was fiduciary duty—their obligation to maximize their clients’ returns—which 26% listed as their organization’s primary motivation.

    Which ESG factors do organizations consider? All of them

    The risks facing our society due to climate change are top of mind for Canadians, and the investors here are no exception. This year, 93% of respondents said that greenhouse gas emissions were a factor they considered in their investment decisions, an increase from 85% in 2022. Climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation were the other top environmental factors mentioned by respondents, at 84% and 76% respectively.

    Top social factors mentioned by respondents include equity, diversity and inclusion (81%), human rights (76%), labour practices (76%), and health and safety (71%). The governance factors that respondents deemed significant included board diversity and inclusion (87%), executive pay (71%) and shareholder rights (70%).

    Many strategies make for comprehensive decisions

    Organizations surveyed use a number of tools to help themselves include ESG factors in their decision-making. These three topped the list:

    [ad_2]

    Kat Tancock

    Source link

  • Banks in Europe get world’s first ESG add-on to capital rules

    Banks in Europe get world’s first ESG add-on to capital rules

    [ad_1]

    In a global first, Europe’s main bank regulator is revising the framework that sets capital requirements so that lenders reflect environmental and social risks in mandatory, industrywide buffers.

    The European Banking Authority has identified “some short-term fixes” to minimum requirements — known as Pillar 1 — “that can already be implemented,” Chairman Jose Manuel Campa said in an interview. Others will be phased in over time, with some requiring new legislation, the EBA said.

    The new requirements, outlined in a report published by the EBA on Thursday, mark the first in what’s set to be a continuous reworking of the capital framework within which European banks must operate. The goal is to reflect the increasing threat to financial stability that regulators now see from ESG factors such as climate change and inequality.

    ESG is “changing the risk profile for the banking sector,” according to the EBA. The development is expected to become more pronounced over time and has implications for “traditional categories of financial risks, such as credit, market and operational risks,” it said.

    Until now, regulatory focus has largely been on disclosure and individual bank risk (known as Pillar 2), due in large part to a lack of adequate data and methodologies for calculating sector-wide ESG risks. 

    The bank industry, meanwhile, has been emphatic in its opposition to such far-reaching capital requirements. 

    In response to an EBA consultation last year, the European Banking Federation said it’s against using Pillar 1 to address climate risks, arguing that capital assessments should allow for differences in bank balance sheets. Predicting losses also means relying on scenarios which are uncertain and shouldn’t be used to set capital levels, the industry group said.

    The EU’s largest bank, BNP Paribas, warned separately that increasing capital requirements would hamper lenders’ ability to provide transition finance, without necessarily making the industry any more resilient.

    Banks with sector emission targets

    The EBA’s Campa said the new ESG requirements are “very concrete.” But they won’t have the same impact on capital ratios as the so-called Basel III rules that followed the financial crisis of 2008, he said. 

    For now, the new ESG buffer rules aren’t “going to lead to a significant, discrete increase in the short term,” Campa said.

    That’s in part because models for estimating the fallout of climate change, environmental degradation and inequality are in their infancy, compared with conventional risk management tools that have been built on historical data.

    “There are a lot of areas that we need to understand better,” Campa said. “One thing that is interesting that we capture in this report — and it’s important for people to realize — is that as you think about regulation, we need to think differently about the methods that we have to assess this risk.”

    The EBA report contains more than five pages of instructions to banks and national supervisors for short and longer-term changes. That includes plans for future regulatory action, which the EBA says may require new legislation. Banks and national regulators will be expected to:
    – Reevaluate collateral values to incorporate both physical and transition risks, and continue monitoring these values over the life of the exposure.
    – Incorporate environmental risks into trading book risk budgets, internal trading limits and the creation of new products.
    – Ensure external credit assessments integrate environmental and social factors as “drivers of credit risk.”
    – Adapt internal models for calculating risks from specific exposures to incorporate environmental and social factors and limit use of so-called overrides.
    – Adjust probabilities of default and loss given defaults.
    The EBA said it will continue work on a number of issues, including recommendations for banks with high degrees of exposure to particularly vulnerable industries including fossil fuel and real estate.Banks are highly likely to face bigger losses as the economy moves toward net zero emissions, though how big will depend on policies adopted to address climate change, according to a September report by the European Central Bank. Credit risk would more than double by 2030 in a so-called late push scenario compared with an increase of 60% in an accelerated transition, the ECB said.

    The changes the EBA is making are part of a larger reconfiguration of banks’ capital framework, which includes more extensive disclosure requirements around ESG. It’s the latest demonstration of the EU’s willingness to take a global lead in responding to the risks posed by climate change. 

    Campa said banks and regulators need to adjust their approach. 

    “We need to be forward-looking and we need to accept that we have to be forward looking. So we need to be willing to work more with scenarios,” Campa said. “Climate is likely to increase the correlations among those risks that before you thought were diversified. Some you thought were not correlated, they’re going to be very correlated.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The SBA guidelines on energy efficiency in mortgages: Where things stand 180 days before coming into force – Banking blog

    The SBA guidelines on energy efficiency in mortgages: Where things stand 180 days before coming into force – Banking blog

    [ad_1]

    The self-regulation guidelines from the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) on the promotion of energy efficiency in mortgages have shone a sudden spotlight on the subject of ESG in financing. While the current guidelines are limited in scope, they nevertheless present challenges for banks in Switzerland, as they may well be extended in the future. Banks are well advised to adjust their lending operating model not only in the short term, but also strategically for the longer term.

    ESG criteria for mortgage financing are new in Switzerland

    With the Paris Agreement, Switzerland set a goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 50% from a 1990 baseline by 2030. However, this is only a stepping stone to the net zero target for 2050.[i] Despite making significant progress, Switzerland narrowly missed its targets for 2020.[ii]

    Buildings account for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions (roughly 25%) and an even higher proportion of energy consumption (approximately 45%).[iii],[iv] Heating, much of it powered by fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil, makes up the bulk (68%) of this energy consumption.[v] Achieving climate goals will necessarily entail building renovations with focus on energy efficiency, but the 0.9% renovation rate in Switzerland remains far too low despite the incentives of a carbon tax and a building energy renovation programme.[vi] This suggests that there may be an “information deficit”. Unsurprisingly therefore, mortgages and mortgage providers are increasingly attracting attention from regulators — after all, mortgage providers have regular contact with both new and existing property owners, and consequently have opportunities to discuss sustainability issues with their clients. But while in the EU clear rules on dealing with potential climate risks from financing already exist (EBA/GL/2020/06, 4.3.5 and 4.3.6), Switzerland has so far limited itself to disclosure of climate-related financial risks, and only for category 1 and 2 banks (FINMA Circular 2016/01). Sustainability is an increasingly important topic in the political arena, fuelled among other things by the debate around UBS and CS. For example, a bill of targets in climate protection, innovation and energy independence was adopted with a substantial majority of 59.1% in the referendum of 18 June 2023, and this is likely to further intensify regulatory pressure. The SBA self-regulation “Guidelines for mortgage providers on the promotion of energy efficiency” that came into force on 1 January 2023 introduce ESG-related lending requirements for the first time in Switzerland, requiring banks to address the topic of energy efficiency in buildings with customers for mortgage financing.[vii],[viii]

    Numerous challenges for banks despite narrow scope

    It should be noted that there are two limitations to the guidelines. First, they are voluntary self-regulation by the Swiss Bankers Association (SBA).[ix] Unlike other self-regulation (such as CDB 20), the guidelines are only binding on SBA member institutions. This means for example that the Raiffeisen banks are not directly affected by the guidelines despite their large share of the mortgage market (approx. 17% in 2022). The same goes for insurance companies and pension funds (approx. 5% market share in 2022).[x] There are also limitations relating to the properties concerned. The guidelines apply exclusively to owner-occupied single-family and vacation homes. Nevertheless, the new requirements are sufficiently comprehensive to present banks with challenges that should not be underestimated — not least because the guidelines also apply to existing loans. The guidelines concern five main topic areas: (see Figure 1 for detailed contents of each section).

    1. Provision of information (Art. 5)

    2. Advising customers (Art. 2 & Art. 5)

    3. Terms and conditions (Art. 3)

    4. Data (Art. 4)

    5. Training and professional development (Art. 6)

    With the exception of the “Terms and conditions”, the requirements in each area are compulsory and member institutions must implement them appropriately. However, implementation is complex because the guidelines contain principles-based requirements (thus leaving room for interpretation) while also covering matters that have an impact on the overall process (such as capturing energy efficiency data). Figure 1 provides an overview of the key contents along with selected implementation challenges for each topic area.

    SBA image 1

    Figure 1: Overview of key contents of the new guidelines and selected challenges for banks

    It is unsurprising that some Swiss banks have made more progress than others with implementation, particularly in view of the transition period up to 1 January 2024. Nevertheless, banks would be well advised to obtain clarity as soon as possible as to what changes will be needed by the end of 2023.  If they fail to do so, they run the risk of having to implement a large number of tactical auxiliary measures shortly before the end of the transition period, which could impair their competitiveness. An interim analysis by the exclusive Deloitte Mortgage Survey in early June (see Figure 2) found that some 88% of institutions indicated that they had already incorporated ESG issues into their consultations. Where further-reaching measures are concerned, however, the picture is more differentiated. Just 21% of respondents use ESG as a criterion in property appraisals (for mark-up/write-down purposes), while only 33% have special terms for houses with a good eco score. By contrast, 25% of respondents plan to define ESG-related KPI targets for their mortgage portfolios, while 42% intend to introduce customer incentives for ESG renovations in 2024.

    ESG_Blog_1

    Figure 2: Survey on implementation status (as of 30 June 2023, n=24)

    Taking the opportunity for sustainable optimisation of lending operations

    While banks have the option of relying on particular tactical measures in implementing the new guidelines (e.g. manual entry of certificates and labels in customer files, fact sheets/links to subsidy programmes), this approach is likely to fall short in meeting changing regulatory demands. The provisions in some other markets go considerably further than those in Switzerland. For example, the draft of the seventh MaRisk amendment (published in September 2022) adopts parts of the previous German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) memorandum on managing sustainability risks, such as adjustments to credit risk strategies and appetite considering ESG risks, as well as ESG risk measurement at the portfolio level. The requirements will be subject to audit. At present this is not the case for the new SBA guidelines, but it is quite conceivable that FINMA will take similar measures in the years to come. The scope of properties affected is also likely to expand (to include, for example, investment properties). Last but not least, it is also clear that Switzerland will not be able to avoid the international trend towards better measurement and reporting of climate risks. Banks are therefore well advised not to take the changes associated with the SBA guidelines too lightly. The opportunity here is to use the momentum to achieve a better strategic alignment of their lending business with future challenges, such as those related to their future operating model (see also https://blogs.deloitte.ch/banking/2021/03/strategic-trends-and-implications-for-bank-operating-models.html). There are already examples in the market of banks with innovative, comprehensive solutions, such as home2050, a collaboration between Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank and the canton’s leading energy supplier:  among other things this offers a solution for assessment of the potential, financing and installation of solar equipment and the associated energy system.

    In deciding what to do next, banks should specifically ask themselves the following five key questions:

    1. What gaps still exist in respect of the SBA requirements?

    2. What short, medium and long-term measures can be taken to close these gaps?

    3. What further initiatives/projects could impact the implementation of the guidelines, and where can synergies be utilised?

    4. Are we seeking a purely tactical implementation for the sake of compliance, or will we utilise the momentum for a comprehensive, forward-looking transformation of the lending business?

    5. Will we implement the requirements ourselves or work with an external partner?

    You can also view this blog on our website in English and German.

    Marc Grueter blog

    Marc Grüter, Partner, Lead FS Transformation

    Marc has 16 years of experience as a partner for leading strategic consulting firms and Big Four companies in Switzerland. Within his project portfolio, he focuses on:

    • Strategy development, target operating model design and digitalisation

    • Process optimisation and re-engineering, efficiency enhancement and cost optimisation

    • Automation, transformation and application of advanced analytical tools

    Email | LinkedIn

    Eric blog

    Eric Gutzwiller, Director, FS Transformation

    Eric has more than 10 years of consulting experience for leading universal and cantonal banks. Within his project portfolio, he focuses on:

    • Front-to-back lending process optimisation, standardisation, application of digital automated technologies

    • Strategy development and redesign, front-end and sales enablement, income optimisation projects

    Complex reorganisations and comprehensive cost optimisation initiatives at banks.

    Email  | LinkedIn

      Simon heller blog

    Simon Heller, Director, Lead Sustainability Services Risk Advisory

    Simon has 18 years of experience in sustainability topics in the finance sector. Within his project portfolio, he focuses on:

    • Sustainability and climate strategies, climate risks

    • Net zero targeting and decarbonisation of enterprises and real estate portfolios

    • Sustainability reporting and ESG ratings

    Email| Linked

      Pablo Paron

    Pablo Paron, Manager, FS Transformation

    Pablo has more than 5 years of consulting experience for leading universal and cantonal banks. Within his project portfolio, he focuses on:

    • Design of target operating models (TOMs) for the lending business, including strategy development and redesign

    • Front-to-back process optimisation, standardisation and application of digital automated technologies

    Market entry strategies, due diligence and platform implementation

    Email| LinkedIn 

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    [i] https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/climate/info-specialists/emission-reduction/reduction-targets.html

    [ii] https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/climate/info-specialists/emission-reduction/reduction-targets.html

    [iii] Federal Office for the Environment [FOEN] – CO2 statistics (2022)

    [iv] Swiss Federal Office of Energy [SFOE] – Analysis of Swiss energy consumption 2000-2020 by specific use (2021)

    [v] The Federal Council – Switzerland’s long-term climate strategy (2021)

    [vi] https://www.sia.ch/de/politik/energie/modernisierung-gebaeudepark/

    [vii] Requirements are only binding for SBA member banks

    [viii] A transition period until 1 January 2024 applies for adaptation of internal bank processes

    [ix] Cf. https://www.swissbanking.ch/en/topics/regulation-and-compliance/self-regulation

    [x] Market share based on own calculations using SNB and FINMA data

    [ad_2]

    Lena Woodward

    Source link

  • ADEC ESG Solutions Rejoins CDP as an Accredited Solutions Provider

    ADEC ESG Solutions Rejoins CDP as an Accredited Solutions Provider

    [ad_1]

    Global sustainability leader ADEC ESG Solutions recognized as accredited resource for driving organizational value and delivering impact.


    IRVINE, Calif., May 24, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    ADEC ESG Solutions, an ADEC Innovation, announces today that it has rejoined a select network of CDP service providers with its accreditation as a CDP silver climate change consultancy partner.

    CDP is the global non-profit which runs the world’s environmental disclosure system used by over 18,700 companies and 1,200 cities, states, and regions. CDP is backed by 745 investors with assets of US$130 trillion and 330+ large purchasers with US$6.4 trillion in buying power.

    ADEC ESG Solutions is a global sustainability consultancy firm that collaborates and innovates on sustainability solutions to help organizations responsibly grow and operate. Offering customized, hands-on solutions such as sustainability program development and in-depth technical expertise through a strategic lens, ADEC ESG reshapes climate-related risk into positive impact and value.

    CDP accredits service providers who support companies on their environmental journey, from climate-related scenario analysis to designing strategies for a water-secure and deforestation-free future. Accredited providers help companies disclosing to CDP to address gaps in their environmental performance and identify opportunities for becoming leaders in the corporate environmental action space.

    “Companies and their investors are making climate-related risks and impacts a priority, and CDP plays a pivotal role in bringing transparency and understanding to ESG on the world stage,” said James M. Donovan, Global CEO of ADEC Innovations. “By continuing to offer these services to reporting companies, ADEC Innovations remains committed to supporting organizations worldwide as they implement their ambitious practices in a world where sustainability matters.”

    Paul Robins, Head of Corporate Partnerships, CDP commented, “As part of our network of accredited solutions providers, ADEC ESG Solutions brings highly valued expertise to thousands of companies using CDP to disclose their environmental data and support them to implement leading actions to manage their risks and reduce their impacts. We are confident that ADEC ESG Solutions’ capabilities will be useful, and we are glad to once again accredit them as a valued, high-quality service provider.”

    About ADEC ESG Solutions     
    ADEC Innovations’ ESG business advances sustainable practices around the world, helping organizations responsibly grow and operate. ADEC ESG seamlessly delivers fully-integrated, cost-effective consulting, data management, and software solutions to ensure we meet our clients’ ever-evolving ESG needs, and help them reshape risk into positive impact and value. Visit adecesg.com to learn more.

    About CDP     
    Founded in 2000 and working with more than 680 investors with over $130 trillion in assets, CDP is a global non-profit that runs the world’s environmental disclosure system for companies, cities, states and regions. Over 19,000 organizations around the world disclosed data through CDP in 2022. Fully TCFD-aligned, CDP holds the largest environmental database in the world, and CDP scores are widely used to drive investment and procurement decisions towards a zero-carbon, sustainable, and resilient economy. Visit cdp.net or follow us @CDP to find out more.

    Please direct media inquiries to media@adec-innovations.com

    Source: ADEC Innovations

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge overturns corporate board diversity law in California

    Judge overturns corporate board diversity law in California

    [ad_1]

    A state law enacted in May 2020 required California-based corporations to appoint between one and three minority board members, depending on the size of its board of directors.

    David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

    In the latest legal blow to efforts to mandate diversity in corporate boardrooms, a federal judge has struck down a California law that required banks and other companies to appoint a minimum number of board members from underrepresented communities.

    The three-year-old law, which applied to corporations headquartered in California, imposed an unconstitutional racial quota, a judge in the Eastern District of California ruled this week.

    The law forced “a certain fixed number of board positions to be reserved for certain minority groups” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, wrote Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez.

    The decision rolls back a law intended to address corporate discrimination against underrepresented communities including Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander and indigenous groups, as well as individuals who identify as LGBTQ+.

    Enacted in May 2020, the law required California-based corporations to appoint between one and three minority board members, depending on the size of the company’s board of directors. Fines for noncompliance ranged from $100,000 to $300,000.

    The law was challenged in court by the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, a nonprofit group that’s dedicated to corporate board recruitment practices “without regard to race, ethnicity, sex and sexual identity,” according to its website.

    Attempts to “semantically cast” the law as “flexible” did not overcome the court’s finding that the law established a racial quota, Mendez wrote in the ruling.

    The California Secretary of State’s office and lawyers representing the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment did not respond Friday to requests for comment.

    The 2020 law has been the subject of multiple court challenges. Last year, a state court judge ruled that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. Mendez initially granted a stay in the federal suit pending an appeal of the state court decision, but later lifted the stay.

    California courts have also blocked a 2018 state law that would have required companies based in the state to add more women to their boards.

    State laws on board diversity have also been enacted in Illinois, Maryland and New York. And a federal appeals court is currently reviewing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of corporate board diversity rules devised by the Nasdaq stock exchange.

    Lance Christensen, vice president for education policy and government affairs at the California Policy Center, a free-markets group, said courts are recognizing that California’s legislature is “overstepping its boundaries on issues that are specific to corporate governance.”

    “Any time the state steps in to control, constrain or redirect a business’s purpose, mindset and mission, [it] can have a negative impact on the economy in California,” Christensen said in an interview.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Stutts

    Source link

  • Why Employers and Employees Aren’t Agreeing on Expectations | Entrepreneur

    Why Employers and Employees Aren’t Agreeing on Expectations | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In just seven years, we will face a global worker shortage of 85 million people, according to the 2023 Workforce Trends ManPower Group report. That means there will be major shifts in the power balance between employees and employers. Traditional employers with a command and control leadership style will have less power as power shifts more to employees.

    With increased power over employees, expectations are shifting. Consider these statistics:

    • 31% of current workers would take another role in the next month if it offered a better blend of work and lifestyle.
    • 68% of Gen Z workers are not satisfied with their organization’s progress in creating a diverse and inclusive work environment and 56% would not accept a role without diverse leadership.
    • More workers think that the ability to collaborate (83%), solve problems (82%) and be trustworthy (82%) are more important to do their job well than simply being a high producer (76%).
    • 57% of employees are already pursuing training outside of work, because company training programs don’t teach them relevant skills.
    • 75% of investors say companies should address ESG (environmental, social and governance) issues, even if doing so reduces short-term profitability (diversity, equity and inclusion fit in the “S”).

    To address these growing macro trends, organizations need to:

    • Model and reinforce workplace flexibility — especially senior leadership).
    • Objectively measure employee performance (a.k.a. behaviors + results).
    • Proactively address ESG social issues before it is mandated.

    Related: How to Balance Employee Happiness and Business Expectations

    1. Model and reinforce workplace flexibility — especially senior leadership

    Considering nearly one-third of workers would leave their roles immediately for better work-life integration, this signals a growing expectation for authentic flexibility. No longer a nice to have, it is a must-have for workers. More traditional cultures have been slow to change, expecting employees to return post-pandemic to the status quo. Rather than retreat to past notions of workplace expectations, this is an opportunity to shift to meet shifting employee expectations. People are looking to leaders to not just say flexibility is important but to model it through their own actions. As leaders work remotely and take time off, employees feel safer doing so as well.

    Here are some unconventional ways leadership can promote flexibility (Note: For front-line workers, virtual work may not be a possibility and flexibility can be more constrained):

    • Host a workplace offsite at a remote location where employees can bring their families, mixing work and life in a relaxed environment.
    • Set expectations for in-person days in the office environment. Consider maybe one or two designated days per week that your employees are expected to be physically present, and working from home the remainder of the days.
    • Be clear about holiday observances cross-culturally. Be cognizant of holiday celebrations and out-of-office obligations.
    • Talk to team members about their travel interests or family visits, encouraging them to work from other locations if they can and want to during less busy times.

    2. Objectively measure employee performance (behaviors + results)

    Subjective criteria invite bias into the performance management process. More often, inclusive behavior is just as important as the ability to get results. If your employees are getting results with exclusionary behavior, they need to be held accountable for these behaviors as well — trust, collaboration and problem-solving skills. Increasingly, toxic workplace behavior is a key reason for employees self-selecting out organizations. If you tolerate toxic behavior because the person is getting results, it’s the same as saying toxic workplace behavior is acceptable.

    Consider adding competencies to the performance management process to ensure people are not only getting the results but they’re being held accountable for their behavior. Competencies like communication, leadership, empathy and vulnerability are highly correlated with healthy workplace cultures. What gets measured and gets done. When people are held accountable for their behavior, the culture shifts.

    Related: Employees Only Meet Expectations When They Know What’s Expected

    3. Proactively address ESG social issues — before it’s mandated

    Europe’s expected mandate of ESG reporting will affect any organization that does business in Europe. Rather than having to react once enacted, it’s important to proactively prepare. Because diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are a part of the social component of ESG, organizations will be expected to report on DEI activities and representation numbers. Investors, customers and employees alike are asking how organizations are contributing to positive social change. As the power continues to shift to employees, expect this question to be asked more often, realizing future consumers and employees are voting with their dollars and employment decisions. People want to work with organizations that are creating social good.

    Case study

    A Fortune 25 client of ours in the financial services industry realized this shift in employee power. Instead of maintaining the status quo, they decided to develop a program that responded to changing employee needs. They built a nine-month Men as Allies program with a curriculum to support learning on flexibility, inclusive leadership skills and how to effectively mentor and sponsor people different from themselves. The result was a boost in year-over-year membership growth of 30% for women and 40% for men as allies. Promotion rates and retention for women in the program increased as well.

    With a growing disconnect in workplace expectations, it’s important that organizations realize that the workplace needs to change, not the employees. By modeling flexibility, measuring employee performance and anticipating ESG expectations, we can meet employees where they are and create more inclusive workplaces where all people feel seen, heard and feel like they belong.

    [ad_2]

    Julie Kratz

    Source link

  • SumUp Announces New Global ESG Initiatives to Support Sustainability Efforts

    SumUp Announces New Global ESG Initiatives to Support Sustainability Efforts

    [ad_1]

    With new environmental and societal activities, SumUp steps up its efforts to support positive change in the planet


    BOULDER, Colo., April 19, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Global financial technology company SumUp continues its industry-leading sustainability agenda, today announcing a range of initiatives addressing societal and environmental issues. 

    The SumUp ESG framework is based on: Environment, Education and Entrepreneurship. Within the Environment pillar, SumUp has pledged to donate 1% of net revenue generated by its Solo card readers to NGOs within the “1% for the Planet” movement. 

    Today’s announcement is a continuation of that work as SumUp looks to contribute to all aspects of ESG, looking at environmental and societal matters. SumUp is proud to announce several initiatives: 

    • In partnership with River Cleanup, removing 100,000kg of plastic from the Citarum River in Indonesia, the most polluted river in the world. In addition to the initial removal, SumUp will also conduct campaigns to raise environmental awareness among local communities
       
    • With Wilderness International, protecting 100,000m2 of forest in Peru for generations to come, preserving valuable habitats and biodiversity and offsetting 6,000 tons of CO2
       
    • Through StoveTeam International, SumUp will be supporting 1,000 families in Central America with safe, fuel-efficient cookstoves. These stoves reduce the risk of lung diseases and save 12 tons of CO2 per stove 

    SumUp is also offering three-month Java Full Stack courses to over 120 students across Chile, Brazil, and Colombia, providing tech education to women and girls, non-white, LGBTQ+, and other underprivileged people. Over 80% of last year’s graduates have found employment post-course. In addition, SumUp works with Dharma Life to provide a technology platform that supports education for children from rural India.

    Commenting, SumUp Global Head of Diversity & Inclusion and ESG Felizitas Lichtenberg, said: 

    “As a world-leading technology company, we’re committed to having a positive impact on the world and empowering people. And with our ESG initiatives, we want to create value throughout society and for the planet. We believe that investing in critical global issues and addressing them at source, like education for unemployed and minoritized groups, or protecting our planet, is not only the right thing to do but also a responsibility of everyone and will shape our shared future. We are committed to driving this agenda further to accelerate change and help create a sustainable future.”

    About SumUp

    SumUp is a global financial technology company driven by the mission of empowering small businesses all over the world. Founded in 2012, SumUp is the financial partner for more than 4 million entrepreneurs in over 35 markets worldwide. 

    In the United States, SumUp offers an ecosystem of affordable, easy-to-use financial products, such as point-of-sale and loyalty solutions, card readers, invoicing, and a business account that allows customers to manage their money and receive payouts the next day.

    For more information, please visit https://www.sumup.com/en-us/. 

    Source: SumUp

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is it safe to live near recycling centers? Questions surge after Indiana plastics site burns.

    Is it safe to live near recycling centers? Questions surge after Indiana plastics site burns.

    [ad_1]

    As the fire at an Indiana plastics-recycling storage facility burned over several days and officials scrambled to calm evacuated residents and measure air quality, larger safety questions emerged across a nation that relies on recycling to help offset the impact of teeming landfills and littered waterways.

    Authorities in the eastern part of the state on Sunday finally lifted a dayslong evacuation order after it was determined immediate environmental concerns related to the fire had passed.

    But the man-made disaster had already done its part, leaving many wondering if recycling centers — challenging to regulate because they range from small community-led efforts to major industrial facilities — are as safe as Americans think they are?

    Public health experts told MarketWatch the nation needs to take a harder look at how we store and dispose of chemicals-heavy plastics in particular, along with other recycled materials that can act as a tinderbox in certain conditions. It may be a wakeup call to the scores of Americans who embrace recycling as one of the longest-tested and straightforward solutions to help the environment. What happens after recyclable materials leave the home can be quite another story, however.

    Read: Recycling is confusing — how to be smarter about all that takeout plastic

    Worker safety in the handling of large recycling machinery remains a priority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other agencies, but less scrutiny may be given to the emissions those workers breathe in, and in the case of the Indiana emergency, what pollution community members near a recycling center may be exposed to.

    “Any company, regardless of its intentions, must be held accountable for regulations, not only for the safety of its employees, but for the communities around it,” Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a pulmonologist, who is the national spokesperson for the American Lung Association, told MarketWatch.

    “This [Indiana crisis] is alarming — a good deed [such as recycling] undone by the consequences of not having sound safety precautions,” said Galiatsatos, who is also an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and helps lead community engagement for the Baltimore Breathe Center.

    As for the fire in Richmond, Ind., a college town and county seat of about 35,000 people near the Ohio border, the city’s fire chief, Tim Brown, made clear that there were known code violations by the operator of the former factory that had been turned into plastics storage for recycling or resale. This dangerous fire was a matter of “when, not if,” Brown said in the initial hours that the fire, whose origin is not yet known, burned.

    The city of Richmond’s official site about the disaster described the fire as initially impacting “two warehouses containing large amounts of chipped, shredded and bulk recycled plastic, [which] caught fire.” The site does offer cleanup help advice.

    Brown, the fire chief, reported that just over 13 of the 14 acres which made up the recycling facility’s property had burned, according to nearby Dayton, Ohio, station WDTN. Brown told reporters the six buildings at the site of the fire were full of plastic from “floor to ceiling, wall to wall,” along with several full semi-trailers. He said Sunday that fire fighters would continue to monitor for flare-ups, according to the Associated Press.

    Richmond Mayor Dave Snow said the owner of the buildings has ignored citations that dinged his operation for code violations, and the city has continued to go through steps to get the owner to clean up the property, including preventing the operator from taking on additional plastic.

    “We just wish the property owner and the business owner would’ve taken this more serious from day one,” Snow said, according to the report out of Dayton, which cited sister station WXIN. “This person has been negligent and irresponsible, and it’s led to putting a lot of people in danger,” the mayor added.

    But some environmental groups say lax enforcement puts citizens at risk.

    “Indiana is already top in the nation for water and air quality violations, but the consequences are too negligible here for industry to adhere to the laws,” said Susan Thomas, communications director at Just Transition Northwest Indiana, a climate justice group based in the state.

    “We need real solutions to the climate crisis, not more false ones that shield chronic polluters from justice,” she said.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had collected debris samples from the Richmond fire and searched nearby grounds for any debris, which will be sampled for asbestos given the age of the buildings housing the recycling facility. Residents have been warned not to touch or mow over debris until the sample results are available. Testing was also carried out on the Ohio side of the border.

    No doubt, the catastrophe had impacted daily life. Wayne County, Ind., health department officials and fire-safety officials told residents to shelter in place and reduce outdoor activity if they even smelled smoke. According to the health department’s help line, symptoms that may be related to breathing smoke include repeated coughing, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, wheezing, chest tightness or pain, palpitations, nausea or lightheadedness.

    Any safer than a landfill?

    When a lens on recycling is widened, it comes to light that how facilities handle their plastic and other materials may not involve much more care than that given to chemical-emitting plastic left to break down in a landfill, say the concerned public health officials.

    Of the 40 million tons of plastic waste generated in the U.S., only 5%-6%, or about two million tons, is recycled, according to a report conducted by the environmental groups Beyond Plastics and The Last Beach Cleanup. About 85% went to landfills, and 10% was incinerated. The rate of plastic recycling has decreased since 2018, when it was at 8.7%, per the study.

    Generally speaking, when plastic particles break down, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk they will have a toxic effect on organisms, says the environmental arm of the United Nations. The larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.

    And although the conditions of the Indiana fire differ from those experienced earlier this year when a Norfolk Southern Corp.
    NSC,
    +0.30%
    freight train carrying hazardous materials in several cars derailed near East Palestine, Ohio, the public’s concern for that event — which also sparked an evacuation after a chemical plume from a controlled burn — spread widely on social media.

    Now, add in Richmond. The public, at large, is increasingly wondering if officials are doing their job to prevent such disasters, and whether the full extent of chemical exposure is known.

    “This [fire in Indiana] overlaps in a general sense the chemical safety question raised by the Ohio derailment — and it shouldn’t have just been raised by that one event, but that certainly brought it into focus,” said Dr. Peter Orris, chief of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois – Chicago.

    Orris said lasting solutions pushing awareness and safety around the storage and transportation of chemicals and chemical-based plastic must span political differences over the reach of regulation. He recalled a time just after the 9/11 terror attacks when a fresh look at the transportation of toxic chemicals and the storage and shipment of ammonia and other substances that can have nefarious uses in the wrong hands drew support from unusual partners.

    “Shortly after 9/11 a rather broad coalition, including environmental interests such as Greenpeace, and consumer groups, with congressional support, alongside Homeland Security all pushed a model bill about where and how you could transport toxic chemicals, especially going through populated areas,” he said. “Dealing with new concerns around chemicals and recycling plastic may require the same breadth of interests.”

    Already, the Biden administration has shown the will to target chemical exposure in U.S. water. Earlier this year, the EPA moved to require near-zero levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, part of a classification of chemicals known as PFAS, and also called “forever chemicals” due to how long they persist in the environment. Both the chemical companies and their trade groups have pushed their own steps toward reducing risk, they say. Exposure to some of the chemicals has been linked to cancer, liver damage, fertility and thyroid problems, as well as asthma and other health effects.

    Read more: Cancer-linked PFAS — known as ‘forever chemicals’ — could be banned in drinking water for first time

    And, Orris stressed, regulating recycling with a one-size-fits-all approach may not work.

    Surprisingly, it can be the smaller recycling facilities that take bigger steps in curbing emissions than their larger counterparts. Orris in recent years reported on efforts of a San Francisco recycling plant that made emissions reduction a priority, including by banning incineration. The same research trip turned up issues with a Los Angeles-area plant, exposing “real problems with its policies and procedures beginning with the neighborhood smell from organic materials to other issues with toxins.”

    How can plastic be so dangerous?

    Specifically, the chemicals that help fortify plastic for its many uses present their own unique conditions.

    As plastic is heated at high temperatures, melted and reformed into small pellets, it emits toxic chemicals and particulate matter, including volatile gases and fly ash, into the air, which pose threats to health and the local environment, says a Human Rights Watch paper, citing environmental engineering research. When plastic is recycled into pellets for future use, its toxic chemical additives are carried over to the new products. Plus, the recycling process can generate new toxic chemicals, like dioxins, if plastics are not heated at a high enough temperature.

    There are other concerns. Plastic melting facilities can emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carcinogens, which in higher concentrations can pollute air both inside facilities and in areas near recycling facilities.

    “Plastics, the way they burn, put out dangerous toxins. And plastic can create its own unique chemistry even when it comes into interaction with benign chemicals,” said Galiatsatos of Johns Hopkins.

    “There are the lung issues from people breathing in these chemicals and the toxins associated with them. But there is more: systemic inflation from breathing in chemicals, and that can lead to heart disease,” he said.

    “I wish we would pay the same amount of attention to plastics, their recycling and their disposal, as we do with sewer systems. When was the last time we heard of a waste system-based cholera outbreak in the U.S.?” he asked rhetorically. “Exactly. That we care about. Yet plastics, especially the burning of chemicals, we treat too lightly.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sustainalytics Upgrades INNIO Group’s ESG Risk Rating From Low to Negligible Risk, Ranking INNIO Number 1 Worldwide Among Industry Peers

    Sustainalytics Upgrades INNIO Group’s ESG Risk Rating From Low to Negligible Risk, Ranking INNIO Number 1 Worldwide Among Industry Peers

    [ad_1]

    • Sustainalytics ESG rating places INNIO in top 1 percentile of all industry peers and in top 2 percentile of companies rated by Sustainalytics on a global level.

    • INNIO receives Sustainalytics’ ESG risk score of 9.8, improving by 11% compared to 2022.

    • INNIO also receives Sustainalytics’ 2023 “ESG Industry Top rated” and “ESG Regional Top Rated” badges.


    JENBACH, Austria, March 16, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    INNIO today announced that Sustainalytics has upgraded INNIO Group’s ESG risk score to 9.8, an improvement of 1.2 points year-over-year, and has upgraded the company’s risk rating from low to negligible. The rating from Sustainalytics, a global leader in ESG research, ratings, and data, reinforces INNIO’s number 1 position compared to peers across both Machinery and Industrial Machinery worldwide.

    “Improving our Sustainalytics rating is not only a reflection of our dedication to environmental, social and governance responsibility, it is also a testament to the hard work and collaboration of our talented team,” said Dr. Olaf Berlien, president and CEO of INNIO. “We will continue to prioritize sustainable practices and innovation for the benefit of our business, our stakeholders, and our planet.”

    The Sustainalytics risk rating improvement is a vital recognition for INNIO and an indicator of the company’s commitment to sustainable policies and programs. The risk rating focus includes health and safety, environment and carbon management, human capital, procurement practices and circularity. The rating upgrade signals that INNIO’s initiatives and actions to reduce its environmental impact, promote social equity, and ensure good governance are demonstrating positive results. It also underlines INNIO’s commitment to transparency and accountability, which are important factors in building trust and credibility with stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, investors, and employees. 

    Learn more about the ESG Risk Ratings.

                                                                                                                 ###

    About Sustainalytics

    Sustainalytics is a global leader in ESG research, ratings, and data, serving the world’s leading institutional investors and corporations. Sustainalytics works with hundreds of the world’s leading asset managers and pension funds who incorporate ESG and corporate governance information and assessments into their investment processes. For more information regarding Sustainalytics ESG rating, please visit https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-ratings. 

    About INNIO 

    INNIO is a leading energy solution and service provider that empowers industries and communities to make sustainable energy work today. With our product brands Jenbacher and Waukesha and our digital platform myPlant, INNIO offers innovative solutions for the power generation and compression segments that help industries and communities generate and manage energy sustainably while navigating the fast-changing landscape of traditional and green energy sources. We are individual in scope, but global in scale. With our flexible, scalable, and resilient energy solutions and services, we are enabling our customers to manage the energy transition along the energy value chain wherever they are in their transition journey. 

    INNIO is headquartered in Jenbach (Austria), with other primary operations in Waukesha (Wisconsin, U.S.) and Welland (Ontario, Canada). A team of more than 4,000 experts provides life-cycle support to the more than 55,000 delivered engines globally through a service network in more than 100 countries. 

    INNIO’s improved ESG Risk Rating again secures the number one position across more than 500 companies globally in the machinery industry assessed by Sustainalytics.

    For more information, visit INNIO’s website at www.innio.com. Follow INNIO on Twitter and LinkedIn.

    Source: INNIO Group

    [ad_2]

    Source link