Resource Center

Sustainalytics’ Carbon Risk Rating assesses the degree to which company value is at risk, driven by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Specifically, the Carbon Risk Rating measures a company’s unmanaged exposure to carbon risk.

Our EU Taxonomy Solution provides ESG research and data that assesses clients’ holdings and portfolio alignment to the EU Taxonomy. We currently offer a Taxonomy Data solution and a Managed Portfolio Service. The Managed Portfolio Service provides a portfolio-level alignment assessment and the Data solution provides company-level assessment along with the supporting underlying company-level data. Companies receive one of four assessments: Aligned (/With Warning), Partially Aligned (/With Warning), Not Aligned and No Evidence.

Sustainalytics’ Corporate Governance Research and Ratings enable investors to monitor companies year round and assess their corporate governance structures, practices and behaviors.

Sustainalytics’ Global Access is our flagship platform for accessing our ESG research. The user-friendly interface includes functionalities that enable investors to read detailed company reports with qualitative analyses, screen companies on ESG criteria for security selection and product creation and run custom reports to communicate ESG performance. With the alerts functionality, clients can monitor their portfolios for ESG incidents and controversies.

Sustainalytics’ ESG Risk Ratings, our next generation ESG ratings, are designed to help investors identify and understand financially material ESG risks at the security and portfolio level.

Sustainalytics’ Arms Trade Research enables investors to identify all publicly-listed companies that sell arms to sanctioned countries or countries where there is a high risk of violence against civilians. Our Arms Trade Research can help manage the reputational risks associated with investing in companies that supply arms to controversial regimes. Download the brochure to find out more.

Sustainalytics' Material Risk Engagement assists and protects companies with the highest unmanaged ESG Risks, Material Risk Engagement is change-oriented and has a long-term commitment to engagement.

As awareness around environmental and social issues has grown, so has the number of investors who deliberately seek to allocate capital to create positive social and environmental impact. Impact investing is as old as the sustainable investment industry, with the bulk of strategies to date having been executed through private equity and debt vehicles. However, as a more diversified pool of investors look to adopt impact investing strategies, fueled by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement, a broader set of asset classes are being considered – here enters public equities.

As global leaders meet in Madrid for the COP25 amid mounting concern over the international response to climate change, the EU Taxonomy experienced a setback with the UK and France blocking the plans. The new framework, intended to drive financial flows that will accelerate the shift to a low carbon future, will likely become a global standard affecting investors around the world. If enacted, it could cement the EU’s position as the world’s pace setter on climate legislation.

“No offence, but…”. This has become a common introduction to questions directed at environment, social and governance (ESG) rating providers and reflects a body of criticism centered on the premise that ESG research and ratings are fundamentally flawed.

The global equities market experienced substantial growth over the first quarter of 2019 as the FTSE All-World (AW) index returned 12.5%. But this growth spurt comes on the tail of a significant selloff during the preceding quarter; the total return of the FTSE AW over Q4 2018 sunk to -12.6%.[i]

Much has been written about the rise of responsible investing and environment, social and governance (ESG) integration over the past decade. From 2014 to 2016, assets that systematically considered ESG factors in the investment process grew from USD 7.5 trillion to USD 10.4 trillion, with continued momentum over the past several years[i]. However, recent commitments to ESG integration (vs. values-based strategies) have yet to be tested by a significant market downturn. The spike in market volatility experienced in late 2018 has led some to question whether the consideration of ESG factors by investors will continue to flourish in a market environment characterized by investor fear and valuation corrections.

On Monday 4 February, the final report from the Royal Commission inquiry into misconduct in the Australian financial sector was published. It contained a scathing review of years of misconduct and of the failures by regulators to appropriately supervise and hold companies accountable. The report also provided 76 recommendations to fix these issues.

In a new Medium article highly worth the read, Jon Hale, Global Head, Sustainable Investing Research at Morningstar, writes about recent misleading attacks on the credibility of ESG assessments and sustainable investing. He takes aim at a critical report from The American Council for Capital Formation, a Washington D.C. policy group financed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the fossil fuels industry and various other corporate lobbying organizations.

I recently traveled from the US to Europe to learn about the major market differences in sustainable investing. For context, investors long rooted in sustainable investing practices have viewed the general US market as lagging compared to Europe. As it pertains to values-based investing, I agree. However, the US has embraced ESG integration in a very sophisticated and pioneering way as it relates to risk mitigation.

Having already attracted more than USD 1bn of venture capital and other sources of funding, CRISPR – a breakthrough technology in gene editing – is revolutionizing biotechnology.

This report explores how environmental, social and governance (ESG) compatibility may contribute to the financial success of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Although M&As can present synergistic opportunities, firms involved in such deals are prone to several risks.

Default funds used by DC plan members in the UK are significantly exposed to a variety of ESG risks, including human capital, business ethics, product safety and data privacy and security.

In this year’s contribution to Sustainalytics’ 10 for series we present ten investment themes for investors to consider in 2017.For each theme, we describe the key drivers, identify companies with upside exposure and present a profile of a company that we consider to be particularly well-positioned in the market.

In this Spotlight report, we build on this interest by developing a new approach for connecting ESG and credit rating agency (CRA) data. The first part of our analysis looks at the correlation between ESG scores and CRA ratings,