Resource Center

What is impact investing? What is impact-focused investing? In this blog post we unpack impact, how it relates to ESG, and why it’s important to investors.

Many global investors already incorporate ESG factors into their evaluation of public companies across developed markets. We are now observing increasing interest in applying ESG considerations across a broader set of asset classes and regions.

To protect a company’s reputation and economic position, its employees play an essential part in organisational risk mitigation strategy by demonstrating consideration for systemic business risk, taking accountability, and being willing to escalate concerns. Companies with a strong, ethical corporate culture have much to gain—improved employee performance, morale, and retention, and in the long run, bolstering the bottom line.

Living Income is a crucial consideration among leading companies across some sectors and their supplier companies throughout the agricultural and food supply chain. Companies that manage ESG risk in their supply chains, making targeted investments to improve their resilience, are better positioned to build investor confidence.

When companies are receptive to investor feedback, there are clear real-world impacts and positive changes. Such engagement outcomes vary and are directly tied to the company and its company-specific exposure to material ESG issues.

As our clients and the industry at large focus on proactively mitigating risk and capitalizing on this evolving landscape, stewardship will be a key lever for savvy investors—particularly those facing external pressure to divest. Here are the ESG themes we see influencing stewardship priorities this year.

Corporates seeking to be socially sustainable must be able to comply with existing and upcoming legislation, mitigate reputational risks, and meet the evolving expectations of their stakeholders.

In 68% of our engagements, product governance is a significant material ESG issue, but it is our experience that most companies underestimate the materiality of this risk to investors. For some industries, product governance represents on average more than 20% of ESG risk exposure, as identified within our ESG Risk Rating framework.

There are many factors that rating agencies consider within its overall assessment. For example, ESG rating companies tend to look for at least three years of ESG metrics to determine company trends and long-term ESG targets, goals, and strategies to manage and reduce ESG risks at least five years ahead. Read on to learn about how Sustainalytics' Material Risk Engagement program promotes and protects long-term value by engaging with high-risk companies on financially-material ESG issues. (A North American Snapshot)

This blog originally appeared on GES International’s website and has been republished following Sustainaltyics’ acquisition of the company on 9 January 2019. See the press release for more information.

For investors looking to enhance ESG risk management and the long-term impact of sustainability efforts, a systemic approach can help identify interventions that will most effectively mitigate the risk of negative outcomes or divert the chain of events towards a more sustainable trajectory. Typically, this involves moving from single-issue or company-specific tactics to progressively integrate system-level considerations in ESG strategies. Targeting systemic change through active ownership is one way to acknowledge and start unravelling the dynamic web of global challenges.

On 26 May 2021, the Court of The Hague orders Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) to reduce CO2 emissions to a net 45% by the end of 2030 compared to 2019 through the Group Policy of the Shell Group. The order of a national (Dutch) court demands that a global company (RDS) fulfills its obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, although RDS was not a party in that agreement, and there is no legal equivalent in The Netherlands. What are the broader consequences of this order, also globally and for other companies and potentially also other jurisdictions?

Research shows that Property & Casualty insurance underwriters are not accurately pricing climate risks, and US government policy and program decisions are proving to be unsustainable. In our most recent blog, Justin Cheng talks about the resulting premium pricing corrections in the wake of intensifying extreme weather events. With this trend, a significant number of US homeowners are unable to obtain property insurance while taxpayers take on the increased cost of climate risk.

This year’s instalment of our 10 for series – 10 for 2019: Systemic Risks Loom Large – explores 10 environmental, social and governance (ESG) themes that could affect global investment portfolios in 2019.

This report aims to support investors interested in gauging environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities in the global food value chain. We survey key subindustries – from agrochemicals, agriculture and aquaculture to packaged food, food retail and restaurants – in search of solutions that may support the principles of the circular economy (CE). These principles include minimizing waste and pollution, extending the use-phase of products and ecosystem regeneration. Some of the key insights found in the report are:

December 10th is Human Rights Day and, as we approach the end of the year, recognition of this day offers a suitable moment to reflect on the extraordinary events that unfolded in 2020.

Climate gentrification is an emerging concept describing how land with greater resiliency against intensifying physical impacts of climate change becomes more desirable and valuable.[1] It catalyzes fast and visible socio-economic transformation in communities.

Medical facilities, including hospitals and long-term care facilities, are under tremendous pressure to provide quality healthcare for patients while ensuring patient and staff safety amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. By using Sustainalytics’ ESG Risk Rating to understand better the risks faced by companies, and the current state of preparedness within the medical facility subindustry, investors can identify the most relevant points to address when engaging with companies and analyzing potential ESG impacts in their portfolios.

In recent months, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) has been sparking almost as much debate as the EU Taxonomy – both cornerstone regulations of the EU Sustainable Finance Action Plan. With the SFDR set to redefine ESG disclosures and make a significant impact on financial market participants in Europe, the short timeline and ambiguity on several vital details are creating confusion and concern in the industry. The risk of organizations not being able to comply in time is still present, despite the announced delay in timelines for the technical standards, as is the risk of high financial and operational costs for the industry.

Given the ESG impacts often associated pipeline projects, it is reasonable to say that pipelines have been a source of controversy in North America and around the world. In 2020 alone, several major pipeline projects face high levels of public and community-based opposition; with consequences including widespread protests (as was the case for TC Energy’s Coastal GasLink project at the beginning of this year) and large-scale regulatory and legal challenges (as seen currently with the Dakota Access Pipeline).