Download the report
Global Environment Impact Report
The annual Global Environment Impact Report provides a deep dive into each holding in the Global Environment portfolio through a focused sustainability lens.
The annual Global Environment Impact Report provides a deep dive into each holding in the Global Environment portfolio through a focused sustainability lens.
Global Environment strategy
The Global Environment strategy seeks to invest in leading businesses that are enabling sustainable decarbonisation.
We are delighted to share our fourth annual Global Environment Impact Report.
We hope this report helps you to monitor our sustainability attribution; researching and reporting on sustainability continues to be extremely helpful to us in better understanding the companies we invest in.
Decarbonisation by sector, region and theme
| United States | % |
|---|---|
| ANSYS, Inc. | 4.6 |
| Aptiv PLC | 4.0 |
| Autodesk, Inc. | 5.1 |
| Beyond Meat, Inc | 1.7 |
| Itron, Inc. | 3.0 |
| NextEra Energy, Inc. | 7.1 |
| Rockwell Automation, Inc. | 2.0 |
| TE Connectivity Ltd. | 3.9 |
| Trane Technologies plc | 4.6 |
| Waste Management, Inc. | 6.2 |
| Total | 42.1 |
Highlights from the 2022 report
Sustainability data dashboard
% of portfolio companies reporting emissions |
|||
|
Scope 3 - All categories 54%(38%)* |
Scope 3 - Some categories 75%(67%)* |
Scope 1 & 2 96%(79%)* |
Carbon avoided 54%(63%)* |
Footprint (tCO2e for US$1m invested) |
|||
|
Scope 1 & 2 55(139)* |
Carbon avoided 943(1,435)* |
Scope 3 401(491)* |
Net carbon avoided 487(805)* |
Carbon intensity (weighted average tCO2e/US$m revenue) |
|||
|
Scope 1 & 2 362(481)* |
Carbon avoided 4,747(5,189)* |
Scope 3 1,700(2,986)* |
Net carbon avoided 2,648(1,730)* |
|
Renewable energy generated (MWh for US$1m invested) 109(252)* |
EU taxonomy alignment 41%porfolio alignment (before ‘do no significant harm’ and ‘social safeguard’ assessments) |
Impact Management Project framework assessment
From a philosophical perspective, the Impact Management Project’s (IMP) framework is closely aligned to our philosophy regarding sustainability and positive impact. The mapping of the Global Environment strategy against the IMP framework is shown below. We have allocated all companies to the 'contribute to solutions' category as we believe that they are having a positive impact AND we have a robust methodology for quantifying that positive impact.
| Investor contribution to impact | Act to avoid harm | Benefit stakeholders | Contribute to solutions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signal that impact matters | |||
| + Engage actively | 100% | ||
| + Grow new/undersupplied capital markets |
Net-zero pathways
6.8%reduction p.a. estimated portfolio-emissions |
8.7%reduction p.a. for developed market companies |
0.2%reduction p.a. for emerging market companies |
17 (71%)out of 24 companies with carbon-reduction targets |
10 (42%)out of 24 companies with science-based targets |
* Equivalent figures from last year's Impact Report are shown in brackets.
Notes on the methodology used in this report
The analysis in this report relates to portfolio holdings as at end-December 2021. This means we have included assessments for three companies that were no longer held in the portfolio at the time of publication (Itron, Terna and Nippon).
While carbon reporting is improving significantly, it is still subject to a significant time lag. Our previous Impact Report, issued in September 2021 and based on end- December 2020 holdings, used FY2019 carbon data. For this report we are using FY2020 carbon data. The sources of this carbon data include company reports and estimates calculated in conjunction with our two carbon-data providers, CDP and MSCI. This year we have used MSCI for Scope 3 estimates. While estimates from Urgentem (the previous provider) were a strong starting place, we believe that MSCI's top-down emission estimates (based on the sector level) in combination with its greater bottom-up inputs using granular company-specific information (e.g., car production data) should offer better accuracy overtime. We have provided an initial indication of EU taxonomy potential alignment. It should be noted that this indication has been completed on a best-efforts basis using the guidance currently available. It does not include an appraisal of ‘do no significant harm’ nor ‘social safeguards’, as complete guidance is not available on these aspects yet. Further information about our carbon data methodologies and investment universe is available in the appendix.