Ethical Finance Round Table | Accounting for Sustainability
At the latest Ethical Finance Round Table, we were joined by Professor Michael Mainelli, Alderman and Sheriff of the City of London, founder of think-tank Z/Yen and qualified accountant, and Jon Williams; Partner, Sustainability and Climate Change, PwC. The discussion centred around the need for companies making commitments to net zero to truly understand what this means for their business models year on year, as well as emissions trading schemes and the need to price embed the true cost of externalities within the economic system. Click the links to watch video of the full session, or the individual presentations from both Michael and Jon.
Key headlines
- Green finance was born with the creation of sulphur dioxide permit trading
- The EU Emission Trading Scheme, is often dismissed but appropriate carbon pricing was not achieved due to governments issuing too many permits
- Carbon pricing works. Miles driven in America dropped 4% in 2011 due to a 32% increase in oil prices, not due to an outbreak of environmental awareness
- Policy performance bonds could be a useful tool for governments and companies to deliver on their commitments and hedge against climate and policy risk.
- Over 1,500 companies and 50 countries have made net zero commitments, but very few understand the true scale of the challenge to achieve this.
- To meet the Paris commitment to limit global warming to 1.5C means an annual reduction in carbon of over 11%. No economy in history has achieved this on a sustained level; the global reduction in 2019 was 2.4%.
- Financial institutions are unsure of their “carbon liabilities”, and have assumed around 2/3 of the reductions they need for net zero will come from government policy outwith their control. If they are required to offset these emissions, it could cost as much a 500% of the profits from these assets.
- if the finance sector is to support this transition, every finance professional needs to start understanding these issues and supporting their clients to deal with them.
Professor Mainelli
Michael began by explaining that green finance as we commonly know it came into being with the trading of sulphur dioxide permits in the USA in 1992. Traders thought they might be able to bring down these emissions by around 20%, but actually managed to halve them in just 4 years, creating considerable optimism around carbon permits going into the Kyoto climate conference.
A small group in the City of London, including Professor Mainelli, then picked this up and ran a market around this in London, later developed by the EU in 2002 to become their emissions trading scheme (ETS). This is often thought of as a failure, though Prof. Mainelli argues that the carbon price it produced did fairly reflect the supply of and demand for permits, but the issue was that far too many permits were issued by governments – roughly double what was needed. While governments had committed to keeping the price above 25 euro/tn, it plummeted to pennies shortly after launch.
Top-down pressure on capital allocation is good, explained Prof. Mainelli, but plans and awareness alone are insufficient. There needs to be an internalisation of environmental factors into the billions of everyday economic decisions. Incorporating environmental factors into prices works: in 2011, Americans drove 4% fewer miles not because of “awareness” of issues, but due to a 32% increase in oil prices. In fact, China has now implemented an internal emissions market, so even communists think that carbon markets work.
In Prof. Mainelli's view, carbon pricing is achievable and effective, and if companies internalise carbon in their decisions , there will be no need for banks to decarbonise their loan books, as many are calling for, as the carbon will be internalised in traditional measures of risk and reward. Some of the voluntary schemes, however, leave something to be desired; the issuer of a 25-year carbon credit could simply burn the forest after 26 years!
One area Prof Mainelli felt had a lot of potential was that of policy performance bonds. They were proposed a number of years ago, but never truly caught on in the Anglophone finance community. They have been successful in France, with major companies including Danone and Enel issuing them. One major opportunity around them could be in governments buying bonds – if you miss your emissions target, you pay interest, but if not, you essentially get free government money. The UK government is looking to do this ahead of COP26, which would effectively allow financiers to hedge against government policy. Sadly, progress in this area has not been as fast as it needs to be; one of Prof Mainelli’s final slides was taken from 2007, and the issues remain largely the same in 2021.
Jon Williams
Jon Williams sits on the TCFD, and explained that the endgame for TCFD is forward-looking metrics, but this requires a level of information that businesses and the finance industry just do not have right now.
He posed the question of what is meant by “net zero”? Over 1,500 companies and 50 governments have made announcements or commitments around net zero, but what do they really mean when they make these announcements? Have they got concrete plans and timetables, or are these more “aspirational” commitments? PwC’s Net Zero Economy Index 2020 shows some of the data around net zero and decarbonisation. By combining carbon data and a macroeconomic model, PwC estimate that global carbon intensity fell by 2.4% in 2019.
This is still below what is needed – the decarbonisation rate needed to limit global temperature increases to 2C would be 7.7% per year, and to limit to 1.5C would be 11.7% per year, which no economy in history has every achieved on a sustained basis. The companies that are committing to net zero need to understand that this level of decarbonisation is implied, and start to plan how they will actually achieve that. This is a huge challenge, much bigger than the one faced by COVID.
What is the role of finance? Providing the capital to help the economy transition from where it is today to where it needs to be in 10 or 20 years. Financial institutions need to move from looking merely at their own emissions, to those embedded in their loan books, or portfolios, and to do this it needs more data on emissions downstream.
Financial institutions are largely unsure what their balance sheet and loan books are actually exposed to – most companies borrow for liquidity, not to tie themselves to financing specific projects. Many have made huge assumptions about how large residual emissions will be – in other words, how much of the emissions reductions will be achieved by government policy without any active interventions on their part. If these assumptions turn out to be inaccurate, the cost of offsetting residual emissions will vastly outweigh the profits from the assets behind them.
Jon concluded by saying that net zero is not a myth. It is a reality, but a very difficult reality. Companies need to take net zero seriously. The pathway to net zero includes climate risk and impact baselining, strategy development, organisational transformation and transparency and reporting. Ultimately, if the finance sector is to support this transition, every finance professional needs to start understanding these issues and supporting their clients to deal with them.
Q&A
The Q&A at the end of the session discussed a number of issues. Michael Mainelli highlighted that the tools for carbon reduction can also be used for maintaining biodiversity, but this is much harder to measure, and that trade is a key issue – it has been a major driver of growth over the last half-century, but there may need to be adjustments for embodied emissions. Jon argued that the furore over pricing nature is often misplaced – it is not that there is a price at which you can destroy nature, but instead that there is a need to put a price on the ‘free ride’ that people get out of emissions, nature and biodiversity.
Round Table: Ethical Finance Market Update - Keynote Interviews
Baillie Gifford – EFH Roundtable
16 December 2019, 16:00 – 18:00
Ethical Finance Market Update, Market Trends
Interviewer: Gail Hurley
Panel Participants: Andrew Cave, Thom Kenrick
Summary:
In a change to the usual format this session, once again hosted by Baillie Gifford, comprised of two keynote interviews which provided reflections (from the investment and banking sector) on the evolution of the ethical finance market and how the market will adapt to on-going political, economic, social and environmental uncertainty.
The interviews were conducted by GEFI Senior Consultant Gail Hurley who has recently completed 10 years with the UN in New York as a Senior Advisor.
Gail framed the session within the context of growing interest in driving a fairer, more sustainable financial system and the fact that 2020 will be a significant year for climate issues in Scotland as it welcomes the world to Glasgow for COP26, the UN climate conference.
Andrew Cave, Head of Governance and Sustainability at Baillie Gifford, was first up and he argued that ethical investing has moved from niche to mainstream. While in the past companies would not put their best people and resources into it, today the situation is changing. According to Andrew the overall direction is positive and there is a lot of interest from institutional investors. Continuing challenges include: the complications in defining a positive impact (as the market is still in its early days) and the intractable debate over what constitutes positive social impact.
Andrew offered some fairly candid views on confusion around terminology highlighting the fundamental difference between ESG, which factors issues such as climate risk, data privacy issues and regulation into existing investment paradigms, and responsible investing, which is more directive and it aims to reach a particular outcome. It was suggested that clear rules need to be designed to avoid a risk of diverting money away from those who can make a positive contribution. Another challenge mentioned by Andrew was the lack of quality data on complex value chains. A full view of impact requires improvements in disclosure and standardisation of data, which enables more sophisticated discussions about potential transformations in transportation and production systems.
Thom Kenrick, from the RBS Sustainable Banking team, was next in line to be interviewed by Gail. Unsurprisingly, Thom began by highlighting the major changes that have taken place in the banking sector in recent years and how this has driven RBS’s journey of reform and restructure. The financial crisis fundamentally changed regulation as banks were placed under greater scrutiny by both regulators and wider stakeholders. Thom described the growing interest in ethical finance from RBS customers but pointed out that many still struggle with the lack of consistency in terminology and approaches. In relation to social finance Thom suggested that this means financial inclusion to one, diversity to another and divesting from a power station to someone else. Unlike environmental impact, there is not a right or wrong answer as so many different aspects of social life have no scientific base.
Thom felt that while international standards may help in providing consistency, he pointed out that while PRI (2005) and TCFD (2015) have been around for a number of years few signatories are genuinely delivering to the required standard. That said, according to Thom, the situation is changing as customers, investors and the public are increasingly scrutinising firms so whilst such standards are voluntary, the consequences of not following them risks deterring prospective / existing customers and investors.
Despite the challenges outlined throughout the session the discussion ended on a positive note. Younger generations are more conscious, and their demand is expected to drive ethical finance in the long term. Change takes time and previous developments in ethical finance, whether successful or not, will have played a part in shifting mind-sets and practices. Although nothing is yet set in stone leading market players, such as big Baillie Gifford and RBS, have established dedicated teams, products and services to raise awareness and drive finance for positive change.
UN PRB Insights: Teething Issues
Teething Issues
The UNEP FI has begun a public consultation period, which is open until May 2019. It acknowledges that there are areas of weaknesses and invites suggestions. It also provides case studies of several institutions already practicing specific behaviours in accordance with the global goals, making it easier for practitioners to benchmark and contextualise how their institution can embrace the SDGs.
1. Over Encouragement
It encourages any change towards reducing negative impact and increasing positive impact however unprecedented or imperfect, giving an example of a bank that “does not yet have all the answers” (who does!) that has set an ambitious goal and linked it to targets. It also provides references to expertise that can support a bank’s journey towards responsibility. The materiality map by the sustainability accounting standards board (SASB) is a useful taster.
The UNEP FI goes further to encourage greater adoption of sustainability practises by making it easy for even the least prepared banks in the world to sign up. Although the ability to self-declare as a starter or intermediate when becoming a signatory will greatly reduce expectations for the first two to four on early stage banks, the UNEP FI team must ensure this mechanism is not abused by advanced banks trying to manage expectations.
Furthermore, this four-year honeymoon for some means that there may be a disproportionate number of signatories who only begin contributing significantly to the global goals from 2023 onwards. Given the timebomb ticking on our planet just now is that going to be soon enough? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report produced in October says we have “a little over a decade” from now (Maitland AMO Green Monitor).
C-Level Responsibility
Founding members must ensure seamless alignment within their organizations as they gear up for the signing ceremony later this year. It is easy to plug a team of junior sustainability professionals in the back office while bankers tap away on the trading floor working in silos from each other. Half of the heads of sustainability at a GreenBiz Conference Board meeting in the US in 2016 reported half an hour or more of face time with the CEO three times or less in a year. Really?
Let’s not read a report ten years from now that says what E3G’s Briefing Paper said in March 2017 of the UN PRIs: “Our analysis finds that 33% of signatories directly employ no ESG staff and a further 20% employ just one. This means over 500 PRI signatories, representing $6.9 trillion, directly employ one or fewer ESG staff. On an asset under management (AUM) basis, the average PRI signatory hires one ESG specialist per $14bn of assets managed.”
Change of leadership can also dilute the process if sustainability is not properly plugged into the C-suite. Take the example of Yes Bank in India. It’s share price plummeted 34% when news surfaced in September that Rana Kapoor, its CEO, would be forced to leave (by the Reserve Bank of India) by January 2019. The fact that it has a dedicated Chief Sustainability Officer, who in fact sits on the Global Steering Committee of UNEP IF, provides comfort that this will not derail the bank from its UN PRB drive.
There have been many peer to peer initiatives that have worked hard to transform specific areas of the banking industry by producing results such as the Soft Commodities Compact that supports the reduction of deforestation, or the Equator Principles used as an environmental risk management barometer in project finance. However, an international initiative to infuse sustainability into every vein and artery of a bank across business lines indicative of the UN PRBs has rarely come to market. We welcome the boldness of the UN PRBs in spirit and urge those involved to ensure even bolder results.
UN PRB Insights: The Early Adopters
The Early Adopters
It has taken 12 turbulent years of uncertainty in the financial industry to get the sell-side to align with the buy-side which has embraced the UN PRIs. It now appears the balance could indeed shift IF the UN PRBs actually work, given their alignment with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement unlike the former which takes a softer dated ESG position. A strong signal will be if we have a few champion banks announce bold targets at the formal launch of the UN PRBs in May 2019. This is very likely given that many banks involved in the drafting of the UN PRBs have been actively implementing new standards of practice that align with the principles already.
Take SocGen for instance. Just four years ago (2015) SocGen was actively increasing its exposure to coal-based projects e.g. 770 MW coal fired power station project that would increase capacity by 80,000 tonnes in the Dominican Republic. Only a year later it announced that it would phase out its outstanding loans to the coal industry to less than 20% of its power production portfolio by 2020. BNP Paribas has taken similar measures and stepped it up with restrictions on some parts of O&G financing in addition to coal.
There are a myriad of banks in the founding group that are at very different points of their sustainability journey. This is very promising to see, as it reflects some level of initiative not seen before by an industry that has an inertia to positive change until regulation dictates otherwise. Take the case of Barclays, which continues to witness great friction with stakeholders. From activist investors (Ed Bramson’s Sherborne) and a CEO fined by the FCA for lack of diligence to protests by People&Planet at its AGM against the financing of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline in Canada. All of this happened last year. As a founding member of the UN PRBs, what can we expect from Barclays this year?
We could go through the list with a fine-tooth comb, but the point here is not to shine a torch on negative impact but to highlight a joint initiative that could lead to a lot more positive impact from an industry that continues to struggle with its past. The UN PRBs could catalyze systemic change that is long overdue. It is the first set of principles launched that takes a deep and holistic approach to sustainability integration into a major industry that has impact on all the rest of them. This could have a positive ripple effect on the entire economy, especially if the majority of global banks that continue to finance projects in laggard sectors that drag their heals towards sustainable practices sign up and deliver.
One such mass are the North American banks. Neither a Canadian nor a US Bank has participated in developing the UN PRBs. Just look into one arena as a litmus test: the financing of extreme fossil fuel power at “top companies” by banks over the three years from 2015 to 2017. The top 10 that made the league table (Banking on Climate Change 2018) are primarily Chinese and North American institutions: CCB, RBC, JPMChase, ICBC, Bank of China, TD, HSBC, ABC, Citigroup, and BoA. It is hopeful on the other hand to see a Chinese bank, namely ICBC that ranks forth on the league table, participate in the UN PRB initiative.
The UN PRBs not only link deliverables to the global goals but also to “other relevant national, regional or international frameworks”. Without a relevant national framework in every country around the world, the scope is limited. Brazil, for example, champions this notion. In 2014, the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) published a mandatory Resolution 4,327 for financial institutions to have social and environmental responsibility policies. Lobbying with local governments and policymakers around the world will be essential to see more countries do the same. Rabobank is another strong role model, actively voicing its views of the role of government in sustainable finance. In its June 2018 position paper, for example, it talks about coordinating policies at the EU level and suggests “targeted – and temporary/ evolving – subsidies, such as for green loans, for green deposits”. Financial incentives will most certainly help Banks generate more positive impact.
Therefore to maximise the impact of the UN PRBs, the world will need a lot more than 28 signatures. It will need dedication, courage, and resources from all early adopters, crafters, and endorsers to summon the masses into the UN PRBs and pressure national and local government bodies to issue and revise policies, incentives and legislations to augment it.
GEFI Round Table Discusses Ethical Finance Approaches in the Debt Capital Markets
The Ethical Finance Roundtable was held on Feb 27th at Baillie Gifford in Edinburgh. Entitled "Ethical Finance Approaches in the Debt Capital Markets", the round table covered market developments in the $1.45 trn climate-aligned bonds market (such as green bonds) along with innovative trends in ESG and SDG bonds.
Following a welcome by Chair Omar Shaikh, Graham Smith (Director - Sustainable Finance Unit - Global Banking, HSBC) provided an update on HSBC's strategy to deploy $100bn in sustainable financing and investment by 2025, and an overview of the bank's SDG bond and how it has integrated the Green Loan Principles and Green Bond Principles into its financial products and instruments:
The $100bn is typically deployed through: 1) bonds 2) loans and 3) investments where HSBC maintains a focus on returns. The green agenda is being driven by regulation where some governments are taking measures that encourage responsible lending in the private sector. The Paris Agreement, which set out national contribution guidelines in the form of NDCs, prompted legislation such as the Clean Air Act in the UK. Furthermore, in France, the Government issued Law 173 in making investors disclose green assets from brown banks are obliged to rebalance their assets with a higher ratio of green to brown.
HSBC is a leader in green finance and is committed to investing in green assets that drive the market forward. With the examples of Clean tech growing by 4% to 5% Graham suggested that investors should be interested in the space green or not.
In March 2018 the Green Loan Principles were published. Graham explained that this important development, with a similar rationale to the Green Bond Principles, applies to broader sections of business and society and has now become the “gold standard” for green loans. Banks can now offer products that they understand.
Graham explained the emergence of products (such as green, social, sustainability bonds and loans to transition loans) and that the Loan Association is likely to provide a much-needed definition for ESG loans in March this year.
With ESG products positioning businesses as good corporate citizens and green products highlighting a commitment to the environment there are PR benefits to be derived from businesses engaged in sustainable finance. In terms of pricing, there is no financial penalty for investing in green bonds but they still prove costly for issuers.
HSBC launched the world’s first bond that directly supports the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. The US$1 billion raised through the bond finances projects that benefit communities and the environment, including hospitals, schools, small-scale renewable power plants and public rail systems.
The key message is that regulations are driving the development of the market, leading to change at the commercial level. A prime example is the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosure (TCFD).
Caspar Cook (Head of Analysis, Cameron Hume) then outlined Cameron Hume's client-led approach to ESG, which focuses on a combination of values-based and returns-based strategies, and how this has evolved to successfully grow the Global Fixed Income ESG Fund.
Cameron Hume, an active fixed income specialist, is a signatory to UN PRI. Caspar started by explaining the considerations of applying an ESG approach to fixed income, which differs from its integration into equity investments. There remains a lot of confusion as to the definition of ESG so Cameron Hume has divided its approaches into two categories: returns-driven (ESG factors that are material to performance) vs values-driven (implement ethical social and environmental objectives of different investors). Cameron Hume focuses on returns-driven investment and only practices values-driven investing in segregated accounts that mandate it.
Caspar believes that ESG is a good risk indicator and cited the example of PG&E, a prolific bond issuer known as the cleanest provider of energy in USA. Carbon conscious investors would have found this an interesting play but they filed for bankruptcy following their link to the California wild fires. ESG analysis, using MSCI, would have highlighted risks relating to its poor land use and diversification thereby discouraging investment.
A further example was shared by Caspar. Equifax, the biggest US credit scoring company, had a substantial data breach recently that severely impacted its shares and bonds. MSCI had ranked Equifax 1 out of 10 in data security and flagged this as a material risk. These factors do not typically appear in annual accounts or financial ratios that many investors focus on.
ESG factors help investors focus on neglected risk that leads to more sustainable long-term investing. Cameron Hume’s Global Fixed Income ESG Fund uses responsible investing to bring ESG factors in to the investment process tilted towards higher ESG rated companies.
Following the formal presentations a lively and lively question and answer session followed. Some of the key points raised included:
- It is easier to influence sovereigns through the bond markets than corporates.
- ESG policies in businesses tend to be top down and not always filtering to the bottom layer of people making decisions.
- ESG factors influence investment performance but not necessarily on a consistent basis. Some studies show that it can add 0.5% to 0.8% a year in performance. Participants were skeptical because it is hard to disentangle ESG from other factors.
- Clients have fiduciary duty towards performance so it is a challenge for fund managers to integrate a universally agreed ethical stance into a portfolio (e.g. Calpers divested from tobacco stocks 15 years ago and recently published that that decision cost them USD6bn).
- Even if findings suggest that ESG is good for performance over the last few years there is a lack of evidence indicating that it will improve performance going forward.
- The bond industry must evolve to ensure bonds fulfil their green promises. At the moment they just get declassified but there should be penalties. And declassification often takes place long after the bond has de-greened (e.g. Mexico City airport project).
The session concluded with a discussion on the role the debt capital market industry can play in driving standardisation in pricing, measuring and reporting. The key points raised were:
- At the moment the industry tends to tick boxes and gets PR recognition for this (e.g. the CDP used by the TCFD).
- There is no perfect measure for transition risk, which will play a key role in consolidating many sectors in the medium term.
- A nuance that influences the development of the industry positively is that asset managers pay for MSCI scorings while issuers pay for credit ratings.
- As investors increasing focus on analysing and challenging data a virtuous cycle will be created to drive up the availability and quality of data.
- A limitation on green bond reporting is the risk of breaching client confidentiality.
- The proof of concept is just as poor in green project proposals that are submitted for debt funding. This leads to a serious lack of viable sensible pipeline to invest in (especially in the SDG space). Large lenders end up majority invested in their own assets as a result (e.g. HSBC’s SDG Bond
Overview of Ethical Debt Instruments
Introduction
Debt instruments that provide a coupon as well as a social or environmental return are broadly dubbed as ethical debt instruments. They come in a variety of forms, and innovative new structures are increasingly coming to market.
The major driver of this is investor demand (such as pension funds, insurers and millennials) and issuers keen to tap into this rich pool of investment capital at equal to lower cost than purely financial return focused bonds. Investors increasingly believe that these forms of debt financing better capture long term and existential risks as well as seek to provide non-financial returns.
The most important factors to focus on when evaluating such instruments is whether the issue meets a common set of Social Bond Principles, namely use of proceeds, project or investment selection process, management of funds in accordance with a pre agreed framework that has been evaluated by a third party (e.g. Sustainalytics or CECERO) and aligns with a recognized global or national set of principles (such as the Green Bond Principles, the Social Bond Principles and/or the Sustainability Bond Guidelines) and impact metrics monitoring and reporting.
Green Bonds
By far the largest ethical debt market place at the moment, with USD11.9bn issued to date in 2019 alone. Last year there was USD167.3bn in issuances. This year is forecasted to mobilise USD250bn in issues. The majority of these bond issuances are aligned with the Climate Bonds Initiative to provide environmental integrity. A few are certified by the climate bond standard which is backed by a board of investors that represent USD34tr in AUM.
Essentially the proceeds of the bond must be used in areas that are consistent with the 2-degree Celsius warming limit specified in the Paris Agreement. BNP Paribas is consistently in the top five underwriting league tables for green bonds. Several stock exchanges have a dedicated section allocated to green bonds, such as Oslo, London, Mexico, Luxembourg, Italy, Shanghai, Taipei, Johannesburg and Japan. Interestingly the US, China and France are the largest sources of labelled green bonds.
Issuers range mostly from multi sector to energy or building related. Structures are sophisticated and diverse ranging from covered bonds and asset backed securities to green Schuldschein, green sukuks, mortgage backed securities and medium-term notes. Apart from issuing its first green bond (USD500mn) as early as 2015, HSBC has also issued an equity linked green bond for EUR34mn (2017) that pegs returns to the performance of a basket of ESG compliant listed companies that are measured against 134 KPIs (STOXX Europe ESG Leaders 30 Index). The proceeds are dedicated to projects that improve energy efficiency.
SDG Bonds
SDG bonds are a type of sustainability bond that aligns the projects it finances or refinances with social and / or environmental impact linked to specific SDGs. These may include all the SDGs or only some of them, such as in the case of the ANZ SDG Bond that seeks to contribute to the achievement of nine of the seventeen goals including health, education, sustainable cities and climate action or the HSBC UN SDG Bond that uses proceeds towards projects that achieve one or more of seven specified SDGs including clean water, energy, education and infrastructure.
In both cases the proceeds can also be used on its own operating or capital expenditures as long as it contributes to the achievement of one or more of the nine SDGs identified.
In HSBCs case the bond is majority invested in two of its LEED Gold certified headquarters in the Midlands and in Dubai. The HSBC bond which was launched in 2017 was USD1bn, 3x oversubscribed and matures in 2023. The more recent SDG bond issued by the World Bank links return on investment to the stock performance of thirty listed companies that make up the Solactive Sustainable Development Goals World MV Index. Proceeds will be used to finance their development projects. BNP Paribas arranged the bond while Banque SYZ placed it.
ESG Bonds
ESG is now a mainstream topic steering investment towards it, and this will continue at a steady pace given that Millennials, who put greater emphasis on adopting these values, will become 75% of the work force by 2025. One of the challenges the industry faces however is a lack of standardization making it difficult for investment funds to set a fixed ESG criteria. In addition, the size of ESG bond issues are generally small relative to their conventional peers and are issued by those with no track record thereby making it difficult for large institutional investors to participate. In fact 50% of European investors in a recent report said they did not think there were enough ESG products in the fixed income space. Another influencing factor in the debt capital markets is that whether labelled as a type of sustainability bond or not, 85% of European investors apply ESG criteria to at least investment grade bonds. (RBC Global Asset Management & Cerulli Associates)
Blue Bonds
These are bonds that raise financing for projects that support the sustainable use of ocean resources, inspired by the green bond movement but at a naisant stage. Only one issuer has raised a blue bond so far and that is the Seychelles, an island highly dependent on the ocean for its livelihood. The issue size was a modest USD15m and the coupon is part guaranteed by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility. Considering the size of the issue only three investors participated: Calvert Impact Capital, Nuveen and Prudential.
Vaccine Bonds
Vaccine bonds were in fact pioneered in 2006 by the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) launched by GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance) and began the movement by the financial sector towards developing a set of principles to hold the socially responsible bonds universe together. Vaccine bonds are directly aligned to SDG 3, which aims to end the preventable death of children under 5 years of age by 2030. GAVI has been able to raise USD5.7bn so far as effective bridge financing until grant providers can step in.
Other Bonds
Other kinds of social & development impact bonds include Tobacco Social Impact Bonds (TSIB), a rhinoceros conservation impact bond, a cocoa and coffee production bond in Peru and a youth unemployment program bond in Serbia. Sometimes referred to as a pay for success model or a social benefit bond, these innovative financial instruments tend to be driven by private investors with an interest to offer upfront capital for a particular and specific social or environmental goal. These investors work with governments, philanthropists and/or aid donors to come up with mutually beneficial structures that reward them if outcomes are met.
Conclusion
Although the green bond marketplace has taken off well over the last few years, it is not enough to fill the USD3 to USD5 trillion annual gap that is required to meet the SDGs. Banks are in a perfect situation to align just part of their broad loan books towards SDGs that are material to them to drive more capital towards the achievement of the SDGs. Certain sectors can be identified as most closely aligned and a framework for tracking and reviewing annually can be put in place based on industry learnings from the green bond issuance space. As a result, banks will not only be able to expand their product offering and client base but also support their clients who wish to similarly begin engaging with and reporting on their contributions to the UN SDGs.
References: ICMA, UN, Dealogic, MSCI, European Commission, Climate Bonds Initiative and HSBC
Ethical Finance Round Table
HSBC is an active lender in the sustainable finance industry globally and a member of The ICMA Green Bond Principles Executive Committee, The Catalytic Finance Initiative, The Equator Principles Association, The WEF Climate Leaders CEO Group, The Climate Bonds Initiative, The Social Bond Guidance Steering Committee, China’s Green Finance Committee, and the Adopted Taskforce on Climate Related Financial Disclosure. It is the founder of the HSBC Centre of Sustainable Finance and the award-winning Climate Change Centre of Excellence and the first sovereign Green Bond arranger (EUR750mn Polish Bond 2016). HSBC will be speaking at the Ethical Finance Roundtable in Edinburgh hosted by GEFI on Feb 27th 2019. To be considered for an invitation, please click here.