Round Table: Path to COP26 - Financing a Green Future
The Ethical Finance Round Table ‘Path to COP26 – Financing a Green Future’ was held on Feb 27th at Baillie Gifford in Edinburgh. Following a short welcome, Omar Shaikh, GEFI Managing Director outlined GEFI’s plans for 2020:
- Path to COP26
- “Radical Old Idea”
- Ethical Finance Round Tables
- UNDP Finance for Nature Summit
- The SDG Tartan
- Internship programme
This was followed by short presentations from Jonathan Taylor, former Vice President of the European Investment Bank for Environment and Climate Action, and Gary Lapthorn, Head of Sustainability & Responsible Business, Commercial Banking at Lloyds Banking Group.
Jonathan Taylor outlined the history of climate change action, through initial scientific warnings, to the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and the first landmark international treaty agreed at COP3 in Kyoto (1997). Experts from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) then warned that, despite the Kyoto Protocol, global warming was still set to worsen, leading to the all countries agreeing at COP21 in Paris (2015) to a global framework designed to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
Coming 5 years after COP21 and the Paris Agreement, COP26 in Glasgow event offers an opportunity to take stock of progress since Paris and update the Agreement where necessary. In particular, countries will present their plans and progress beyond current declared intentions, which IPCC calculate will lead to 2.6°C – 3.2°C temperature rises.
More attention than ever is focused on the role financial services can play in the fight against climate change, acting as an enabler and transition mechanism for policy, risk management and liquidity. There has been optimism around the UK’s leadership on climate-related regulation in finance, particularly through the Bank of England’s Taskforce on Climate-related Finance Disclosures (TCFD). Ensuring Glasgow is a success will require the right template to be in place for all parties to work and agree upon, and this can only happen with significant bilateral diplomatic efforts. The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate calculates that, while a lack of progress poses huge risks to the world economy, bold climate action could deliver at least $26 trillion in economic benefits through 2030.
Gary Lapthorn next outlined Lloyds Banking Group’s commitment to supporting the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy through leadership in financing sustainability in businesses, homes, vehicle fleets, pensions, insurance and green bonds. One issue found at Lloyds was lack of knowledge and education. Many experienced financial professionals are keen to act and support the transition, but lack confidence in their ability to lead on environmental issues. To address this, Lloyds partnered with the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership to provide training.
Lloyds is making concrete commitments in terms of both its own operating emissions and those associated with its loan book. It has pledged to halve emissions associated with its loan book by 2030 and to cut operating emissions by 60% over the same timeframe and is currently ahead of schedule. It has also pledged to move to its energy consumption to being 100% derived from renewables and its vehicle fleet to 100% electric. In addition, Lloyds provides financing for a number of environmentally beneficial projects, such as £273m of direct funding for the worlds biggest offshore windfarm, Hornsea Project One.
The presentations from the two speakers were followed by a lively audience discussion, in which participants and speakers explored the practicalities of combatting emissions through finance. The discussion centred on:
- The extent to which financial institutions are making explicit trade-offs between profit and purpose – Lloyds are willing to accept slightly lower returns when companies agree to do the right thing
- Whether looser capital requirements can be used to encourage climate-related lending
- The role of innovation, and specifically financial innovation, in addressing environmental challenges
- Executive renumeration, and the extent to which commitments are enshrined in incentives for decision-makers
- Whether moves towards sustainability are making financial services an attractive career for graduates again, moving on from the “lost decade” experienced after the global financial crisis
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.
Round Table Explores Innovations in Social and Blended Finance
The 19th Round Table discussion continued the series of topics on the social impact sector and focused on recent developments in social impact investment and philanthropy. The underlying theme of the discussion was to understand how these can form part of blended finance supporting partnerships between investors and the public and third sectors addressing specific social needs.
Jonathan Flory (Director, Social Finance) started off by discussing the concept of social investment in the wider context of impact investing. Founded in 2007, Social Finance is a non-profit organisation working in the social impact arena, famously known for developing the first Social Impact Bond (SIB) in the UK. While the market for social investment is fluid, it forms part of a growing market of nearly USD 228 billion in impact assets and a larger movement in which governments, corporations, fund managers, investors and individuals are increasingly focusing their attention on achieving positive social outcomes by means of their investments. While social investment means different things to different people, unlike other investment approaches it focuses on addressing pressing social issues. As a UK term, it describes investments that intentionally target specific social objectives along with a financial return and measure the achievement of both.
While the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 clearly signalled the importance of social value in public procurement, a range of motivations continue to exist on the investor side. While international investment giants such as UBS support the “doing well by doing good” theory of impact investing, suggesting that financial returns do not have to be traded off against social objectives, they also recognise the need for softer, philanthropic capital. Given the spectrum of investors’ expectations, it is essential to align the interests of organisations with expectations of investors, but in many cases for a partnership to work there is a need for some element of soft capital in the overall funding structure.
Partnerships can play an important role in scaling up impact. A good example of this is the Positive Families Partnership, a London-based programme seeking to divert adolescents from entering the care system. The partnership brings together central government, local authorities, funders, and programme delivery partners. It applies the blended finance model and mixes grant and investment funding. Following a successful pilot by Essex County Council, the partnership model has been adopted by 5 other boroughs in London and now looks likely to be expanded to include all London boroughs.
The key challenge is putting the partnership together. For partnerships and blended finance to work, there must be a place where funders feel safe to partner. Potential solutions include building a new brand for the partnership, forming a joint venture or an innovative funding structure. The latter is particularly effective in bringing together investors with different financial needs and social objectives as the funding is often structured in tiers. An example is the Arts Impact Fund blending public, private and charitable funding in which the junior tier with first loss is provided by the Arts Council.
Social Finance is optimistic about future developments in social investment. It sees a lot of potential in improving financial inclusion by expanding affordable credit and social housing. In terms of partnership structures, more cross-developmental cooperation is on the way with funds pooled from separate budgets. There is a clear trend in themed funding, in which partners group around themes, which gives the partnership a clear focus.
Jonathan’s presentation was followed by a talk by Kenneth Ferguson, the Director of the Robertson Trust, and Christine Walker, their Head of Social Impact, who presented their innovative model of a public-third sector partnership. The Robertson Trust is a well-established organisation in Scotland with a 6o-year history of improving social outcomes for individuals and communities. It operates by means of providing grants to other charitable bodies and over the course of its history has awarded £250m to 467 organisations.
Back in 2012, the Robertson trust wrestled with the issues of sustainability and scalability of the impactful work charities were delivering. There were very few innovative financing models in Scotland. The Scottish government’s attempt to set up public-private partnerships (PPP) contained no obligation on the public sector to sustain a project while the Robertson Trust believed in the need for systemic change and moving away from high cost reactive services towards lower cost preventative models. They were eager to develop models that would expand impact to the national scale, achieving systems change on the one hand, and providing charities with much needed long-term funding on the other.
Their Social Bridging Finance concept aims to support this through the development of a contract with the public sector. The model has elements of both SIBs and PPPs, but is grant-funded. It is used to sustain projects that have already proved their effectiveness. The strength of its programme is its simplicity. The standard contract is only 10 pages long and contains a maximum of 3 success criteria. The crucial part of the process is defining the success criteria and making sure they are clear, measurable and meaningful. The success criteria are assessed at the outset by a third sector organisation in consultation with the public sector body, which creates a dynamic discussion between the two sides. TSDGe contract is signed, the Robertson Trust then fund the demonstration period, which usually lasts around 2 years. If the success criteria are met, the public body ensures the continuity of funding thereafter. This gives the charity the certainty of stable funding and for the public body it de-risks change. If the project is not successful, there is no obligation on anyone to pay back the funds. This way the Robertson Trust assumes the financial risk by providing the bridging finance to facilitate the switch to a low cost preventative model.
An example of the model is MCR Pathways, one of Scotland's biggest PPP agreements, which aims to widen opportunities for Glasgow’s most disadvantaged young people by offering a school-based mentoring and employability programme. The Robertson Trust initially supported the project by funding the demonstration period, but the premature success of the programme allowed it to expand quickly to include 200 schools across Scotland. Importantly, the model has brought in systemic change. “This model has allowed us to create a new approach which is now business as usual”, said Maureen McKenna, Executive Director of Education Services, Glasgow City Council.
A lively question and answer session followed, in which participants shared their impressions of the results achieved by the Robertson Trust. It is important to have an organisation which takes the initiative and brokers the connection between the third sector and public bodies. There was a shared concern that some investors in the impact investment landscape have high expectations in terms of the financial return, which was thought to be inappropriate in the context of funding public services. It is believed to be of the reasons why the SIB model was not fully embraced in Scotland due to some of the ethical considerations involved. Jonathan stressed that social impact requires thinking about how to support vulnerable groups of people. Impact investing is about creating value as opposed to extracting value, and it does not always imply cashable savings; rather is about spending money better and in a more productive way.
However, given the genuine interest among mainstream banks increasingly seeking to put money where it is most impactful, how can we capitalise on institutional capital in attaining compliance with the SDGs? Kenneth believes that achieving scale is not possible for any one organisation and there is a spectrum, in which every organisation involved can contribute in its unique way. The Robertson Trust currently assumes the “risk bit” and their role is to participate in the early stages of a project to demonstrate its effectiveness while capital markets can bring the project to scale. For the model to work, though, there should be more discussion about making sure philanthropic funds are available.
While both organisations attempt to scale impact, there are some differences in their approaches. While the Robertson Trust suggests that scale should be achieved in cooperation with the public sector, Social Finance aims to do so by bringing in new capital and new players. However, both organisations continue to share common aspirations to achieve social change and there are already some early examples of their models converging.
EFRT on Social and Blended Finance Slides - June 2019
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