We use the Paris Alignment assessment for three main purposes: engagement, voting and portfolio construction. While this is our preferred method for assessing the future trajectory of portfolio emissions, external metrics can also be used to assess alignment. Two such metrics are Science Based Targets initiative approval and Implied Temperature Rise.
2. Robeco Climate Risk Assessment
The Traffic Light is also an important input in our fundamental assessment to determine to what extent climate risk could have an impact on a firm’s business fundamentals. This climate risk assessment by our fundamental credit analysts of a company’s credit risk profile has three components: assess the level of climate risk exposure, establish how the firm is dealing with climate risk, and estimate the potential financial impact. It incorporates internal and external metrics. We see this as the most complete assessment of a company’s exposure to climate change and the potential impact on default and downgrade risk.
3. Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)
The SBTi was created in 2015, following the Paris Agreement, to measure the robustness of companies’ targets relative to the ambition of the Paris Agreement. To do this, the SBTi created sectoral methodologies to determine the required reduction in emissions per sector and to establish which metrics are most relevant. The SBTi assesses whether the trajectories of companies are aligned with different pathways. The main advantages of this metric are that it is simple, has a transparent methodology and is widely used and scrutinized. One of the drawbacks is that it can not confirm the likelihood of a company’s ability to meet its targets.
4. Implied Temperature Rise
Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) metrics reflect an implied global temperature rise that is calculated using a company’s emissions overshoot or undershoot relative to a given carbon budget. It is an intuitive metric that, by making a number of assumptions, data providers are usually able to achieve high coverage of the investment universe. However, the modeling entails significant complexity and various assumptions, which can result in a wide range of possible portfolios and outcomes. And, as is the case with the SBTi, most providers rely on the targets set by companies and do not include any assessment of the credibility of these targets.
There is overlap between these four metrics and each has advantages and disadvantages, ranging from issuer coverage and data quality, to comprehensiveness of assessment. In our view, the metrics are best used in combination, with our fundamental assessments of climate alignment and risk being an overriding factor for issuer selection.