ESG Approach

Learning To Invest Responsibly

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing means different things to different people. As investors look to diversify their portfolios with responsible and sustainable investments, they require more than one-size-fits-all strategies to meet their evolving needs, and shouldn’t be faced with compromised returns. While there is no “right way” to approach ESG investing, we actively manage for ESG opportunities and risks, positioning our clients for success in the long term.

 

Better Outcomes For All Stakeholders

At Trafield, we believe that doing the right thing for our clients, our people and our communities leads to better results for all stakeholders. We approach responsible investing in a manner that is consistent with Trafield long-term commitment to sustainability. And, as active investors, we strive to embed ESG best practices throughout our investment, risk and talent management processes, while delivering investment performance and staying true to our role as a fiduciary and risk manager.

 
Given Trafield’s global scale, footprint and resources, we have immense potential to help our clients address many of today’s ESG challenges and make a positive impact. By further advancing Trafield’s ESG strategy and leveraging our ESG capabilities, we strive to help our investors meet their sustainability objectives in coordination with each of Trafield’s businesses.
Managers should be completely transparent with their clients about how ESG factors are impacting their judgments on both individual companies and on portfolio construction in aggregate.
As an asset manager and a fiduciary, we are committed to delivering positive outcomes on behalf of our clients. By incorporating ESG factors across our investment processes and increasing product choice, we are helping our investors meet their sustainability objectives in a way that only active management can.
Previous slide
Next slide

A Sustainable Foundation

Trafield’s strong foundation was built on delivering financial returns and making a positive impact on the world, and began over 10 years ago. Trafield is committed to solving the financial challenges of our changing world and is a recognized leader in purpose-driven business, investing and ESG practices.

 
 

We bring deep investment expertise across asset classes and provide our clients with investment solutions to their ESG and sustainability challenges.

THE JOURNEY TO NET ZERO

FROM GREENFLATION TO GREENIUM

$35
TRILLION

More than a third of all global investments in the world’s top five markets are now sustainable

Active Approach

As a leading global active manager, we recognize the importance of integrating ESG best practices into our global investment processes. We take a holistic approach to ESG investing and are committed to helping our global clients meet their business and environmental objectives.

Experienced Managers

The detailed application of ESG principles sits within each of our autonomous businesses. With a deep expertise across public and private markets, we help our clients understand how ESG investments can serve as a driver for desirable outcomes and returns. By tapping into the capabilities of our global affiliates, we customize investment solutions that meet the unique ESG needs of our clients.

Client Focused, Long-Term View

Emphasizing a customizable, client-driven approach, paired with a long-term perspective, Trafield employs a robust and transparent ESG investing process. We strive to deliver sustainable business and environmental solutions, and continue to broaden our ESG product offerings, creating better outcomes for our clients in the long term.

CONFUSION AROUND THE MEANING OF ESG

10%

PERCENTAGE OF WORLDWIDE ASSETS IN ESG FUNDS GLOBALLY

As the world’s financial firms embrace environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, there’s controversy that they’re labelling their activities as green or sustainable solely to attract business. There’s huge commercial pressure to do so, as interest in ESG funds is growing.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

$8.8 TN

AMOUNT POURED INTO ESG FUNDS IN 2021/2022

Indeed, riding mainly on concerns about global warming, assets under management in responsible investment funds reached more than $8.8 trillion globally in 2021 (through to the end of November), according to Refinitiv Lipper. Since then, however, they have edged lower in 2022’s harsh market environment, due mainly to falling asset prices but also some outflows. At the end of July 2022, assets under management stood at $7.03 trillion, down more than 20% on the year.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Distinguishing Green Fact from Green Fiction

Yet the problem of greenwashing is partly the result of ambiguity and varying definitions. That’s fertile ground for misunderstanding and, in some cases, even misrepresentation. It can be hard to distinguish between fact and fiction.

At the heart of greenwashing concerns, there’s confusion over what it means to be sustainable or green. For example, many investors think of sustainable, ESG, green and climate investing in terms of what their investments do for the environment and society. They think of investing in green assets such as wind farms, in climate solutions such as electric vehicles, and in companies with environmentally and socially friendly products and services such as plant-based proteins or life-saving treatments. However, many investment professionals think in terms of risks and opportunities. For example, they think of how resilient their investments are to a changing climate, how significant business opportunities arising from climate solutions may be, and how good companies are at managing product safety issues.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND GREENWASHING

There remain many debates in the world of ESG investing that have led to the current confusion. One is about fiduciary duties: Do investors have the legal right to allocate and steward capital to tackle societal challenges such as climate change?

Financial return is the primary goal of most investors and where an ESG risk poses a threat to financial return, many jurisdictions around the world not only allow but increasingly require investors to consider those risks and act accordingly.

Whether investors can legally pursue over-arching sustainability goals – such as the broad international objectives within the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals – is still moot in many jurisdictions, but a cultural shift towards thinking about fiduciary duties in a broader systemic context is under way and asset owners are increasingly stating that earning a financial return is not their only investment goal. For example, the UK’s Church Commissioners, which manages the Church of England’s endowment, states that it has a duty to invest in a way that benefits the wider world.

 

The Double Materiality Concept

Increasingly, asset owners and asset managers are looking beyond the impacts of ESG risks on their portfolios to understand how companies impact the economic, social, and environmental systems around them – a concept known as double materiality.

This may be with the goal of understanding the impact of systemic risks on a portfolio’s financial performance or to achieve a sustainability outcome such as improving access to clean water. This broader focus is driving an increasing demand for greater non-financial information and transparency, and therefore consistency of these disclosures is crucial if they are to be of any value to either financial or sustainability outcomes – and avoid the risk of greenwashing.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

The How of Sustainability

Pragmatists accept that mothballing fossil-fuel energy systems and switching on renewables is not going to happen overnight.

But as the world heats up they see the urgent need for an orderly and just energy transition. How we facilitate that transition and who pays for it is the subject of much disagreement, and it is these questions that are driving the confusion over definitions. Pragmatists argue that allocating capital to purely green assets will not hasten an orderly or just transition to a decarbonized world. Others balk at the idea that natural gas or blue hydrogen can play a vital role in facilitating the transition to a low carbon future.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

The second major debate – one that is currently raging in Europe – is about the “how.”

This is at the heart of the greenwashing confusion. Sustainability “purists” on the one hand argue green means financing companies that provide credible climate solutions from wind farms to green hydrogen developments. For them, green means real-world impact now and nothing else will do. At the other end of the spectrum are the “pragmatists” or sustainability incrementalists.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Natural gas or blue hydrogen can play a vital role in facilitating the transition to a decarbonized world, and thus allocating capital to these so-called brown assets is an important element of meeting the Paris goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above industrial levels.

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – IOPscience

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

While ESG investing has been vaunted as key to decarbonization of the global economy, it’s not a clear or straightforward path.

The reality is a broad spectrum of investors (from those seeking to mitigate ESG risks, to those with sophisticated approaches on ESG goals and preferences) are all seeking to navigate the best ways forward. 
 
In this complex and rapidly evolving landscape, there is a need for asset managers to help clients select the right sustainable investments by promoting transparency (with regard to climate as well as wider sustainability disclosures), developing expertise, resources, tools, and organizational structures to support ESG strategies, as well as building trust, and acting with integrity to protect clients from misleading marketing claims.
 
 
 
 

 

 

The important thing in ESG investing is that asset managers are clear with clients about what can and can’t be done. All investment strategies make trade-offs and ESG strategies may trade off risk-adjusted returns against sustainability outcomes. It is vital – for clients as well as the wider industry – that everyone understands what these trade-offs may be and their possible costs so that clients are able to choose the right strategies to meet their expectations.

COMMITMENT VS. ACTION

$130 TN

FINANCIAL ASSETS COMMITTED TO NET ZERO EMISSIONS BY 2050

This eye-catching claim from the voluntary group Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) includes $57 trillion from asset managers. But what does this mean in reality?
 
Revealed at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, otherwise known as COP26, the pledge drew criticism for not immediately stopping financing of fossil fuel. While the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “Net Zero” scenario rules out any new fossil fuel projects, members of GFANZ warned that a complete moratorium could hasten a disorderly and unjust transition.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

70%

FUNDS MARKETED AS ESG THAT FALL SHORT OF TARGETS

A growing number of asset managers have set high-level ambitions with regard to climate change, but many have struggled to follow through on those pledges. Others have chosen to take a more conservative path, developing methodologies and tools before making any public commitments.
 
Unsurprisingly, this confusion is reflected in the market. InfluenceMap, a London-based non-profit, found in 2021 that 55% of funds marketed as either low-carbon, fossil-fuel free or green energy exaggerated their environmental claims. The group also estimated that more than 70% of funds promising ESG goals fell short of their targets.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Commitments vs Impact

These findings highlight that ESG commitments do not necessarily equal real-world impact. Likewise, a lack of public commitment should not be equated with having no interest in ESG.

As the ESG world becomes more contested and political, public commitments may not tell the whole story. Investors should look beyond the pledges and determine what asset managers are doing in practice – what strategies, resources, and organizational structures they have in place to allow their clients to approach ESG with integrity.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Confusion Around The Meaning Of Climate Transition

Eliminating fossil fuels from portfolios does not necessarily create a fossil-fuel-free world.

In fact, it may well delay and obfuscate its orderly transition. Being transparent and unambiguous about the objectives behind various green funds, investors can choose what strategies work for them.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
DEFINITIONS OF GREEN INVESTING

The varying perspectives on what constitutes green investing has created an element of confusion for asset managers and asset owners alike. The strictest definition – one the “purists” of the ESG world would apply – might call on funds to prohibit any investments in fossil fuels and finance only alternative energy projects such as wind and solar farms, which is narrower than the GFANZ pledge. But there is a growing acceptance of a more pragmatic approach to decarbonization which supports a pathway to transition. ESG funds and tools have been built around this view, which include brown assets on a credible pathway or assets that facilitate a just transition to decarbonization. These investments might include cleaner fossil fuels such as natural gas, and mining that has ties to the battery supply chain.

Minimizing carbon emissions allows for funds to manage risk, while benefits to the environment are created over time as the years-long transition to alternative energy moves forward. This approach also acknowledges the reality of today’s energy markets, with the majority of the world’s consumption dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal. Dropping fossil fuel investments may encourage the privatization of energy assets, rather than a transition to green energy. And it does little to influence the world’s largest suppliers of oil: state-run energy giants. Even if the supply of fossil fuels is curtailed, prices would likely rise in the face of global energy demand.