LU1379104208

Section: Climate performance

The information in this section is based on individual indicators of the Swiss Climate Scores recommended by the Swiss Federal Council. The Swiss climate scores establish best-practice transparency on the Paris-alignment of financial investments to foster investment decisions that contribute to reaching the climate goals. The individual indicators on climate performance can serve different objectives in investment decisions, which is why a summary of all indicators into a single score would not be expedient. The section contains information only on Goal 13 "Climate Change" of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as climate data and methods are already the most developed and available. Individual information on other Sustainable Development Goals, such as environmental protection, animal welfare and gender inequality, can be found in the following section.

Paris Score : The Paris Score assesses a fund's alignment with internationally recognised climate scenarios for achieving the Paris Climate Agreement with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. The better the companies in the fund are aligned with this, the better the score. However, this is not an indicator of the impact/ effect of the fund to have directly reduced climate-damaging emissions or to reduce them in the future (see also the video on the difference between alignment and impact in the bottom section on this page). This indicator may be more suitable for investors who want to be in line with their values and therefore want to invest in particular in companies from the most climate-relevant sectors whose production plans are in average aligned with international climate scenarios. Investing in a fund with a good Paris Score can thus ensure that the most climate-relevant companies in one's portfolio are in average on a good path, but not that any change in behaviour (an "impact") is achieved at the companies as a result of the investment.

Climate Stewardship of the management : Financial institutions can contribute to the transition to net zero by advocating for science-based and externally verified transition plans towards 2050 with invested companies. For example, some portfolios that actively seek to contribute to climate goals may intentionally include companies that are not yet on track to meet the 1.5°C target. Such companies, and with them a growing share of the economy, should thereby become climate-friendly over time. This might be one reason why the Paris Score and the Climate Stewardship Score can differ in some cases. The British NGO InfluenceMap has rated major asset managers in terms of their climate influence (so-called climate stewardship). The Climate Stewardship Score, similar to a school grade, describes how credibly an asset manager influences companies to bring them into line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This includes, for example, influencing the business model, escalation strategies and voting on climate-related resolutions at shareholder meetings. This indicator may be suitable for investors who want to achieve impact with their investment and would even be willing to invest in companies that are even harmful to the climate in order to change them through management influence. However, the risk that the influence will be unsuccessful should be taken into account. Note also that the rating is the same for all funds of the asset management company, if an individual fund manager would deviate from the company’s voting and engagement policy, it is not reflected in the rating. Investing in a fund with a good climate stewardship score can thus ensure that the asset management company is committed to transitioning companies in line with the Paris Agreement, but it is no guarantee that the companies in the portfolio are already or will become climate-friendly.

Fossil and renewable energies: Many companies have specific climate-relevant business activities such as coal, oil, gas or renewable energies. Information on the share of companies active in these areas can serve various investment objectives. These indicators may be suitable for investors who want to be in line with their values and therefore want to invest as much as possible in companies from climate-friendly sectors and as little as possible in companies from climate-damaging sectors. This information may also be appropriate for investors who believe that fossil fuel or renewable energy activities could reduce financial risk or increase opportunity.

Climate Performance

The information in this section is based on individual indicators of the Swiss Climate Scores recommended by the Swiss Federal Council.

Paris Score Similar to a school grade, the letter describes how well a fund is in line with the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. The legend shows which letter is related to which climate scenario. The legend shows which letter is associated with which climate scenario. The planned expansion of climate-friendly technologies (e.g. renewable energies or electric cars) and dismantling of climate-damaging technologies (e.g. coal and oil-fired power plants) by companies in the most energy-intensive sectors is compared with the targets of international climate scenarios for 2026. Companies from seven sectors are included in the calculation for the fund, which together are responsible for about 75% of global CO2 emissions. These include companies from the following sectors: power generation, coal, oil, gas, steel, cement and the automotive industry. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data ) More information in the glossary. The graph on the right shows the historical development of the fund's Paris Score. If the fund has not invested sufficiently in the most climate-relevant sectors, no score is given. The corresponding field at a point in time remains empty.
  • No Paris Score available

Positioning of the Paris score of the fund compared to the fund universe

  • A+
  • A
  • ≤ 1.5°C
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
+15% ahead of 1.5 °C scenario
Aligned with 1.5 °C scenario
-10% misaligned with 1.5 °C scenario
-20% misaligned with 1.5 °C scenario
-40% misaligned with 1.5 °C scenario
-60% significantly misaligned with 1.5 °C scenario
-80% significantly misaligned with 1.5 °C scenario
How the fund has developed

Paris Score methodology

Climate stewardship of the management Financial institutions can contribute to the transition to net zero by advocating for climate-friendly business operations and credible transition plans with invested companies. Direct dialogue with a company and exercising voting rights has been shown to be one of the most effective strategies for positive climate impact by investors. The British NGO FinanceMap has rated large asset managers in terms of their climate influence (so-called climate stewardship). Similar to a school grade, the letter describes how credibly an asset manager influences companies to bring them into line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This includes, for example, influencing the business model, escalation strategies and voting on climate-related resolutions at shareholder meetings. "A" stands for strong and consistent commitment to corporate transition in line with the Paris Agreement, F for "insufficient". Both company data and external data were used for this. (Data source: FinanceMap)

If a fund has no rating, the asset manager has not yet been rated due to its relatively small size. FinanceMap's rating is currently limited to the 30 largest majority investor-owned asset managers worldwide. (Data source: FinanceMap)

Climate Stewarship methodology

Science-based climate targets Companies Taking Action Tooltip
More and more companies are voluntarily committing to net-zero emissions targets and formulating interim climate targets. Net-zero targets indicate how many emissions a company must reduce and offset by 2050 at the latest in order to meet the company's contribution to achieving the Paris climate goals - limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The effectiveness of such commitments depends on whether the interim targets are credible, science-based and transparent. The methodology for science-based climate targets used here was developed by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). (Data source: Science Based Target Initiative)
0.00%

Proportion of companies in the fund with public commitments to net-zero emissions targets and verified science-based interim climate targets.

Science-based climate targets methodology

Fossil fuels The weighting of companies in the fund which main sector is fossil fuel extraction plus the weighting of the fossil fuel capacity of companies in the power sector. As an example, a portfolio with a share of 10% of oil extraction companies and a share of 10% in power companies with each 20% coal capacity would show: 10%+10%*20%= 12%. A threshold of 5% of revenues applies both to activities directly linked with the exploration and production of fossil fuels and, if data is readily available, activities financing such production. The scope of activities includes the whole value chain, ranging from exploration, extraction, and production (upstream) to transportation and storage (midstream) and refining, marketing, and electrification (downstream). (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)
N/A

The weighting of companies in the fund that are active in the mining and/or conversion of coal into electricity is shown. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)

N/A

The weighting of companies in the fund that are active in the production and/or conversion of oil and/or gas is shown. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)

Renewable energies The weighting of the renewable energy capacity of companies in the power sector. As an example, a portfolio with a share of 10% in power companies with each 50% renewable energy capacities would show: 10%*50%= 5%. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)
N/A

The weighting of the renewable energy capacity of companies in the power sector. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)

Section: Controversial shares in the fund

The information in this section shows the proportion of companies in the fund that are involved in various "controversial" activities. Which activity is truly controversial and whether it is relevant to an investment decision is, of course, up to the investors themselves. Since funds often invest in several hundred multinational companies in different industries, almost all funds are invested in "controversial activities". If some of these activities are problematic for you, you can target your investment accordingly. Please note: The data on controversial activities is largely supplied by the sustainability rating agency ISS ESG. Based on a consumer survey, we have interpreted most of the definitions for controversial activities in the fund database as strict as possible. A 0% tolerance level for turnover in the respective controversial company activities was also selected. All activities analysed by ISS ESG are therefore taken into account. Different stages of value creation are considered, this may include, for example, services for processing, production or distribution of products. An example: Assuming that 5% of the fund volume is invested in one company which generates 1% of its turnover with the distribution of alcoholic beverages and in another company which generates 1% of its turnover with the production of oxygen masks for the air force, then 5% each is shown in the database behind the controversial activities "Addictive substances (tobacco, alcohol)" and "Civilian firearms or military equipment". Fund providers can define a different scope for the exclusion of controversial activities or obtain data on controversial activities from different ESG rating providers. It is therefore worthwhile for investors to understand the exact exclusion definition of controversial activities of fund providers and to ask in case of ambiguity.

These indicators may be suitable for, among others, investors who want to be in line with their values and completely exclude certain corporate activities in their investment for moral, political or religious reasons. You will find full transparency on the definition of the individual controversial activities in the respective info i's. However, controversies on international standards may also be relevant for investors who believe that, for example, a high proportion of companies that have violated the principles of the UN Global Compact could represent a financial risk.

Controversial corporate shares in the fund The figures refer to the share of companies in the fund that are involved in controversial activities. They cannot be summed up as it is possible that a company is involved in several controversial activities but is only counted once. Therefore, the total amount may be lower than the sum of the shares listed below.
Environment
Company equity For these values, we are interested in the shares of companies and not of states. We therefore indicate in which controversies companies are represented by their activity, partly by the way they do business or are managed, partly by the way they make money.
  • Genetically Modified Organism
    0.81%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in the production and/or processing of products from genetically modified organisms is shown. This includes companies that are involved in the production of seeds, crops and/or food additives with the aid of genetic engineering. It also includes companies involved in the production of pharmaceutical drugs or active ingredients, industrial chemicals, biofuels and/or other consumer products using genetic engineering. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Palm Oil
    4.80%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in the production, distribution or processing of palm oil and finished palm oil-based products is shown. This includes companies involved in the cultivation of oil palms (producers), the operation of palm oil mills, refineries and/or fractionation plants (processors), the manufacture of finished products using palm oil, including food and non-food products (chemicals, biofuels, personal care products) (users) or the distribution of crude palm oil, palm kernel oil, palm kernel flour, derivatives or fractions (distributors). If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Controversial pesticides
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are active in the production of pesticides containing ingredients classified as extremely or highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation (WHO) is shown. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Nuclear Energy
    >0.01%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are active in the extraction and/or conversion of uranium into electricity is shown. (Data source: RMI, based on Asset Impact data)
  • Controversies in the field of environmental protection
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in serious or very serious environmental controversies according to ISS ESG is shown. These include violations of international environmental standards, such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Biodiversity Convention or the Paris Climate Agreement, among others. The assessments are updated when relevant new information is available or at least annually. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
Sovereign Bonds The following indicators refer to the government bonds in the fund, not to corporate bonds. Government bonds are debt securities issued by governments that borrow money on the capital market. They have a fixed maturity and pay interest. We only consider bonds issued at the national level, i.e. by governments. We do not take into account bonds issued by regional authorities, municipalities or regions.
  • Non-signatories of the Paris climate agreement
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries that have not ratified the Paris Climate Agreement is given (data source: UN).
  • Non-signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries that have not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity is indicated. This Convention aims to protect the Earth's biodiversity, but also genetic diversity and the diversity of ecosystems. (Data source: UN)
Social topics & ethics
Company equity For these values, we are interested in the shares of companies and not of states. We therefore indicate in which controversies companies are represented by their activity, partly by the way they do business or are managed, partly by the way they make money.
  • Controversial Weapons
    2.05%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in controversial weapons (ABC weapons, anti-personnel mines, incendiary weapons, cluster munitions, uranium munitions and armour, white phosphorus munitions) and/or generally involved in the production, distribution or provision of services related to controversial weapons is presented. If you have any queries regarding the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Civil Weapons or Military Equipment
    3.89%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in the production, distribution or provision of services related to military equipment (weapons of war, supporting military equipment, as well as their components) or/and civilian firearms is presented. Services include maintenance, repair, testing, transport and similar activities in the above areas. This indicator is broadly defined, so that it also includes companies that are active, for example, in the field of logic (e.g. by transporting tanks) or that produce goods that have both civilian and military uses (e.g. oxygen masks for pilots), provided that these goods have been specifically developed or modified for military use. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Controversies in the field of human rights
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in serious or very serious human rights controversies according to ISS ESG is presented. These include violations of international human rights standards, such as the International Bill of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), among others. Assessments are updated when relevant new information is available or at least annually. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Controversies in the area of workers' rights
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in serious or very serious labour rights controversies according to ISS ESG is shown. This includes violations of international labour rights standards, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention, among others. The ratings are updated when relevant new information is received or at least annually. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Violation of Animal Welfare
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that violate animal welfare is shown. On the one hand, this includes companies that carry out animal experiments on live animals for non-pharmaceutical purposes. Secondly, this excludes companies that engage in intensive farming to produce food, including meat, eggs and dairy products, or companies that breed, trap or slaughter animals for their fur and leather. Companies that conduct animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes are not excluded. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Addictive Substances (Tobacco, Alcohol)
    1.78%
    The weighting of companies in the Fund that are engaged in the production of tobacco products and/or the production or distribution of alcoholic beverages is presented. The distribution of alcoholic beverages includes companies engaged in the wholesale or retail sale of alcoholic beverages, including liquor shops, supermarkets, bars and restaurants. It does not exclude services provided by enterprises engaged in the licensing, marketing and advertising of alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco, and also enterprises supplying key raw materials and packaging products specifically used in the production of alcoholic beverages and/or tobacco products, such as beer bottles, wine corks or cigarette packaging. This indicator does not require a minimum share of activities in turnover. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
Sovereign Bonds The following indicators refer to the government bonds in the fund, not to corporate bonds. Government bonds are debt securities issued by governments that borrow money on the capital market. They have a fixed maturity and pay interest. We only consider bonds issued at the national level, i.e. by governments. We do not take into account bonds issued by regional authorities, municipalities or regions.
  • States with Child Labour
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries where child labour is widespread is shown (data source: ISS ESG).
  • Violation of Human Rights
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries where human rights are severely restricted is indicated. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Violation of Labour Rights
    0.00%
    It indicates the weighting in the fund of government bonds issued by countries where labour rights are not sufficiently respected. This refers in particular to labour protection in terms of health and safety, minimum wages and working hours. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Authoritarian Regimes
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries considered "unfree" according to the "Freedom in the World" index of the non-governmental organisation Freedom House is indicated (data source: Freedom House).
Corporate governance
Company equity For these values, we are interested in the shares of companies and not of states. We therefore indicate in which controversies companies are represented by their activity, partly by the way they do business or are managed, partly by the way they make money.
  • Violation of the principles of the UN Global Compact
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in serious or very serious controversies in at least one of the four core areas of the UN Global Compact according to ISS ESG is shown. These include violations of international standards in the areas of environmental protection, human rights, labour rights and corruption. The ratings are updated when relevant new information is received or at least annually. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Corruption
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in serious or very serious controversies in the area of corruption according to ISS ESG is shown. This includes violations of international anti-corruption standards, such as the UN Convention against Corruption, among others. The ratings are updated when relevant new information is available or at least annually. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Business Malpractice
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that are involved in accounting fraud, bribery, money laundering or/and anti-competitive behaviour according to ISS ESG is shown. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • Tax avoidance strategies and identified infringements
    0.00%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that miss the intent and spirit of tax laws is presented. This includes companies that engage in illegal tax evasion by not paying or only partially paying taxes and/or that use tax optimisation strategies or aggressive tax planning, such as targeted profit reduction and profit shifting, even if these do not fall within the scope of illegality. If you have any queries regarding the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
  • No women on the Executive Board or Supervisory Board
    7.77%
    The weighting of companies in the fund that do not have women on their management and/or supervisory boards is shown. If you have any questions about the company data, please contact ISS ESG directly. (Data source: ISS ESG)
Sovereign Bonds The following indicators refer to the government bonds in the fund, not to corporate bonds. Government bonds are debt securities issued by governments that borrow money on the capital market. They have a fixed maturity and pay interest. We only consider bonds issued at the national level, i.e. by governments. We do not take into account bonds issued by regional authorities, municipalities or regions.
  • Countries with nuclear weapons
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries listed by SIPRI as possessing nuclear weapons is given. (Data source: SIPRI)
  • Global Peace Controversy
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds in the fund issued by countries classified as "very low" in the "Global Peace Index" of the non-governmental organisation "Institute for Economics and Peace" and thus considered to be very conflict-prone is indicated. (Data source: Institute for Economics and Peace)
  • Perceived corruption
    0.00%
    The weighting of government bonds issued by countries rated "very corrupt" by the "Corruption Perception Index" (CPI) of the non-governmental organisation "Transparency International" is issued. The CPI rates 180 countries and regions according to how corrupt the public sector is perceived to be. (Data source: Transparency International)
  • Money Laundering Controversy
    0.00%
    xmtdiifunddatabase.detail.flagSovereignExposureMoneyLaunderingControversy.description

Section: ISS ESG Ratings, Labels und Transparency-Profile

ISS ESG Fund Rating: While the ISS ESG Fund Rating Stars at the top of this page award stars relative to the Lipper Global Benchmark class, and thus a fund with a low ISS ESG Performance Score could receive several stars. The ISS ESG Performance Score at the bottom of this page represents an absolute ESG rating of the fund. The ISS ESG score ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 representing "very good". For the calculation, the individual ratings of companies in the areas of environment, social affairs and corporate governance are combined and aggregated at fund level. (Data source: ISS ESG) However, neither the ISS ESG Performance Score nor the Fund Rating can be used to infer the sustainability impact of the fund. The ISS ESG Performance Score rather provides information on how well the companies in the fund manage sustainability risks and opportunities. This indicator may therefore be suitable for investors who believe that a particularly good integration of sustainability risks and opportunities based on the ISS ESG assessment could reduce financial risk and/or increase opportunity. However, the risk that ISS ESG's assessment of the integration of sustainability risks and opportunities of individual companies may differ from other ESG rating providers should be considered.

ISS ESG Prime Status: The "ISS ESG Prime Status" is a fund award from the ISS ESG rating agency. To receive the "Prime Status", a fund must have received at least a weighted "ESG Performance Score" of 50 and must also not exceed certain exclusion criteria thresholds. These include funds with controversies in the area of international norms and standards (highest controversy level) or if more than 10% of the companies have a significantly negative impact on the sustainable development goals of the United Nations (SDG Impact Rating). Further exclusion criteria are a carbon footprint over 150% compared to the average of the fund's peer group or if a fund invests in companies that are active in the area of controversial weapons or if, for more than 10% of the companies in a fund, the approval at shareholder meetings for board elections or remuneration reports is below 90%. (Source: ISS ESG) However, the Prime Status does not automatically indicate the impact of the fund. This indicator may be appropriate for, among others, investors who believe that consideration of the criteria set by ISS ESG could reduce financial risk and increase opportunity. However, consideration should be given to the risk that ISS ESG's assessment of the integration of sustainability risks and opportunities of individual companies may differ from other ESG rating providers. This indicator may also be suitable for investors who wish to be consistent with their values and for whom the minimum criteria set by ISS ESG is sufficient for this purpose.

Labels: All the labels listed use different definitions, minimum criteria and screening procedures. A comparison of the labels with regard to different aspects can be found behind the click field "All labels". With the exception of the French label Finansol, it is not yet possible to automatically infer the impact of the fund from any of the labels. In principle, individual labels may be suitable for investors who are of the opinion that taking into account the criteria defined by the label could reduce financial risks and increase opportunities. However, the risk that the assessment of the labels or sustainability ratings may differ from other ESG rating providers should be taken into account. Individual labels may also be suitable for investors who wish to be consistent with their values and for whom consideration of the minimum criteria set by the label is sufficient for this purpose.

Transparency profile: The transparency profile offers investors an overview of sustainable investment strategies and relevant key data of sustainable investment funds. It helps investors to gain an initial overview of the sustainability strategy applied. They are designed as an orientation aid and are no substitute for an independent analysis. The information on sustainability profiles are based on the self-reporting of the providers.

ISS ESG Fund Rating The rating of our partner ISS ESG ranges from 0 to 100, whereby 100 stands for "very good". The ISS ESG performance score represents an absolute ESG rating of the fund. For the calculation, the individual ratings of companies in the areas of environment, social affairs and corporate governance are combined and aggregated at fund level. The ISS ESG Performance Score therefore differs from the ISS ESG Fund Rating, as here stars are awarded relative to the Lipper Global Benchmark Class and thus a fund with a low ISS ESG Performance Score can also receive several stars in case of doubt. (Data source: ISS ESG)
Neither the ISS ESG performance score nor the fund rating can be used to infer the sustainability impact of the fund.

More on ESG ratings in the glossary.
  • Not rated
Labels
  • Not available
Transparency profile The sustainability profile briefly summarises the key data of the fund's sustainability strategy.
More about this in the glossary.
  • Not available
Alignment vs. impact

Learn more about the difference between alignment and impact. The video explains why alignment is not the same as impact.

Watch video
Labels

Learn more about the difference between the labels and their criteria.

Glossary

Learn more about sustainable investing and different valuation methods

Glossary

Fund data from: 31.03.2023
Source: Lipper

Compare funds

Loading...