Une approche optimale de la gestion des risques liés au changement climatique

Une approche optimale de la gestion des risques liés au changement climatique

Chris Wagstaff considers how asset owners might best approach climate change risk management by adopting a number of non-mutually exclusive mitigating actions to address transition and physical risks.

In cautioning against a disorderly and disruptive transition arising from a likely forceful near term policy response to climate change, the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) has, through its Inevitable Policy Response (IPR) project,1 sought to prepare investors for these climate transition risks. By forecasting a central scenario of accelerated and disruptive policy actions, occurring between 2023 and 2025, the PRI identifies eight critical policy levers, of climate-related policy and technological developments that are likely to emerge between now and 2050, to ultimately secure an accelerated and just transition to a low carbon emissions world. These are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The PRI’s The Inevitable Policy Response forecast policies could secure an accelerated and just transition to a low carbon emissions world

The PRI’s The Inevitable Policy Response forecast policies could secure an accelerated and just transition to a low carbon emissions world

Carbon capture and storage (ccs) is the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) usually from large point sources, such as a cement factory or biomass power plant, transporting it to a storage site and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere.

Source: PRI, The Inevitable Policy Response, December 2019.

Against this backdrop, asset managers and asset owners in analysing the potential transition and physical risks across the various asset classes held in an institutional portfolio, can adopt a number of non-mutually exclusive mitigating actions to address them, by choosing to engage, embed, effect and/or exclude, as appropriate.

Of course, who exerts this influence is principally determined by whether a mandate is segregated or pooled. Within a segregated mandate the asset owner is in the driving seat, whereas in a pooled mandate, it is the asset manager. That said, the asset owner can, of course, make the manager aware of their climate policies and ultimately decide whether to hire or deselect the manager.

In considering these potential mitigating actions, Figure 2, below, separates the asset classes held within most institutional investor portfolios into three broad categories: listed and private equity; investment grade and alternative credit; and real assets, comprising real estate and infrastructure. It then analyses the potential responses (engage, embed, effect and/or exclude) to the climate change risk posed by each asset class.

Figure 2: Asset class response matrix to transition and physical risks

Note: Caution should be exercised given that some of the approaches outlined above may impact the risk and return characteristics of a portfolio. In addition, while some may result in more appealing exposure disclosures, they may not make any contribution to climate change mitigation.

Source: WTW 2019 (modified extract).

Summary of actions available to asset managers and asset owners

Figure 3, comprising Asset Class RAG scoring, quantifies the climate change risk exposure of some of the main asset classes both before any asset owner actions are taken and after some of the more common asset owner actions are taken. It assesses the practicalities of these actions and how effective they may be. Accepting the subjective nature of this analysis, those asset classes classified as red are at particular risk of negative outcomes arising from climate change while those classified as green are either unexposed to – or even potentially positioned to take advantage of – efforts to combat climate change.

Figure 3: Asset Class pre- and post-actions RAG scoring

Source: WTW 2019 (modified extract).

Concluding comments

Despite the key obstacles to assessing portfolio exposures to carbon and GHG emissions, asset owners have a considerable climate risk mitigation armoury at their disposal that can be deployed across both mainstream and more illiquid assets to great effect. In particular, those actions that can be applied to investment grade credit, infrastructure debt financing, renewable energy projects, green bonds linked to specific projects with environmental benefits, sustainability bonds, sustainable infrastructure linked to climate adaptation and resilience and low carbon real estate, are well positioned to guard against the transition and physical risks of climate change and may also potentially benefit from positive outcomes.

Additionally, many asset managers and asset owners are not only adopting a number of the above mitigating actions to address the transition and physical risks of climate change but are also unilaterally taking steps to align with and, indeed, move the low carbon transition agenda forward, while voluntarily signing up to an increasing number of collaborative initiatives with their peers to achieve the same objective. Given how well asset managers and asset owners are positioned to be the catalyst for major transformative change, more of the same is needed for the bar to continue to be raised.

20 septembre 2020
Chris Wagstaff
Chris Wagstaff
Head of Pensions & Investment Education
Share article
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Sujets clés
Sujets connexes
Share article
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Sujets clés
Sujets connexes


Une approche optimale de la gestion des risques liés au changement climatique

1 https://www.unpri.org/inevitable-policy-response/what-is-the-inevitable-policy-response/4787.article.

2 There is a key difference between active and passive equity mandates when it comes to engagement. Passive equity managers have to exercise stewardship more widely than active, as they are compelled to hold those companies that populate the index being tracked, whereas active equity managers can make a more reasoned assessment of a company before deciding on whether to invest. Indeed, while engagement is becoming a key selection factor in passive equity mandates, there’s a bigger a debate around the role of passive managers and whether they should engage or not – a point of difference contested by two of the asset management industry’s biggest indexers.

3 The institutional market is increasingly populated with low carbon global equity passive funds that can reduce the carbon intensity of an equity index by c.80% while prospectively offering the same investment return as the non-tilted index +/- a c.30bps tracking error.

4 Seeking to decarbonise a portfolio is not a set and forget decision and comes with both short and longer-term frictional costs. As company policies and technologies evolve, the individual investments that comprise an appropriately divested portfolio will likely change. As a consequence, investors need to undertake ongoing research to maintain compliance with divestment goals. In combining estimates of transaction costs and ongoing compliance costs to US endowments, these frictional costs of divestment could result in up to 12% of value being lost over a 20-year period. (Source: Arizona State University, University of Washington and Compass Lexecon: “Frictional Costs of Fossil Fuel Divestment”, May, 2016). Moreover, these frictional costs are in addition to foregone diversification benefits and any reduction in investment returns that divestment might impose. See: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? A case study on Divestment. Kyle J. Bergacker, CFA (2019). Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Selective risk-based disinvestment is appropriate (tilt away from worst offenders with poor transition pathways to best in class with transition pathways with low carbon lock-in) but engagement for change is an essential component in order to move to a low carbon economy.

5 The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Green Bond Principles provide voluntary process guidelines to issuers on the key components needed to issue a green bond. Green bond issuers are required to build a Green Bond Framework, which should align to four components as specified under the Green Bond Principles. For sustainability bonds, the ICMA provides separate a separate set Sustainability Bond Guidelines. See: https://www.icmagroup.org/green-social-and-sustainability-bonds/green-bond-principles-gbp/

Informations importantes

Les analyses contenues dans ce document ont été produites par Columbia Threadneedle Investments dans le cadre de ses propres activités de gestion d’investissement. Il se peut qu’elles aient été utilisées avant la publication et elles ont été incluses dans ce document à titre informatif. Les opinions exprimées dans le présent document sont celles de leur auteur à la date de publication mais peuvent changer sans préavis. Les informations obtenues auprès de sources externes sont jugées fiables mais aucune garantie n’est donnée quant à leur exactitude ou à leur exhaustivité. Toute action ou obligation spécifique mentionnée ne saurait être considérée comme une recommandation d’investissement.

Eclairages connexes

19 mai 2022

Neil Robson

Head of Global Equities

Obésité : lutter contre un problème de santé grandissant

L'obésité représente un problème de société majeur, à l'origine de nombreuses maladies graves et très coûteux pour nos systèmes de sécurité sociale. Neil Robson nous parle de deux sociétés qui ont mis en place un nouveau traitement qui pourrait s'avérer révolutionnaire.
Temps de lecture - 6 min
17 mai 2022

Fixed Income Desk

In Credit - Weekly Snapshot

In Credit Weekly Snapshot – May 2022

Our fixed income team provide their weekly snapshot of market events.
Read time - 3 min
6 mai 2022

Richard Colwell

Head of UK Equities

Le Royaume-Uni, un bon filon à exploiter... et pas seulement pour les matières premières

En ces temps d'inflation extrême, Richard Colwell explique comment, au sein de l'équipe actions britanniques, nous cherchons à générer de l'alpha grâce à une analyse « bottom-up » des titres dans les domaines où nous pensons avoir un véritable avantage.
Temps de lecture - 11 min

Vous pourriez aussi aimer

Approche d’investissement

Le travail d’équipe est fondamental à notre processus d’investissement qui est structuré de manière à évaluer et mettre en pratique de solides idées d’investissement pour nos portefeuilles.

Fonds et VL

Columbia Threadneedle Investments dispose d’une gamme complète de fonds d’investissement répondant à un large éventail d’objectifs.

Compétences d'investissement

Les capacités d’investissement de Threadneedle sont fondées sur la culture de collaboration de notre plate-forme d’investissement unique.