hongkongzh
Indices insights: Combing through the climate data forest

Indices insights: Combing through the climate data forest

13-07-2022 | 訪問

We unpack the merits of different carbon metrics used to gauge climate risk in portfolios, including a new climate beta measure. These are discussed with climate strategist, Lucian Peppelenbos, climate data scientist, Thijs Markwat, and Head of Sustainable Index Solutions, Joop Huij, in our roundtable interview.

  • Lusanele Magwa
    Lusanele
    Magwa
    Investment Writer

Speed read

  • Carbon emissions data has significantly improved in recent years but is not designed to measure transition risk
  • Climate beta assesses the transition risk facing firms and can distinguish between climate leaders and laggards
  • The measure is more intuitive and transparent compared to other transition risk metrics

Many industry participants – both asset owners and asset managers – are committing to net-zero targets to combat climate change and contribute to the low-carbon transition.1 This transition also triggers the question on how to assess the exposure companies have to so-called transition or climate risk. For instance, to what extent can we rely on traditional carbon emissions data and do we need additional measures to get a clearer picture? We tackle these issues by combing through the climate data forest with our in-house experts Lucian, Thijs and Joop.

Thijs, what are the pros and cons of traditional Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions data?

Thijs Markwat: “In general, the quality of Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions data is relatively good. This stems from the clear guidelines outlined in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol on how to calculate and report these emissions. The widespread use of this data also ensures that its quality improves over time. Currently there are several data providers that produce and supply carbon emissions data. In our view, such competition is beneficial for the accessibility and quality of the data.”

“But carbon emissions data does have some less attractive features. For instance, the data is backward-looking with possible lags of over two calendar years. As a result, it does not reflect the recent actions taken by companies to reduce emissions. Another disadvantage is that not all companies report their carbon emissions. In general, we see that smaller firms and those from emerging markets have a lower reporting rate. To address this issue, data providers use their in-house models to calculate estimates for companies that fail to report their data. We observe that these estimates can be significantly different between data providers. Thus, this raises the question on their reliability.”

And what about Scope 3 data?

T.M.: “In my view, Scope 3 currently poses one of the biggest carbon accounting challenges. Aside from the issues that plague Scope 1 and 2, there are additional concerns that are specifically associated with Scope 3. Although the GHG Protocol also outlines how to calculate Scope 3 emissions, this is a significantly more complicated task than for Scope 1 and 2. One complexity is that Scope 3 has 15 different subcategories which all require estimates from reporting companies. Moreover, the quality of reported data is often mediocre or even poor. Consequently, the estimates – which are often based on the reported data – are of lesser quality. For example, Scope 3 data can contain large outliers that lead to a single company dominating a portfolio’s carbon footprint.“

“Apart from the data quality, there is also the fundamental problem of double counting. As Scope 3 measures all emissions along companies’ supply chains, longer supply chains typically lead to higher emissions. Therefore, Scope 3 emissions are less transparent, and as a result, less comparable between companies. There are currently no good methodologies available to resolve this double counting issue.”

Joop, what led you down the road towards your climate beta research project?

Joop Huij: “While climate risk has become a key issue for most investors, there are inherent difficulties in addressing it, some of which are data-related. Carbon emissions data gives a good indication, but it is not designed to gauge transition risk. Climate value at risk (VaR) measures – as developed by various data providers – are based on complex, opaque models and produce divergent results between different providers depending on their assumptions. Against this backdrop, we embarked on a project which was based on proposing a solution to these issues. Specifically, we introduced a measure of transition risk exposure that is determined by how an asset’s return is correlated with a climate risk factor, namely climate beta.”

“Climate beta is not based on a model with many assumptions. Its premise is that the market is relatively efficient in pricing in near and medium-term transition risk. Climate beta incorporates current market-based information (no two-year lag) and market expectations, thus making it a more actual and forward-looking measure. It has wide coverage, as market data is available for virtually all listed companies, and has high transparency, as it is not dependent on voluntary disclosures. And perhaps its most attractive feature is that it not only identifies companies that are vulnerable to the low-carbon transition (climate laggards), but also identifies those that are expected to benefit from it (climate leaders). This is something generic emissions data is not able to do.”

In summary, what does your climate beta research paper entail?

J.H.: “In our paper,2 we articulate the climate beta3 concept – which was initially termed ‘carbon beta’ – in detail. Climate transition risk metrics can be difficult to backtest given the lack of historical data and established methods to define when climate risk is high. In our research, we look to overcome this issue by creating a series of tests which can capture periods of climate policy uncertainty and climate change opportunities. We then outline how an asset with a negative climate beta tends to have high returns when climate policy uncertainty increases, and vice versa.”

“In our analyses, we observe robust associations between climate beta and emission footprints and intensities, and green innovation scores. We also see that stocks with higher climate betas have lower returns in periods of elevated climate risk, and vice versa. Furthermore, we look into green innovation and find that within industries, companies with lower climate betas are usually more active in patenting green technologies. This relationship, however, does not exist when one analyzes a firm’s emissions or emission intensity. Therefore, we believe climate beta is an additional climate risk indicator above and beyond traditional carbon data.”

透過電郵月報緊貼可持續投資的最新發展
訂閱

Lucian, what are main benefits of adding carbon beta to your climate analytics toolkit?

Lucian Peppelenbos: “There is no single metric that can fully capture climate risk. Therefore, we continuously evaluate our climate analytics toolkit and strive to find ways to enhance or expand it. At Robeco, we develop our own fundamental views on the decarbonization pathways for companies in the heaviest emitting sectors, and we complement this with information from external data providers to obtain wider coverage of the investment universe. Climate change is unprecedented, thus we cannot rely on historical data. Key metrics change as climate scenarios evolve. That is why we believe continuous improvements to our toolkit are crucial to help our clients meet specific climate objectives.”

“So when Joop and I discussed the climate beta measure for the first time about two years ago, I was immediately intrigued by the concept. This is because it has a totally different starting point than carbon emissions data and climate VaR metrics. It can, therefore, complement our toolkit. To highlight Joop’s earlier points, what distinguishes climate beta is that it has forward-looking properties, it has broad coverage based on market data instead of self-reported data, and perhaps most importantly, it helps to differentiate climate leaders from laggards.”

Can you define climate leaders and laggards and explain the data challenges in identifying them?

L.P.: “Climate leaders are companies that are expected to benefit from the low-carbon transition. For instance, this could be fueled by green innovation or steps taken towards significant carbon footprint reduction. On the other hand, climate laggards are firms that are expected to be vulnerable to the low-carbon transition. As an example, this could be due to slow decarbonization efforts or business models that are economically linked to a high-carbon economy. All of this is forward-looking, which generic carbon emissions data is not designed to measure.”

“Green innovation provides a good reference point in identifying potential climate leaders. The climate beta research paper outlines how green innovation is driven primarily by the energy, materials and utilities sectors. Within these industries, the more innovative firms have lower climate betas, although they do not necessarily have lower carbon emissions or emission intensities. A good example is a US multinational that is active in the field of power generation. Despite ranking in the top 5% of GHG emitters in our sample, it is also one of the top three issuers of green patents. Thus, its climate beta is among the lowest in the industrials sector. On the other hand, some companies that look ‘clean’ based on their low reported emissions data actually have a high climate beta. For instance, some smaller firms that provide services to the oil & gas sector do not have high-carbon emitting operations, but they are economically vulnerable to a low-carbon transition.”

Thijs, what is the biggest value-add of the climate beta measure in terms of climate risk insights?

T.M.: “This is an easy one for me. One of the biggest problems that affects carbon footprint metrics is that strategy which invest in companies that offer climate solutions often score poorly on Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, particularly Scope 3. Joop recently showed me how the same strategy score well on climate beta. In my view, this demonstrates how climate beta better reflects the climate change awareness of these strategy. Thus, it is indeed better suited to distinguish between climate leaders and laggards.”

Are you aware of other measures of transition risk, given that it is a hot topic, and how can climate beta play a role?

T.M.: “Yes, there are many different alternative measures of transition risk and this number is continuously growing. But in my view, the main drawback for most of these metrics is the lack of transparency. In most cases, complex models are used to estimate transition risk. Climate beta, on the other hand, is an intuitive measure and its calculation is straightforward. It simply measures an asset’s sensitivity to transition risk based on market return data.”

“What I also like about climate beta is that it does not use carbon emissions as a direct input, like climate VaR or implied temperature rise metrics. If emissions are a direct input, we typically see that high carbon-emitting companies score poorly on such transition risk metrics. However, some high carbon-emitting companies can be well positioned for the transition given that they contribute positively to the shift towards a greener economy. Climate beta, on the other hand, is not directly dependent on emissions and is therefore better suited to identify these companies.”

Joop, how will you implement this climate beta measure in Robeco sustainable index solutions?

J.H.: “We will impose an index-level restriction on our SDG Low-Carbon Indices – launched in December 2021 – which will result in meaningfully lower climate betas (transition risk) for our sustainable indices versus their respective market cap-weighted indices. The impact of this restriction is particularly noticeable in the weights of index constituents with very low climate betas (more weight) and high climate betas (less weight). We believe this makes our sustainable indices less exposed to transition risk which should be helpful in times when investors are especially concerned about climate policy uncertainty. We can also develop customized indices for clients that place more emphasis on climate risk (climate beta and carbon footprint reduction) to better position their portfolios for the transition.”

Lucian, are you looking to rollout climate beta more broadly in Robeco and do you have examples?

L.P.: “We are currently exploring this. As an example, climate beta can potentially enhance Robeco’s proprietary SDG framework by providing additional information that can be used for determining SDG scores for companies, particularly for climate-related SDGs. It can be used as a screen or an idea generator for fundamental research. We are also investigating if we can use the climate beta measure as a climate risk input in our investment processes alongside other climate metrics.”

Joop, how else can clients implement or benefit from the climate beta measure?

J.H.: “We will estimate the measure based on a specifically designed climate risk factor index. This index tracks the return difference between a basket of ‘polluting’ stocks and a basket of ‘clean’ stocks. In addition to using climate beta to lower the climate risk for our sustainable indices on an index level, investors could also design portfolios or swaps based on the climate risk factor which could act as an overlay to lower the transition risk of their overall portfolios. Going forward, we expect to experience times of heightened climate policy uncertainty and believe that climate beta could be used as an input to temporarily hedge portfolios during those periods. We also believe that the measure could be interesting for investors with business models that are exposed to transition risk and who would like to assess and mitigate this exposure.”

Table 1 | Breakdown of climate metrics

Source: Robeco

1 Robeco, March 2022, “2022 global climate survey”, Robeco publication.
2 Huij, J., Laurs, D., Stork, P. A., and Zwinkels, R. C. J., November 2021, “Carbon beta: a market-based measure of climate risk“, SSRN working paper.
3 The methodology and calculation of the climate risk factor and climate beta are explained in detail in the above research paper.

重要聲明

此文件之內容未經香港證監會(SFC)審核。若你對此文件的內容有任何疑問,請尋求獨立並專業的意見。此文件由 Robeco Hong Kong Limited (以下稱“荷寶”) 分發,荷寶受香港證監會監管。

此為機密文件,僅供接收者參考。任何未經荷寶事先書面同意,即複製或分發全部或部分此文件或披露其內容的行為是被禁 止的。接收此文件,即表示接受上述條款。

此文件僅供閱讀方瞭解荷寶的特殊投資能力,並不構成向貴方推銷荷寶投資基金和其他金融產品的行為。投資決策僅依據相關產品說明書、財經及法律意見而定。請詳閱有關銷售文件以得悉基金之詳情及所涉及的風險因素。

本文件的內容來源於我們認為可靠的資訊。 本文件向任何管轄區或國家的個 人或實體的分發及使用建立在不違背該管轄區或國家法律法規的基礎上。

投資附帶風險。歷史回報數據僅供解釋說明之用,並不構成對荷寶未來表現預期的影響。貴方的投資組合價值可能會有波 動,過往的投資業績並不保證將來的投資表現。

Logo

免責聲明

1. 一般事項

請細閱以下資料。 

此網站由Robeco Hong Kong Limited(「荷寶」)擬備及刊發,荷寶是獲香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會發牌從事第1類(證券交易)、第4類(就證券提供意見)及第9類(資產管理)受規管活動的企業。荷寶不持有客戶資產,並受到發牌條件所規限。荷寶在擴展至零售業務之前,必須先得到證監會的批准。本網頁未經證券及期貨事務監察委員會或香港的任何監管當局審閱。

2. 風險披露聲明

Robeco Capital Growth Funds以其特定的投資政策或其他特徵作識別,請小心閱讀有關Robeco Capital Growth Funds的風險:

  • 部份基金可涉及投資、市場、股票投資、流動性、交易對手、證券借貸及外幣風險及小型及/或中型公司的相關風險。
  • 部份基金所涉及投資於新興市場的風險包括政治、經濟、法律、規管、市場、結算、執行交易、交易對手及貨幣風險。
  • 部份基金可透過合格境外機構投資者("QFII")及/或 人民幣合格境外機構投資者 ("RQFII")及/或 滬港通計劃直接投資於中國A股,當中涉及額外的結算、規管、營運、交易對手及流動性風險。
  • 就分派股息類別,部份基金可能從資本中作出股息分派。股息分派若直接從資本中撥付,這代表投資者獲付還或提取原有投資本金的部份金額或原有投資應佔的任何資本收益,該等分派可能導致基金的每股資產淨值即時減少。
  • 部份基金投資可能集中在單一地區/單一國家/相同行業及/或相同主題營運。 因此,基金的價值可能會較為波動。
  • 部份基金使用的任何量化技巧可能無效,可能對基金的價值構成不利影響。
  • 除了投資、市場、流動性、交易對手、證券借貸、(反向)回購協議及外幣風險,部份基金可涉及定息收入投資有關的風險包括信貨風險、利率風險、可換股債券的風險、資產抵押證券的的風險、投資於非投資級別或不獲評級證券的風險及投資於未達投資級別主權證券的風險。
  • 部份基金可大量運用金融衍生工具。荷寶環球消費新趨勢股票可為對沖目的及為有效投資組合管理而運用金融衍生工具。運用金融衍生工具可涉及較高的交易對手、流通性及估值的風險。在不利的情況下,部份基金可能會因為使用金融衍生工具而承受重大虧損(甚至損失基金資產的全部)。
  • 荷寶歐洲高收益債券可涉及投資歐元區的風險。
  • 投資者在Robeco Capital Growth Funds的投資有可能大幅虧損。投資者應該參閱Robeco Capital Growth Funds之銷售文件內的資料﹙包括潛在風險﹚,而不應只根據這文件內的資料而作出投資。

3. 當地的法律及銷售限制

此網站僅供“專業投資者”進接(其定義根據香港法律《證券及期貨條例》(第571章)和/或《證券及期貨(專業投資者)規則》(第571D章)所載)。此網站並非以在禁止刊發或提供此網站(基於該人士的國籍、居住地或其他原因)的任何司法管轄區內的任何人士為對象。受該等禁例限制的人士或並非上述訂明的人士不得登入此網站。登入此網站的人士需注意,他們有責任遵守所有當地法例及法規。一經登入此網站及其任何網頁,即確認閣下已同意並理解以下使用條款及法律資料。若閣下不同意以下條款及條件,不得登入此網站及其任何網頁。

此網站所載的資料僅供資料參考用途。

在此網站發表的任何資料或意見,概不構成購買、出售或銷售任何投資,參與任何其他交易或提供任何投資建議或服務的招攬、要約或建議。此網站所載的資料並不構成投資意見或建議,擬備時並無考慮可能取得此網站的任何特定人士的個別目標、財務狀況或需要。投資於荷寶產品前,必須先細閱相關的法律文件,例如管理法規、基金章程、最新的年度及半年度報告,所有該等文件可於www.robeco.com/hk/zh免費下載,亦可向荷寶於香港的辦事處免費索取。 

4. 使用此網站

有關資料建基於特定時間適用的若干假設、資料及條件,可隨時更改,毋需另行通知。儘管荷寶旨在提供準確、完整及最新的資料,並獲取自相信為可靠的資料來源,但概不就該等資料的準確性或完整性作出明示或暗示的保證或聲明。 

登入此網站的人士需為其資料的選擇和使用負責。 

5. 投資表現

概不保證將可達到任何投資產品的投資目標。並不就任何投資產品的表現或投資回報作出陳述或承諾。閣下的投資價值可能反覆波動。荷寶投資產品的資產價值可能亦會因投資政策及/或金融市場的發展而反覆波動。過去所得的業績並不保證未來回報。此網站所載的往績、預估或預測不應被視為未來表現的指示或保證,概不就未來表現作出任何明示或暗示的陳述或保證。基金的表現數據以月底的交易價格為基礎,並以總回報基礎及股息再作投資計算。對比基準的回報數據顯示未計管理及/或表現費前的投資管理業績;基金回報包括股息再作投資,並以基準估值時的價格及匯率計算的資產淨值為基礎。 

投資涉及風險。往績並非未來表現的指引。準投資者在作出任何投資決定前,應細閱相關發售文件所載的條款及條件,特別是投資政策及風險因素。投資者應確保其完全明白與基金相關的風險,並應考慮其投資目標及風險承受程度。投資者應注意,基金股份的價格及收益(如有)可能反覆波動,並可能在短時間內大幅變動,投資者或無法取回其投資於基金的金額。若有任何疑問,請諮詢獨立財務及有關專家的意見。 

6. 第三者網站

本網站含有來自第三方的資料或第三方經營的網站連結,而其中部分該等公司與荷寶沒有任何聯繫。跟隨連結登入任何其他此網站以外的網頁或第三方網站的風險,應由跟隨該連結的人士自行承擔。荷寶並無審閱此網站所連結或提述的任何網站,概不就該等網站的內容或所提供的產品、服務或其他項目作出推許或負上任何責任。荷寶概不就使用或依賴第三方網站所載的資料而導致的任何虧損或損毀負上法侓責任,包括(但不限於)任何虧損或利益或任何其他直接或間接的損毀。 此網站以外的網頁或第三方網站皆旨在作參考之用。

7. 責任限制

荷寶及(潛在的)其他網站資料供應商概不就此網站內容或其所載的資料或建議負責,而該等內容、資料或建議可予更改,毋需另行通知。 

荷寶並無責任確保及保證此網站的功能將不受干擾或並無失誤。荷寶概不就有關荷寶(交易)服務電郵訊息的後果承擔任何責任,該等電郵訊息可能無法接收或發出、損毀、不正確接收或發出或並無準時接收或發出。 

荷寶亦不就因登入及使用此網站而可能導致的任何虧損或損毀負責。 

8. 知識產權

所有版權、專利、知識產權和其他財產,以及有關此網站資料的授權均由荷寶持有及獲取。該等權利不會轉授予查閱有關資料的人士。 

9. 私隠

荷寶保證將會根據現行的資料保障法例,以保密方式處理登入此網站的人士的數據。除非荷寶需按法律責任行事,否則在未經登入此網站的人士許可,不會向第三方提供該等數據。 請於我們的私隱及Cookie政策 中查找更多詳情。 

10. 適用法律

此網站受香港法律監管及據此解釋。因此網站導致或有關此網站的所有爭議應交由香港法庭作出專有裁決。  

如果您已閱讀並理解本頁並同意上述免責聲明以及同意荷寶收集和使用您的個人資料,用於私隱及Cookie政策 所列的收集和使用個人資料的目的(包括用於直接推廣荷寶的產品或服務),請點擊“我同意”按鈕。否則,請點擊“我不同意”離開本網站。

我不同意