Fund Rating Methodology CDP Europe May 2018 - For feedback or any other queries, please contact Nico Fettes, CDP Europe 0049 ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Fund Rating Methodology
CDP Europe For feedback or any other queries,
please contact
May 2018
Nico Fettes, CDP Europe
nico.fettes@cdp.net
0049 30 629 033 121
climetrics@cdp.netContents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2
2. Rating outcome ........................................................................................................ 2
3. Methodology overview ............................................................................................ 3
4. Rating calculation .................................................................................................... 4
5. Scoring levels ........................................................................................................... 5
5.1. Asset manager score .............................................................................................. 5
5.2. Fund investment policy score ................................................................................ 5
5.3. Portfolio holdings score .......................................................................................... 6
6. The fund universe .................................................................................................... 9
7. Frequency of calculations ....................................................................................... 9
Annex 1: Asset Manager Score – Indicators, weights and data sources .............. 10
Annex 2: Company scores – Indicators, weights and data sources ...................... 11
Annex 3: Deforestation score – Indicators and weights........................................... 17
Annex 4: Sector tilting multiples .................................................................................. 18
Annex 5: Sector overlay calculations .......................................................................... 19
11. Introduction
Climate change has become a key environmental concern for many investors and
is increasingly considered a real long-term investment risk. At the same time, the
fund industry has the potential to turn into a significant lever to support the urgent
transition to a low-carbon economy.
Private and institutional investors need appropriate tools to assess the climate risks
and opportunities of their funds. For these reasons, CDP, together with ISS-
climate, developed Climetrics, which creates climate transparency in the European
investment fund industry.
Climetrics is calculated for actively managed funds and ETFs using the database
of CSSP AG/yourSRI.com for fund information1. The rating is symbolized by green
leaves issued on a scale from one to five, with five being the best, meaning the
most progressive funds in the area of monitoring and minimizing climate risks.
During its pilot stage (July 2017 – July 2018), only the four and five leaf rated funds
are publicly disclosed.
2. Rating outcome
The Climetrics rating measures the climate risks and opportunities of a fund against
all other funds in its sample. The higher a fund‘s rating, the better its performance
on climate-related risks and opportunities. Climetrics mostly measures climate-
related risks known as transition risks2.
An above average Climetrics rating (4 or 5-leafs) indicates that, on average, the
companies in a fund‘s portfolio are:
{ more carbon efficient,
{ better at publicly disclosing and managing climate-related risks and
opportunities, and
{ more likely to deploy key technologies supporting the energy transition
1
Climetrics may collaborate with other platform providers in the future.
2
“Transitioning to a lower-carbon economy may entail extensive policy, legal, technology, and market
changes to address mitigation and adaptation requirements related to climate change. Depending on the
nature, speed, and focus of these changes, transition risks may pose varying levels of financial and
reputational risk to organizations.” (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure, 2017)
2than companies in portfolios of lower rated funds.
Furthermore, a 5-leaf rating indicates that the asset manager providing the fund
publicly acknowledges the importance of climate-related risks and is committed to
taking action on climate change.
3. Methodology overview
All funds are scored across three different levels, each focusing on a different
aspect of the investment process value chain (see chart 1). The primary focus is
on the climate risks and opportunities of the individual holdings within each fund
(as more fully described below). This is to assess actual investment decisions
taken by the funds regarding climate change. To assess a fund’s holdings with
respect to their climate risks, a bespoke scoring methodology for companies was
developed for Climetrics.
Besides the holdings analysis, the Climetrics scoring methodology also includes
an assessment of the asset manager’s public action on climate change and
rewards funds which have an explicit SRI investment policy. This intends to
address different aspects of the investment process (e.g. company engagement).
Chart 1: Scoring levels and corresponding weights
Asset Manager Level
Weight: 10%
•
Fund Investment Policy Level
Weight: 5%
•
Portfolio Holdings Level
Weight: 85%
•
3Score Averaging
The Climetrics rating captures a fund’s portfolio history. All reported full holdings
over the previous 12-month period3 are included in the calculation of the portfolio
holdings score.
4. Rating calculation
For each fund, individual level scores are multiplied by their respective weights to
calculate a numeric score on a scale from 0 to 100. To assign ratings based on
these scores, a normal distribution is assumed. In addition, certain threshold
criteria apply for top-rated funds (5 leafs).
Based on their scores, all funds are ranked by percentile rank in descending order.
The Climetrics rating is assigned as follows:
Table 3: Climetrics ratings distribution
Rating Percentage distribution
1 leaf Lowest 10%
2 leaf Next 22.5%
3 leaf Next 35%
4 leaf Highest 32.5%
5 leaf Threshold criteria apply
Threshold criteria
Funds assigned four leaves are eligible for a fifth leaf if both of the following
threshold criteria are met:
3
As reported via Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company. Please note that reported holdings via
Thomson Reuters Lipper vary in timing and frequency.
4(1) The portfolio holdings score of the most recent portfolio must be greater
than 70; and
(2) The Asset Manager score must be greater or equal to 60.
5. Scoring levels
5.1. Asset manager score
Besides portfolio construction, asset managers can take strong climate action
through shareholder advocacy, public engagement and disclosure.
Climetrics scores asset managers for their public action and statements on
integrating climate change into their governance and investment processes.
A detailed overview of the indicators applied, along with their respective weights
used in the calculation of the asset manager score can be found in annex 1.
A minimum asset manager score of 60 is required for any fund to be awarded with
a 5-leaf rating.
5.2. Fund investment policy score
Funds with an explicit ESG policy are considered to have a higher likelihood of
good environmental stewardship and for enhanced integration of climate change
factors into investment decision making.
Climetrics awards fifty (50) points to funds with an explicit ESG policy as reported
via the Thomson Reuters Lipper database4. One hundred (100) points are awarded
to those funds carrying any of the European SRI labels shown in table 4.
4
Based on self-reported data
5Table 4: European SRI labels used at the fund investment policy level
Label Name Issuer Country
Label ISR French Ministry of Finance France
Energy and Ecological
French Ministry of the Environment,
Transition for Climate France
Energy and Marine Affairs
(EETC)
Forum Nachhaltige Geldanlagen
FNG Label (Gesellschaft für Qualitätssicherung Germany
Nachhaltiger Geldanlagen mbH)
Luxembourg Finance Labelling
LuxFlag Environment Luxembourg
Agency
Luxembourg Finance Labelling
LuxFlag ESG Luxembourg
Agency
Luxembourg Finance Labelling
LuxFlag Climate Finance Luxembourg
Agency
Ecolabelling Sweden, (state owned
Nordic Swan Ecolabel Sweden
non-profit)
Umweltzeichen
Republic of Austria Austria
Österreich
{
5.3. Portfolio holdings score
A bespoke scoring methodology for companies was developed for Climetrics. In
addition, a specific sector overlay is used to aggregate company scores at the
portfolio level.
Company universe
More than 5,000 companies are scored according to the climate specific criteria
described below. The Climetrics company universe is comprised of the 2017 CDP
Climate Change sample, i.e. all companies receiving the annual climate change
disclosure request on behalf of over 650 CDP investor signatories.
Company scores
All companies are scored for their current GHG emissions intensity and climate
change management performance. In addition, certain companies are scored on
climate specific criteria mostly related to fossil fuels and key low-carbon
technologies (see annexes 2 and 3 for a list of indicators).
6The emissions intensity score informs about the climate change-related risk
inherent in a company’s current business model, relative to other companies.
In contrast, the climate management performance score is a future-looking proxy
indicator aimed at evaluating a company’s awareness and management action on
climate change. Irrespective of its current level of emissions, it reflects a company’s
track record of disclosing metrics, risks, opportunities and performance related to
climate change and, if applicable, commodity-driven deforestation. It also captures
companies’ commitments to setting meaningful emissions reductions targets.
Lastly, the assessment of certain companies in relation to fossil fuels and low-
carbon technologies looks at how companies’ products and services are supportive
or obstructive to the required transition in the energy and transport sectors.
The Emissions Intensity Score and the Climate Management Score receive an
equal weight in the calculation of the Climetrics company score (see chart 1).
Chart 1: Components of the Climetrics company score: base case
Climate
Emissions
Management
Intensity
Performance
50%
50%
If additional metrics relating to fossil fuels and key technologies apply, these
metrics count double (see chart 2).
Chart 2: Components of the Climetrics company score: specific metrics apply
Climate
Emissions Fossil Fuels and Key
Management
Intensity Technology exposure
Performance
25% 50%
25%
7Please refer to Annex 2 and 3 for a detailed description of metrics and weights
used in the calculations of the sub-scores.
Sector Overlay
For the aggregation of company scores at the portfolio level, a sector overlay is
applied. Thus, scores of companies from high (negative) impact sectors contribute
more strongly to the overall portfolio holdings score than those from low impact
sectors. The sector overlay is based on sub-industry analysis using the GICS
classification system.
All sub-industries are analyzed for the average emissions intensity of companies
within the sub-industry. As a result, each sub-industry is assigned a sector tilting
multiple according to the following formula:
The sector tilting multiples (see Annex 4) are used to re-weight portfolio holdings
across high impact industries, i.e. if the sector tilting multiple is equal or greater
one (1.0). If a fund has no allocation to any company in a high impact industry,
the sector tilting does not apply.
Because of the sector overlay, scores of companies within high impact industries
contribute more strongly to the overall portfolio holdings score than others. As a
result, a fund’s allocation to a company with a high score from a low impact
industry (e.g. health care equipment) cannot easily compensate for an allocation
of equal size to a typical company with a low score from a high impact industry
(e.g. coal & consumable fuels). Please refer to Annex 5 for further details
regarding the sector overlay.
86. The fund universe
The Climetrics rating currently covers actively managed funds and ETFs available
for sale in Europe. YourSRI.com is the service provider for all fund calculations and
defines the fund universe for Climetrics. Within predefined fund peer groups, funds
are selected based on funds’ assets under management and full holdings
availability. Fund data is supplied to yourSRI.com by Lipper, a Thomson Reuters
company.
To receive a Climetrics rating, at least 60% of a fund’s assets under management
must have a Climetrics company score and the latest full holdings data must be
less than 12 months old.
7. Frequency of calculations
The Climetrics ratings are calculated and updated on an ongoing basis and may
change each time new fund holdings information or other data becomes available.
It is important to note that new holdings data counts towards the calculation of the
12-month average portfolio holdings score which is used in the calculation of the
final Climetrics rating.
9Annex 1: Asset Manager Score – Indicators, weights and data sources
Corporate Disclosure
Category Proxy Voting5 Collective Engagement Disclosure Commitments
Support
Weight (Case 1) 0% (if not applicable) 35% 35% 15% 15%
Weight (Case 2) 25% (if applicable) 26.25% 26.25% 11.25% 11.25%
Member of Global Investor Coalition on Public response
Climate Change (GIC)6 to Section 13.2 of
the annual UN PRI Signatory to the Montreal
Aggregated level of support
OR reporting Pledge
(in %) across funds for
Signatory to the CDP Carbon Action framework. OR
Climate metrics shareholder resolutions on Signatory to CDP
Program Member of the Portfolio
climate change & the
(Consideration of Decarbonization Coalition
environment
OR climate change as (PDC).
Signatory to the Climate Action 100+ a long-term risk
initiative or opportunity)
Score 0 to 100 0 or 100 0 or 100 0 or 100 0 or 100
Data Source FundVotes GIC / CDP / UN PRI UN PRI Montreal Pledge / PDC CDP
5
applicable to asset managers with US-domiciled funds only;
6
The Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (GIC) is a joint initiative of four regional groups that represent investors on climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy:
AIGCC (Asia), Ceres (North America), IGCC (Australia/NZ) and IIGCC (Europe).
10Annex 2: Company scores – Indicators, weights and data sources
Category Weight 1 Weight 2 Scoring Metrics Scoring details
Emissions Intensity 50% 25% 0-100
Scope 1&2 emissions intensity (tCO2 Emissions / $1m revenue) 0-100
Scope 3 emissions intensity (tCO2 Emissions / $1m revenue) 0-100
Climate Management Performance 50% 25% 0-100
CDP Climate Change Score (3-year average) 0-100
Science-Based-Targets Score 3.3 / 10
Trust Metric Score 0-100
Deforestation Score 0-100
Fossil Fuel & Key Technologies
if applicable n/a 50% 0-100
Power production capacity (utilities) 0, 50 or 100
Fossil Fuel Reserves 0
Automobile Manufacturers 0-100
Renewable Electricity 100
Clean energy components & equipment 100
Rail & public transport 100
Environmental Services & Recycling 100
Please refer to notes section below for further details on how metrics are scored.
11Data sources
Indicators Data source
Emissions Intensity Score
tCO2 emissions Scope 1&2, company self-reported CDP; ISS-climate
tCO2 emissions Scope 1&2, estimated ISS-climate
tCO2 emissions Scope 3, company self-reported CDP
7
tCO2 emissions Scope 3, estimated CDP ; ISS-climate
Climate Management Score
CDP Climate Change Score (3y average) CDP
Science-Based-Target Score CDP / Science Based Targets initiative
Trust Metric Score ISS-climate
Deforestation Score CDP; Global Canopy
Fossil Fuel & Key Technology Score
Power production capacity (utilities) ISS-climate
Fossil Fuel Reserves Fossil Free Indexes
Automobile Manufacturers CDP (CDP Sector Research)
Renewable Electricity Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)
Clean energy components & equipment CDP
Rail & public transport CDP
Environmental Services & Recycling CDP
Notes to Annex 2
Emissions Intensity Score
Each company is scored for its current emission intensity (GHG emissions / 1$ million revenue). For this,
companies are ranked based on their emission intensity relative to all other companies in the Climetrics
company universe. A normalized score on a scale from 0 to 100 is then assigned to each company based
on its rank.
This is done separately for Scope 1 & 2 and Scope 3 emissions.
Next, the separate scores for Scope 1 & 2 and Scope 3 are combined into the total Emissions Intensity (EI)
score as per the following rules:
{ If the share of a company's Scope 3 emissions is equal to or greater than 90% of its total emissions,
the Scope 3 score makes up 50% of the total Emissions Intensity score;
{ If the share of a company's Scope 3 emissions is equal to or greater than 75% of its total emissions
but less than 90% the Scope 3 score makes up 25% of the total Emissions Intensity score; and
7
For the largest Scope 3 values CDP uses bottom-up models based on production data to calculate the 'Use of Sold
Products' emissions for the fossil fuels and automotive sectors. For all other sectors and other Scope 3 categories
CDP uses an adaptive multi-variable regression model where applicable.{ If the share of a company's Scope 3 emissions is lower than 75% of its total emissions, the Scope 3
score is not considered in the calculation of the total Emissions Intensity Score.
Climate Management Performance Score
Companies are scored for their management performance relating to climate change and, if applicable,
deforestation. The following sub-scores are used in the calculation:
CDP Climate Change Score
8
The score is based on the company’s 3-year average CDP Climate Change Score . The CDP Climate
Change Score assesses progress towards environmental stewardship as reported by a company's
response to CDP’s annual disclosure request. The score assesses the level of detail and
comprehensiveness of the content, as well as the company's awareness of climate change issues, its
management methods and action taken on climate change as reported in the response.
Companies which were not invited by CDP’s Climate Change Program to respond to the annual disclosure
request and hence, do not have a CDP Climate Change Score, receive the average score of companies in
the same industry (based on GICS Industry code). Companies which were invited to participate but failed
to disclose any information receive a score of zero.
Trust Score
Using a proprietary model developed by ISS-climate, the Trust Score assesses the quality of self-reported
emissions data (Scope 1&2 emissions) on a scale from 0 to 100 points, with 100 being the best.
Science-Based-Targets Score
The Science Based Targets initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the UN Global Compact (UNGC),
the World Resources Institute (WRI) and WWF. Its goal is to enable leading companies setting ambitious
and meaningful corporate GHG reduction targets. Targets adopted by companies to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions are considered “science-based” if they are in line with the level of decarbonization
required to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre- industrial
temperatures, as described in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC AR5). For more information please visit www.sciencebasedtargets.org.
Companies which have officially committed to setting a science-based target within the next 24 months
receive 3.3 points. Companies which have an approved science-based-target set receive 10 points.
Companies with neither a commitment nor an approved target receive no extra points.
Deforestation Score
8
Note: In 2016 CDP changed its scoring methodology, moving away from the calculation of two separate scores
(Disclosure Score and Performance Score) to the calculation of one single score, located on a five-band scale (A-
E). For 2015, the distinct Disclosure and Performance Scores are scored separately and receive an equal weight).
13For those companies in sectors with a high impact on commodity-driven deforestation and forest
degradation, a specific score is included in the calculation of the Climate Management score. The
Deforestation Score is calculated by combining, where applicable, the Global Canopy’s Forest 500 rating
for companies with company-specific data from CDP’s Forests Program. All companies requested to
disclose information via CDP’s Forests Program are automatically selected for the Climetrics deforestation
assessment (please refer to Annex 3 for further details).
If applicable, the Deforestation Score makes up 25% of the Climate Management Performance score.
Climate Management Performance Score summary calculations:
Case 1: Deforestation Score not applicable
0.75 x (CDP Climate Change Score x 0.9 + Science-Based-Target Score) + 0.25 x Trust Metric
Score
Case 2: Deforestation Score applicable
0.25 x Deforestation Score + 0.56 x (CDP Climate Change Score x 0.9 + Science-Based-Target
Score) + 0.19 x Trust Metric Score
Fossil Fuels & Key Technology Score
Indicators relate to the companies’ direct exposure to fossil fuel extraction and production as well as their
application of key low-carbon technologies.
Power production capacity (utilities)
For companies classified into the Multi-Utilities, Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders and
Electric Utilities sub-industries within the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), current power
production capacity from coal and renewable sources is assessed. Scores are assigned as follows:
{ Companies with a power production capacity from coal of above 18% of their total capacity receive
zero (0) points;
{ Companies with a power production capacity from renewable sources of above 21% of their total
capacity receive 100 points;
The power production thresholds as set out above relate to the 2°C target technology shares in 2020. The
shares are based on the current listed market power production mix and the International Energy Agency
(IEA) 2°C (450S) technology trajectory.
14The rating is neutral with respect to generation capacities from other sources. Utility companies not meeting
the threshold criteria as set out above are scored for their Emissions Intensity and Climate Management
only. Companies meeting both threshold criteria receive 50 points.
Fossil Fuel Reserves
Coal: Companies from the energy, materials and utilities sectors which are among the 100 largest public
companies based on the potential CO2 emissions embedded in their reported and proven coal reserves
receive zero (0) points.
Oil & Gas: Companies from the energy, materials and utilities sectors which own more than 1% of the total
reserves held by the top 100 oil and gas publicly-traded reserve holders globally receive zero (0) points.
Companies whose share of CO2 emissions embedded in their oil reserves exceeds 33% of CO2 emissions
embedded in their total reserves also receive zero (0) points.
Tar sands: The 20 largest publicly-traded holders of unexploited oil sands reserves receive zero (0) points.
Automobile Manufacturers
Scores are derived from the League Table ranking of CDP’s 2018 sector research on automobile original
equipment manufacturers (OEM). It ranks 16 of the largest publicly listed automotive companies on
business readiness for a low-carbon transition. The companies in aggregate represent 79% of the global
passenger vehicle market by sales volume.
The key areas assessed in the League Table, which have been aligned with recommendations for company
reporting from the G20 Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
(TCFD) are transition risks, transition opportunities and climate governance & strategy.
For Climetrics, the underlying League Table ranks are translated into normalised scores on a scale from 0
to 100 for each OEM. For further details about CDP’s sector research please visit
www.cdp.net/en/investor/sector-research.
Renewable Electricity
Companies categorized into the Renewable Electricity sub-industry within the Global Industry Classification
Standard (GICS) receive 100 points.
Clean energy components & equipment
Manufacturers of components and equipment required for the production of clean energy (incl. from solar,
photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, biomass, waste-to-energy or hydro) receive 100 points. Manufacturers of
energy efficient lighting products (LED) also receive 100 points.
15Rail & public transport
Railway operating companies (passenger and/or freight) and companies whose primary activity is public
transport (public transportation, public transit, or mass transit) receive 100 points.
Environmental Services & Recycling
Companies with primary activities in the area of waste-to-energy or recycling of metal, aluminum and steel
receive 100 points.
16Annex 3: Deforestation score – Indicators and weights
Companies are selected by CDP’s Forests Program based on economic and environmental
criteria. In 2017, CDP’s Forests Program has used the MSCI ACWI All Cap Index, together with
CDP research and the Global Canopy Programme (GCP)’s Forest 500 list to identify and prioritize
the largest and most impactful companies in relation to deforestation risk. These companies are
considered to have a relevant known or anticipated impact on one or more of the major forest risk
commodities (cattle products, soy, timber products and palm oil) through production, trading or
procurement.
In detail, companies selected to be assessed for deforestation are scored on a scale from 0 - 100
(lowest - highest) based on data from CDP’s Forests Program and GCP’s Forest 500 Project, and
according to the criteria and weights outlined below:
Source: CDP
17Annex 4: Sector tilting multiples
GICS Sub-Industry Sector Tilting Multiple
Coal & Consumable Fuels 14.55
Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders 13.09
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 12.43
Oil & Gas Storage & Transportation 11.26
Construction Materials 5.60
Integrated Oil & Gas 5.25
Marine 4.58
Oil & Gas Drilling 4.37
Electric Utilities 3.65
Diversified Metals & Mining 3.40
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing 3.13
Steel 2.83
Multi-Utilities 2.72
Industrial Gases 2.53
Aluminum 2.46
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services 2.22
Precious Metals & Minerals 1.95
Silver 1.89
Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals 1.86
Diversified Chemicals 1.85
Airlines 1.73
Tires & Rubber 1.59
Marine Ports & Services 1.57
Environmental & Facilities Services 1.49
Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks 1.38
Gas Utilities 1.34
Paper Products 1.22
Gold 1.21
Automobile Manufacturers 1.20
Motorcycle Manufacturers 1.17
Hotels, Resorts & Cruise Lines 1.16
Commodity Chemicals 1.12
Specialty Chemicals 1.05
Paper Packaging 1.04
18Annex 5: Sector overlay calculations
Using the Sector Tilting Multiples described above, the actual percentage weight of each
individual portfolio holding is adjusted as per the following formula:
WBT STM
i i
WAT =
i n
∑ WBT STM
i i
i=1
Where:
WATi = % weight of holding i after sector tilting
WBTi = % weight of holding i before sector tilting
STMi = Sector tilting multiple of holding i
n = number of securities in the portfolio
The Portfolio Holdings Score is the weighted average of company scores after the sector tilting
has been applied. It is calculated as follows:
Portfolio n
Holdings
Score
= ∑ WAT CS
i i
i=1
Where:
WATi = % weight of holding i after sector tilting
CSi = Company Score i
n = number of securities in the portfolio
19About Climetrics
Climetrics is the world’s first fund rating which enables investors to integrate climate risk and
opportunities into their investment decisions. Covering equity funds in Europe worth €2 trillion, it
was developed by two recognized climate specialists: not-for-profit CDP (formerly Carbon
Disclosure Project) and ISS-climate, part of the responsible investment arm of Institutional
Shareholder Services Inc. Climetrics provides investors with a 1-5 rating – symbolized by green
leaves “issued” on a scale of one to five – based on a comprehensive, three-level methodology
using data from CDP and ISS-climate. Top-rated funds can be found for free on climetrics-
rating.org. Climetrics was catalyzed and funded by Climate-KIC, the EU’s main climate innovation
initiative.
About CDP
CDP is an international non-profit that drives companies and governments to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions, safeguard water resources and protect forests. Voted number one
climate research provider by investors and working with institutional investors with assets of
US$100 trillion, we leverage investor and buyer power to motivate companies to disclose and
manage their environmental impacts. Over 6,000 companies with some 60% of global market
capitalization disclosed environmental data through CDP in 2016. This is in addition to the over
500 cities and 100 states and regions who disclosed, making CDP’s platform one of the richest
sources of information globally on how companies and governments are driving environmental
change. CDP, formerly Carbon Disclosure Project, is a founding member of the We Mean
Business Coalition. Please visit cdp.net or follow us @CDP to find out more.
About ISS
Founded in 1985 as Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., ISS is the world’s leading provider of
corporate governance and responsible investment (RI) solutions for asset owners, asset
managers, hedge funds, and asset service providers. ISS’ solutions include: objective
governance research and recommendations; RI data, analytics, and research; end-to-end proxy
voting and distribution solutions; turnkey securities class-action claims management (provided by
Securities Class Action Services, LLC); and reliable global governance data and modelling tools.
Clients rely on ISS' expertise to help them make informed corporate governance and responsible
investment decisions. For more information, please visit www.issgovernance.com.
20This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data,
graphs, charts (collectively, the “Information”) are the property of Climetrics, CDP and/or ISS, as
the case may be. The Information may not be reproduced or disseminated in whole or in part
without prior written permission of Climetrics.
The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made
of the Information.
THE PARTIES MAKE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED
WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS,
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO
ANY OF THE INFORMATION.
21You can also read
