Post on 06-Jul-2020
GLOBAL MACRO RESEARCH SEEKING A SUSTAINABLE FUTUREAN INTERVIEW WITH SIR IAN BOYD, FORMER CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO THE UK GOVERNMENT ON FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
FEBRUARY 2020
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO THE IMPORTANT INFORMATION AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
GLOB
AL
M
AC R O R
ES
EA
RC
H •
IAN BOYDProfessor Sir Ian Boyd was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government on Food
and the Environment, a post he held for seven years, and is currently a professor
at the University of St Andrews.
He previously served as the first Director of the Scottish Oceans Institute and
as Director of the Sea Mammal Research Unit. Sir Ian is leading the move to
sustainability at the University of St Andrews, chairing the institution’s Environmental
Sustainability Board. As marine and polar scientist, Sir Ian spent 14 years leading
a research programme in Antarctica and is a recipient of the Polar Medal and the
Bruce Medal for Polar Science. He is Chair of the UK Research Integrity Office
and a member of a number of other trusts and companies. He originally graduated from the University of
Aberdeen with a degree in Zoology and gained his PhD at Cambridge University. He has also been awarded
several honorary degrees. He was knighted in 2019 for services to Science and Economics in government.
SECTION 1: Climate change 3• Why have attitudes to climate change shifted so dramatically?
• Where should policymakers concentrate their efforts?
• What role does the market play?
SECTION 2: Politics, policy and process 5• What goes into deciding and setting government policy on environmental issues?
• How might the growing focus on environmental issues translate into government action?
• What is the role of lobbying, and how do subject-matter experts affect policy?
• How do governments analyse whether to adopt a policy, on both the national and international level?
SECTION 3: The future of food 8• What are the implications of a growing population and climate change on food production?
• What are the main issues facing food producers today?
• What innovations or technology will have the biggest impact on food production over the next 10 years?
SECTION 4: Consumption and resource availability 10• What might make a difference to how we use resources in a sustainable way?
• Is reducing consumption a realistic outcome?
• How might the use of resources actually be reduced?
SECTION 5: The investor perspective 14• What does this mean for the investor community over the longer term?
• What might be the impact of a lack of proactive policymaking on these issues?
3
JOSHUA: Let's begin with climate change. This has been
recognised as a major risk for many years, of course, but
it seems it is finally being recognised at the top level that
environmental issues are urgent and must be dealt with.
For example, in January, the World Economic Forum's
annual risks report's top five risks were all environmental –
for the first time in the report's history1. Why have attitudes
changed so dramatically?
SIR IAN: I think there are four factors here. The first is that the
evidence for climate change and environmental impacts is
becoming stronger and stronger, particularly the underlying
modelling. It also suggests the implications are worse than we
thought. The climate system appears to be more sensitive to
greenhouse gases than previously thought.
The impact of activism is also pretty obvious. I work on a university
campus, and it's clear our students feel very strongly about this.
There's a real groundswell, particularly in the younger cohorts
coming through, that there is a major problem here and that
they will inherit the legacy of that problem. Of course, that drives
political ambition – in my experience working with politicians,
they are only ambitious when they have a constituency behind
them driving a policy.
I would say the third thing is that much more work has been done
on the pathways to adaptation or mitigation, which means we
understand a lot more about what needs to be done. The UK
Committee on Climate Change, for example, has done a lot of very
good work on this2. We're in a better position to understand what the
costs are, and the trade-offs associated with the things we need to do.
Finally, I think many of the negative voices around climate change
are fading into the background. They are much less influential.
JOSHUA: The natural question is what action to take. There are
many strong opinions out there about how to act, and clearly,
government policy and policymakers are going to play a
critical role in any transition. Given the scientific evidence,
where should policymakers concentrate their efforts?
SIR IAN: Having worked in a policy environment for a long time,
I think policies are most effective when they're simple and quite
high level, meaning they're driving systemic change and shifting
behaviours in a very simple way.
One of the highest-level policies you could bring in is a carbon tax,
or carbon pricing in some form, which would drive the trade and
manufacturing system to shift to new ways of working. Such policies
need not be introduced in a sudden or abrupt way: they can be
introduced progressively over a long period of time – even decades.
We've done that quite effectively at a much smaller scale. For
example, with waste, a small number of countries have a landfill
tax, which has risen gradually over many years. It's been very,
very effective at reducing the amount of waste that goes to
landfill. Whether that's a good thing is another point. But it shows
you can drive a whole system through fiscal measures.
On the other hand, while highly desirable and very effective,
the plastic bag charge (or ban, depending on the country) has
probably made little overall difference to the use of plastics or
their impact on the environment. By contrast, taxing raw materials
produced from fossil fuels, or of a certain type of chemistry,
would create a market incentive to develop alternative and
more degradable forms of plastic.
The government can also regulate, and I think it needs to do so to
provide a level playing field for the development of markets – for
example, for environmental or green bonds. And where there are
market failures, the government needs to address those too.
SECTION 1 CLIMATE CHANGE
1 Global Risks Report 2020, World Economic Forum. Available at https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020 2 For more information, please see: https://www.theccc.org.uk/
• Why have attitudes to climate change shifted so dramatically? • Where should policymakers concentrate their efforts? • What role does the market play?
The focus is sharpening on the environment. Extreme weather events are dominating the headlines, green policies are increasingly influential, and activists are growing more vocal. Joshua Kendall, Senior ESG Analyst, speaks to Professor Sir Ian Boyd, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government on Food and the Environment, about issues including climate change, the dynamics that underlie government policy, and the future for food production and consumption.
4
The market in an unsupervised form can produce odd and extremely damaging outcomes. This is where government
intervention is needed, either to regulate for certain strategic outcomes or to address
market failures when they happen.
JOSHUA: What role does the market play in effecting change in this area?
SIR IAN: It's crucial these developments are delivered through the market,
because we need a shift in the structure of the economy. Innovation in
many forms is going to sit at the heart of solving the current problems
and environmental challenges. This includes technical innovation, such
as in energy storage, but it will also include innovations in how capital
is diverted to solve these problems – such as how we incentivise and
reward people for their contributions.
In the end, human imagination – which is what has got us in to the current
difficulties in the first place – is going to have to power us out of the difficulties
and top-down, command-and-control, approaches are proven not to be
good at unlocking this resource. This is where the market comes in.
However, the market in an unsupervised form can produce odd and
extremely damaging outcomes. This is where government intervention is
needed, either to regulate for certain strategic outcomes or to address
market failures when they happen. For example, we need to regulate
so that we do not solve the problem of reducing carbon emissions by
reducing air quality. Both improving air quality and reducing carbon
emissions need to happen simultaneously. Also, the risks involved in
delivering some major infrastructure and research investments to shift
markets are often too high for the market to bear, and government would
need to step in to drive change.
As an example over 60 governments have set the target of getting to
net zero emissions by 2050. This is a strategic goal, but to achieve it, the
institutions sitting within the economy are going to have to play their part.
This may mean changing business models to cope with the transition, but
it may also involve buying carbon offsets. However, there are just not
enough offsets to cater for everybody’s needs.
By setting the strategic goal, government has established the background
ambitions which call for financial instruments to be developed to supply
offsets to cater for rapidly rising demand. We are still a long way from
achieving such a market, but it's sorely needed. I think government needs
to come together to work with those who are creating those sorts of
financial instruments – such as green bonds – to come up with clear
criteria by which environmental benefits will be judged.
5
SECTION 2 POLITICS, POLICY AND PROCESS
• What goes into deciding and setting government policy on environmental issues?
• How might the growing focus on environmental issues translate into government action?
• What is the role of lobbying, and how do subject-matter experts affect policy?
• How do governments analyse whether to adopt a policy, on both the national and international level?
JOSHUA: Setting government policy in theory, and
implementing it in practice, are very different things. For
example, the scientific evidence in a particular area may
seem quite clear, but the policy implications – let alone the
political calculations – can be complex. In your experience,
what are the factors that go into deciding and setting
policy in areas like this?
SIR IAN: Governments have a tendency to take quite a short-
term view. I was in government for seven years: for the first five,
the government never looked beyond about 18 months ahead.
Then we shifted to thinking more strategically and broadly
about the environment, developing and publishing strategies
such as the 25 Year Environment Plan3, thinking about the future
for food and farming4, and considering areas such as resource
use and waste. These effectively took a systems approach to
how people interact with the rest of the planet.
In the background of these policy discussions, of course, is the
inevitable short-termism of government, driven by the politics
behind it. I think the politics of the environment is changing,
and the government is being forced to take a longer-term view.
But one should never underestimate the extent to which
approaches within government – certainly with respect to the
environment – are driven by the personal opinions of those in
leadership positions, and fundamentally the prime minister or
president. I'm not sure the current UK prime minister and US
president get the environment, and so I'm not that hopeful that
we would see the head of steam that has been built up over the
last couple of years, certainly within environment departments,
being carried through by the current governments.
JOSHUA: You don't think the growing focus on
environmental issues will lead governments to take action?
SIR IAN: It could be hard for them to ignore the groundswell of
opinion on these issues, but there is a question as to whether
that groundswell is a neoliberal minority becoming more and
more vocal. The current US government – and maybe quite a
number of others around the world – may believe it is actually
a minority who are becoming more politically active, but are
not actually going to carry the day.
The counterpoint is that other stakeholders are clearly
interested in these issues. In the City, among investors,
bankers and insurers, there is huge interest. This is partly
driven by the insurance industry, which is seeing the real cost
of climate change beginning come in, and there are convincing
pieces of evidence coming through that our insurance costs
are rising because of natural events and other related matters.
If there's going to be a genuine cost associated with that, it
will affect long-term investment and the politics of financial
institutions – and that will eventually feed back to
governments. I think they'll listen to that side of the opinion
more than the activist side.
For me, the jury is out at the moment on how this new UK
government is going to react, and whether it will carry through
on the promising direction of travel of the last couple of years.
3 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan 4 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-for-food-farming-and-the-environment-policy-statement-2018
In the City, among investors, bankers and insurers, there is huge interest... I think the government will listen
to that side of the opinion more than the activist side.
JOSHUA: As you say, there are a lot of influential voices that can drive policy.
How does lobbying on specific issues work and affect policy? And what is
the role of subject-matter experts?
SIR IAN: Lobbying works on a number of levels. It works partly through
responding to trends within government thinking through the formal consultation
process. Legally, if it's coming out with new policies, it has to consult, and there
are ways and means of lobbying within that context. So there are policy and
political contexts within which lobbying can be effective.
However, lobbying tends not to be very effective if there isn't a willing ear within
government. I certainly learned that if there is no political interest, it's almost
pointless to push on the door that simply is not ready to be opened.
JOSHUA: Are there any examples of areas in which you successfully influenced
government policy?
SIR IAN: Take waste for an example. For about five years of my tenure, waste was a
deeply politically uninteresting subject. Nobody on the political side was interested
in it; there was no point in doing anything on it or trying to make any changes.
But as soon as the whole plastics issue arose, it suddenly became the opposite –
it was the hot issue of the day and every minister wanted to have something to
say about waste. And if you're an effective lobbyist, you need to understand that
dynamic. For some things which are politically unacceptable or uninteresting now,
at some point the window will open, and you need to be ready with all your
arguments and evidence – because that window won't be open for very long.
On waste, a colleague and I put together a major report on waste at a time when it
was deeply unpopular. When it suddenly became popular, that report hit the desks,
and it made a huge difference. It drove the government's resource strategy.
You can't tell when those opportunities will come up, but you can plan for them
and have all the evidence ready – that's how strategically, lobbying is most
effective. But a lot of this is driven by personalities and personal relationships.
Often, I would be aware that people were raising issues with government
ministers, because ministers would bring points to me and ask me how we might
deal with them. People clearly had the ear of ministers; the ministers listened;
they took it seriously enough to want to seek advice.
I think one of the most effective ways to work is for different sectors to be clear
among themselves as to what they want of government, and then to approach
government in unison, shoulder to shoulder. Government then can feel confident it
can do something without some sort of backlash. Under those circumstances it can
be more difficult for government to say no. Some industries are good at that – such
as the car and aviation industries. Others are very poor, such as the farming industry.
JOSHUA: When governments and policymakers think about whether a policy
is going to be successful, what kind of analysis will they undertake, and how
do they decide how to measure performance?
SIR IAN: Any policy in government needs an impact assessment, as defined in
the UK by the Green Book published by the Treasury5. It's quite surprising to many
people outside government how ministers' hands are tied by this. You may think
these people are elected and then they can make decisions; but they can only
5 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent
6
implement a policy if the impact assessment shows a positive outcome under a
cost/benefit analysis. That impact assessment is driven by the economists within
government, and there is a very well developed process, and economic models,
underlying that.
What is not done so well, however, is the post-implementation evaluation process.
The government simply doesn't put enough resource into policy evaluation.
The other thing about the impact assessments is that I think a lot of the economic
models that underlie these are very questionable. Essentially, the power in government
lies with the economists. They can say a policy is right, and if they put a tick in the
box, the policy will probably go ahead. Or they can say it's wrong. As a group,
they have huge power. I think that is not widely understood outside government.
Of course, politicians can step over those bounds, but they have to write a letter
to the head of the department stating that they are doing so and overruling the
economic analysis. In all my time in government I haven’t seen that happen –
the political impact of writing a letter saying "I'm going to ignore the evidence"
is too much for any minister to risk.
JOSHUA: How about international policymaking? Do economic assessments
also influence how governments interact with each other?
SIR IAN: The analyses done by the UK Committee for Climate Change are typical
of the kind of analysis that would be done for any impact assessment. At an
international level, the national analyses tend to be brought together and
discrepancies are sorted out. But then a political overlay is applied.
Take fisheries management, for example. There are very well-developed bio-
economic models that underpin the decision-making process for how much fish
you can take out of the sea. That work is done, the numbers are put in front of
the decision-makers, and then a political overlay is put over the top of that.
So in that circumstance, the economists and scientists are setting out the
parameters for operation – the upper and lower bounds within which political
decisions should be made. Unlike at the national level, it is easier for politicians
to step over those bounds at the international level. That's why, with the climate
talks for example, we tend not to get very far a lot of the time.
The power in government lies with the economists… as a group, they have huge power. They can say a policy is right, and if they put a tick in the box,
the policy will probably go ahead.
7
8
SECTION 3 THE FUTURE OF FOOD
• What are the implications of a growing population and climate change on food production?
• What are the main issues facing food producers today?
• What innovations or technology will have the biggest impact on food production over the next 10 years?
JOSHUA: A key area of concern is food production. As we face
a growing population and a sharpening focus on climate
change, the need to produce enough food for the world –
in a sustainable manner – is growing clearer. What are
the implications here?
SIR IAN: The food system is technologically very backward
compared with other sectors of the economy. Fundamentally,
we produce food in a very inefficient way, and there are massive
efficiencies that can be built into that. If we reoriented our
mindset for food production away from agriculture and towards
manufacturing, that would be a significant step.
Compared to other sectors of the economy, the agricultural
system is about three to four times less resource-efficient than the
next most efficient area of the economy. We need to get five to 10
times the amount out of the material inputs we put into agriculture
by the middle of the century than we do at the moment. That is
the massive transformation that has to happen if we're going
to feed the world and not ruin the planet at the same time.
There is the trade-off: people are very focused on carbon, but
they forget that we have to work out how to feed people without
ruining the planet. Food production consumes large amounts
of land, energy and material resources, and it's killing off
biodiversity, and affecting the quality of soil and water.
Actually, consumption of food is really the biggest single issue.
JOSHUA: So what are the main issues facing food producers today?
SIR IAN: I think there are three:
• the continued growth in the cross-border food market,
normally called the 'global food system',
• the impact of new methods of food production, and
• shifting consumer demand.
First, there is a lot of sense in growing specific types of food in
those parts of the world most suited to that form of production.
Even if farmers and consumers like the idea of local production,
often it makes little sense if the climates and soils are not of
the right type. Even trade barriers are not very effective at
counterbalancing this globalisation of production because
so much of our food is now in the form of derived materials
or reformulated products.
So long as the full life-cycle analysis shows that production
elsewhere, even when combined with bulk transport to market, is
energetically and environmentally sound then different places will
increasingly be forced to specialise on those crops best suited to
local soils and climate.
However, to compensate, some farmers might find that they are
more suited to growing carbon stores than food crops and there
is a lively debate about what the optimal design of land use should
be. In future, what we call farmers today perhaps might be seen
more as land managers within multifunctional landscapes.
People are very focused on carbon, but they forget that we have to feed people without ruining the planet…
consumption of food is really the biggest single issue.
9
As for new methods of food production, new technologies – which
may be cheaper, have less of an environmental impact, and which
also create a high-quality product – are likely to transform how we
produce food in future. This could enable local production of foods
which are not suited to local soils and climate, where transport
costs are high, and where there is a premium in freshness.
With regard to changing consumer tastes, price will mainly drive
patterns of consumption and the viability of different food
production systems in various locations. But we should not
underestimate the sensitivity to the idea that foods contain
chemical residues from pesticides or to the idea that food
production causes pollution of the landscape and the air. There
is a growing appreciation of these things and consumer demands
are likely to change – witness the recent rise of veganism.
JOSHUA: What innovations or technology will have the biggest
impact on food production over the next 10 years?
SIR IAN: I think we will start to see fully scaled controlled-environment
production systems coming online in places close to market.
Here, the business model is to bring the energy and nutrients
to the consumer and to grow the crops close to where they are
consumed. This will start out being especially viable for fresh
produce, but eventually it will become so refined and efficient that
systems will move towards the commodity end of the spectrum.
These need not be close to consumption but might be in places
where energy and water are abundant, such as in association with
hydroelectricity, geothermal or solar energy in coastal desert regions.
9
SECTION 4 CONSUMPTION AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
• What might make a difference to how we use resources in a sustainable way?
• Is reducing consumption a realistic outcome?
• How might the use of resources actually be reduced?
JOSHUA: What initiatives or approaches might make
a meaningful difference to how we can make use of
the resources available to us in a sustainable way?
SIR IAN: The climate problems we have are due to how we
consume resources.
In any physical system, you have inputs and outputs. In this
case, the outputs are waste. But the only way to reduce that
overall waste, which includes carbon, is by reducing inputs
into the system. We can increase circularity within the
system – in other words we can reuse or retain materials
within the economy for longer. But so long as we consume
them at current rates, the waste products are going to come
out the other end of the economy in some form or another.
What's more, we tend to ship those waste products into
types of materials that give weaker and weaker immediate
feedback on the potential impact, and maybe create longer
and longer feedback. So that's why we're going to end up
with carbon in the atmosphere, which is going to take
hundreds of years to feed back on us.
The fundamental problem is that we need to cut
consumption overall to reduce carbon emissions. There is no
indication whatsoever that we are curbing the consumption
of resources, even if there's an indication that we're actually
in some cases being able to reduce the rate of increase of
carbon emissions. All that we're doing is shifting those
emissions into different forms, which will probably have
negative feedback on us in other ways in future.
Net zero by 2050 is a great thing, but I expect we'll find when
we get to 2050 we haven't actually solved the problem,
because we've effectively shifted it somewhere else. So
that's why I think that demand-side policies are going to be
the way to deal with this – because we need to change
behaviours and expectations to reduce consumption.
JOSHUA: Can you explain how carbon emissions are
shifted into different forms?
SIR IAN: Much is said about the virtues of the 'circular
economy', whereby materials are recycled and reused; but it
is very easy to substitute carbon emissions for the emissions
(usually in the form of waste) of other materials.
This happens because we invest energy in the transformation
of materials at every step in their life cycle, from source
(mining) to sink (waste). In order to maintain materials in the
economy for longer, which is the objective of the circular
economy, we need to inject more energy to, for example,
recycle, remanufacture or refurbish materials. In some cases,
such as plastic, the carbon emissions from the energy
required to re-use materials might be greater than the
carbon emissions from mining new raw materials.
In such cases it would be easier and cheaper to throw plastic
away and manufacture new plastic from virgin fossil fuels.
This causes more plastic to go to landfill or, more likely, to
be incinerated, thus driving up emissions. (At the opposite
end of the scale would be a material like aluminium,
where recycling uses as little as 5% of the energy of mining
the virgin materials.)6
This goes to the heart of the problem of consumption. There
is no free lunch. Everything we do – even eating, sleeping
and breathing – uses resources. And even when we try
to think hard about using fewer resources, we often fail,
because we simply shift how resources flow into pathways
which produce weaker and weaker direct feedbacks on us as
individuals. This means we are getting better at translating
our emissions from unsightly, problematic solid waste in to
hard-to-see gaseous emissions which can float away in to
the atmosphere – out of sight and out of mind. We share
the problem, rather than face up to managing the problem
of our own emissions.
10
6 Global Aluminium Recycling: A Cornerstone of Sustainable Development, International Aluminium Institute, 2009. Available at: http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/01/15/fl0000181.pdf
11
This is why I believe the only way we will ever deal adequately
with our emissions is by reducing the gross consumption of raw
materials. Our adeptness at shifting emissions to apparently more
benign forms, like CO2 or methane in the atmosphere, creates
an impression that we are actually making progress when, if one looks
at the consumption statistics, we are making no progress whatsoever.
JOSHUA: Proposing a policy to reduce consumption doesn't
sound like a votewinner. Is there any likelihood of consumption
being reduced?
SIR IAN: That's a very fair question. It's hard to introduce
demand-side policy because essentially, as a politician, you're
saying to people you want something – but I'm not going to let
you have it. But if we don't face it up that fact, we will reach a
tipping point of resource availability. At some point that is going to
feed back very, very rapidly on us in ways which are very hard to
predict and which could be extremely damaging. Moreover, the
way these feedbacks happen is inherently unpredictable – how
we imagine these consequences will almost certainly not be the
actual, realised outcome.
Part of my background is in researching large ecological systems,
which are not actually very different from large economic systems
in the way they're structured. Highly networked processes have
a way of flipping once they're put under stress: they essentially
bifurcate so they go into a chaotic state, and then settle out in a
different equilibrium. The danger we face is that if we keep driving
our consumption up, we will see some form of crisis or economic
collapse, which will be severe for some segments – or all – of the
global population.
JOSHUA: Is there anything you find encouraging when you
consider these issues, and how they might be dealt with?
SIR IAN: Not really. We're very focused on carbon emissions,
and that is not a bad thing. But the idea of trying to reduce
consumption is not taken seriously at all.
The International Resource Panel, part of the UN Environment
Programme, provides statistics around resource consumption7.
They have been talking for many years about decoupling
economic growth from consumption. The evidence to date
suggests we're being very unsuccessful at doing that. There are
some areas where relative decoupling is beginning to happen,
where we're able to grow the economy without exponentially
increasing consumption, but consumption is still going up for
the relative amount of materials being used.
7 For more information, please see: https://www.resourcepanel.org/
12
The trouble is that, whether it's light bulbs or television sets, we
use less and less materials to build and run them, but we make
more and more of them. So we need to reduce the number of light
bulbs we have and reduce the number of television sets, and so
on. Otherwise we won't bank the advantages of producing them
with less resources and using them with less power.
We're very good at supply-side solutions, but not at demand-side
solutions. But we can think much more broadly about what
demand-side solutions might look like. For example, people are
becoming more and more conscious about the environment: but
do they have the information in front of them to understand the
relative environmental impact of the choice in front of them. If
you were to buy flights, it would be useful to know what the
environmental impact of that was. But we do not supply enough of
that information so people can make rational judgments. Once we
supply that information, I think people might start down that road
of potentially reducing consumption. Another approach might
be pricing differentially depending on environmental impact.
The mode of thought at the moment is around a technological
solution. Somehow, science is going to come to the rescue here,
and come up with lots of great things like wonderful batteries
for cars and fusion energy. These might let us off the hook – but
it's a high-risk strategy. There is even evidence that the rate of
innovation is declining relative to the investment in science so
there may be diminishing returns from R&D. The necessary
innovations might not come about. Are we going to get the
technical solutions in place before a collapse occurs?
JOSHUA: You said a lack of resource availability is already
evident in some areas. Could you provide some examples?
SIR IAN: We live within a bounded system – the planet. The only
significant inputs to the system come from solar energy. Any
materials we use which are not created using solar energy
must come from within the bounded planetary system.
As consumers of this limited planetary resource, cumulatively,
how much of these resources have we consumed to date and
are we approaching the limits? This is a hotly argued topic – there
are those who claim that, relative to our rate of use, planetary
resources are effectively unlimited. But I don't think the evidence
supports this.
One issue is that most economic models assume smooth
transitions as resources become scarce, because the laws of
supply and demand will force us to innovate to use resources
more sparingly. They assume that the cost-curve of resources
is vaguely linear.
However, this does not account for our ability to divert the costs
of resource consumption into environmental impacts which we do
not pay for. Essentially, our resource consumption remains high
even when resources are becoming scarce because we do not
pay the real costs of consumption. We are very innovative when
it comes to transferring those costs away from our own accounts
– essentially by placing them out in the environment by forcing
them to be shared. Private costs are transferred into public costs,
meaning cost curves are highly non-linear.
We're very good at supply-side solutions, but not at demand-side solutions. People don’t have the information in front of them to understand the relative environmental impact of the choice in front of them.
13
8 The state of world fisheries and agriculture 2018, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture/en/ 9 Resource Demand Scenarios for the Major Metals, by Ayman Elshkaki, TE Graedel, Luca Ciacci and Barbara K Reck; Environmental Science & Technology 2018 52 (5), 2491-2497. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b05154 10 On the materials basis of modern society, by TE Graedel, EM Harper, NT Nassar and Barbara K Reck; PNAS May 19, 2015 112 (20) 6295-6300. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6295 11 Long-Term Estimates of the Energy-Return-on-Investment (EROI) of Coal, Oil, and Gas Global Productions, by Victor Court and Florian Fizaine; Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 145-159. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v138y2017icp145-159.html 12 Linking global crop and livestock consumption to local production hotspots, by Zhongxiao Sun, Laura Scherer, Arnold Tukker and Paul Behrens; Global Food Security, 3 October 2019. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912419300276?via%3Dihub
Despite the costs of resource use being somewhat disguised
by these mechanisms, there is evidence of resource constraint
kicking in. Global fish stocks are being increasingly overfished8;
by 2050, over a quarter of global energy needs may be absorbed
simply by mining metals needed for goods production9, and there
is a shortage of substitute metals for those likely to be in short
supply10; the energy return on investment in oil has declined
substantially11; and while land use for agriculture peaked decades
ago, as intensity of land use has risen, so has use of mineral
resources as fertilisers12. I would also note that the UK Ministry
of Defence and US Department of Defense note that resource
constraints, and access to resources, are a significant part of their
assessment when it comes to rising global tensions.
All that said, the most profound evidence of resource constraint
is rarely recognised: the large-scale decline in biodiversity, which
is the manifest cost of the consumption of land, energy and
minerals (together with emissions) for food production.
In ecological systems, we see these processes in action. The
consequence of non-linear responses – a bit like pressure building
up in the Earth’s crust, which is released suddenly as an
earthquake or a volcanic explosion – is that a system becomes
unstable and breaks down before settling out in a very different
equilibrium state. If this was to happen to the global economy,
it would be devastating.
In reality, we may be inadvertently building up these kinds of
pressures because of increasingly high consumption and
emissions. They will eventually reach a tipping point; a step-
function in non-linear responses. In a very small way, the 2008
financial collapse showed how quickly these things can happen
in highly networked systems and, relative to what I am talking
about, I think the 2008 crisis and its aftermath will be trivial.
For example, does the current global food system bear the
characteristics of an inherently stable or and inherently unstable
network? Most economists assume that smooth supply-demand
transitions create equilibrium corrections, but how much of a
shock would it take to cause the global food system to collapse?
We do not know – but we should.
14
SECTION 5 THE INVESTOR PERSPECTIVE
JOSHUA: What do you think this all means for the investor
community, when investing over a 10, 20, 30-year period?
And what might be the impact of a lack of proactive
policymaking on these issues?
SIR IAN: My very strong belief is that these problems are going to
be solved by the market, but government needs to recognise that. I
think investors are beginning to realise there is money to be made
here. I gave the example of food: food is produced so inefficiently
that anybody with technical solutions that produce food at less
cost is going to make a lot of money. There are such solutions
coming along, with controlled-system farming and bioreactors,
which are really promising. There are major companies – including
engineering companies – that are looking at that.
We need the financial instruments to allow airlines to offset their
carbon footprints, rather than expecting them to buy forests.
Instruments like this just don't exist at the moment, though there
is progress being made – and there are a large number of
institutions that would want access to them. Government needs
to solve the market failure that exists in that area at the moment,
and they're just not doing that. Perhaps the most significant
challenge is to establish agreed methods for measuring and
crediting the value of financial instruments.
FURTHER READING
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO ALL RISK DISCLOSURES AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
INTRODUCTION
Our clients are increasingly seeking a responsible approach to
fixed income. This paper aims to answer these frequently asked
questions:
1What exactly is responsible investment, and how does it
differ from sustainable and impact investing?
2What does it mean to invest responsibly
in fixed income?
3How can fixed income investors actively engage with
corporate and sovereign issuers over ESG issues?
BACKGROUND
Investing responsibly in fixed income is now part of the
mainstream. Investors increasingly expect their bond portfolios to
take environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and risks
into account – and asset managers have flocked to meet this
demand.
Signatories to the UN-supported Principles for Responsible
Investment (PRI), the world’s leading proponent for responsible
investment, account for tens of trillions of dollars of assets under
management, of which around 40% is in fixed income.1 Over 150
investors with nearly $30 trillion of assets under management,
and 19 credit rating agencies, have signed the PRI’s statement on
ESG in credit risk and ratings.2
These statements of intent have led to significant progress in fixed
income approaches that take ESG factors into account. Indices for
equity investors focused on ESG issues have been a long-standing
feature in the marketplace, but index providers have moved to
launch bond indices too: for example, in 2018, the JP Morgan ESG
index was launched, focusing on emerging market debt from
issuers with strong ESG practices.
Industry initiatives are also generating research and encouraging
further innovations in this area. One of the most prominent is the
PRI’s multi-year Credit Risk and Ratings Initiative, which aims to
“enhance the transparent and systematic integration of ESG
factors in credit risk analysis” by facilitating dialogue between
credit rating agencies – who are crucial players in global bond
markets – and investors.3
Perhaps the clearest demonstration of investor’s interest in ESG
factors and how they relate to their bond portfolios is the growth
of the impact bond market, whereby bond proceeds are used to
support environmental and/or social progress. Impact bond
issuance in 2019 is set to hit a new record, and demand continues
to outstrip supply.
KEY QUESTIONS
As interest and activity are clearly booming, there are clear
questions for bond investors to consider as they ponder the
possibilities ahead of them, including how to define a responsible
approach, what it means to follow such an approach in fixed
income markets, and how fixed income investors can proactively
engage with corporate and sovereign issuers over ESG issues.
1Defining responsible investment
Responsible investment is defined by the PRI as an
approach to investing that aims to incorporate ESG
factors into investment decisions, to better manage risk and
generate sustainable, long-term returns.4
In other words, responsible investment is about managing risk.
It is not about putting specific ethical considerations ahead of
other criteria when creating portfolios.
This sets it apart from approaches like sustainable or impact
investment, which aim for non-financial, as well as financial,
objectives (see graphic on the next page).
RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN FIXED INCOME A PRIMER
September 2019
1 Source: PRI signatory information snapshot, available at https://www.unpri.org/pri/about-the-pri. 2 For more information, please see https://www.unpri.org/credit-ratings/statement-on-esg-in-credit-risk-and-ratings-also-available-in-chinese/77.article. 3 For more information, please see https://www.unpri.org/credit-ratings. 4 Please see https://www.unpri.org/pri/what-is-responsible-investment.
Responsible investment in fixed income: a primer
What is responsible investment and how
does it differ from sustainable and impact
investing? What does it mean to invest
responsibly in fixed income?
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO ALL RISK DISCLOSURES AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
• The Financial Reporting Council’s UK Stewardship Code is being
revised and is due to be launched by year-end. The updated
code will impact service providers, asset owners as well as
investment managers, and extend to include fixed income. The
code aims to increase effectiveness, align roles and incentives
of the investment community towards stewardship issues and
reflect the changing landscape of investment and societal
expectations.
• Our approach to responsible investment is underpinned by the
belief that environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues
are important drivers of investment value. We recognise that
delivering superior investment solutions depends on the
effective management of the risks and opportunities presented
by these issues. We continuously develop or update tools that
support the integration of ESG into our corporate credit work,
and have built responsible investment processes into our
emerging markets, sovereign debt, money markets analysis, as
well as our LDI solutions.
• We recognise that information on a company’s ESG risks is not
always available from third-party data providers, which is why
we believe it is essential for investment managers to carry out
their own independent analysis. We have developed
proprietary Insight ESG ratings, streamlining the standard ESG
framework and selectively customising the metrics to make the
data as pertinent as possible to our analysis. Our analysts use
these ratings in addition to or instead of a third-party provider
to make an assessment on the ESG risk posed by the issuer.
At present, around 99% of companies in investment grade
indices have a quantitative Insight ESG rating.
• More than 150 impact bonds we have analysed over the last
three years fully meet our requirements to be classified as an
impact bond, while approximately 15% of impact bonds were
unable to sufficiently meet our threshold requirements. This
highlights the importance of looking beyond the impact bond
label to discern suitability.
Introduction: ESG factors have become increasingly pertinent to our clients
Lucy Speake, Deputy Head of Fixed Income
and Head of European Credit, Insight
Investment
Insight was an early adopter of ESG integration
into credit research; we were a founding UN-supported Principles
for Responsible Investment (PRI) signatory in 2006, and this year
we achieved PRI ratings of A+ or A across all of our processes. Our
responsible investment framework focuses on ensuring we take
ESG risks into account alongside other risks in our fixed income
portfolios.
Over the last twelve months, ESG in fixed income has continued to
be a significant focus for Insight. In addition to developing new
tools (see Figure 2) that support the continued integration of ESG
into our corporate credit work, we have expanded the remit,
building responsible investment into our emerging markets,
sovereign debt, money markets and LDI solutions analysis.
Our key developments during the last twelve months have
included: increasing our focus on data in the ESG space and
expanding our ESG team; further exercising our stewardship role;
building sustainable investment into our portfolios in order to
meet our clients’ objectives; and creating three ESG groups.
These groups each focus on a different area – either corporate
credit, sovereign or Insight’s ESG products – and have a mandate
to review ESG risk factors that may impact investment and
business operations, in order to make sure we meet the demand
of our clients and consultants.
ESG continues to be a very important subject for our
clients; in the UK, ESG factors have become increasingly
pertinent, particularly to pension schemes and local
authorities. Our dedicated ESG strategies have
continued to grow, with an increasing focus on
exclusions, in particular.
ESG IN FIXED INCOMENEW INITIATIVES AND ENHANCEMENTS
October 2019
INSIGHT’S APPROACH TO RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN FIXED INCOME HAS CONTINUED TO EVOLVE, WITH
NEW INITIATIVES AND ACTIVITY SEEKING TO ENHANCE AND DEEPEN THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL,
SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) RISKS ACROSS OUR INVESTMENT RESEARCH AND DECISION-MAKING. IN THIS
PAPER, OUR PORTFOLIO MANAGERS AND ANALYSTS OUTLINE OUR APPROACH AND RECENT ENHANCEMENTS,
AND CLAUDIA CHAPMAN FROM THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL OFFERS AN UPDATE ON THE NEW UK
STEWARDSHIP CODE.
ESG in fixed income: new initiatives and enhancements
Insight’s approach to responsible
investment in fixed income has continued
to evolve. In this paper, our portfolio
managers and analysts outline our
approach and recent enhancements.
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO ALL RISK DISCLOSURES AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
2019 CLIMATE RISK INDEXFOR CORPORATE DEBT ISSUERS
DECEMBER 2019
Climate Risk Index 2019 for corporate debt issuers
The Climate Risk Index provides an annual
assessment of 1,846 corporate fixed
income issuers and analyses how they
are managing the risks and opportunities
presented by climate change. In this paper
we outline our methodology and results
from our 2019 climate risk index.
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO ALL RISK DISCLOSURES AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
Whether they are seeking to boost environmental projects or
social development, fixed income markets are providing new
opportunities for investors to do so. Impact bonds, also known
as sustainability bonds, aim to use their proceeds to support
environmental and social progress. The market has boomed in
recent years (see Figure 1), with issuance in 2019 set to hit a new
record, and demand, so far, has comfortably absorbed supply.
However, questions remain for investors who are considering
sustainable issuance. There are no agreed industry-wide
standards, leading to wide variation in quality and types of
available investments; demand for such debt is so strong that it
has raised concerns about whether there is enough supply in the
market; and as with any investment that incorporates some
element of non-financial objective, investors may be concerned
over whether they will generate returns equivalent to traditional
debt instruments.
WHAT ARE IMPACT BONDS?
There are different types of impact bonds. Most in the market
are green bonds, which aim to use their proceeds to support
environmental progress. There are also social bonds, which
focus on social development, and sustainable bonds which aim
to support both environmental and social projects.
While the proceeds are typically used to support specific
projects or developments, and progress on those projects or
targets may be reported to investors, these bonds will otherwise
operate like conventional debt, offering a coupon and/or
principal to investors.
QUESTIONS FOR INVESTORS
1. With impact bonds, am I getting what I’m paying for?
A primary concern for investors in sustainable issuance is
whether their investment is being used in an appropriate manner
as intended. A lack of agreed standards, patchy reporting and
weak commitments raise significant questions.
For example, green bonds from some property companies
issued in 2019 have included terms that allow the proceeds to
cover payments for other bonds with no green characteristics
— meaning the green bond proceeds would lead to no carbon
reduction.
However, while examples like these rightly raise concerns, they
reinforce the need for detailed analysis. There are many
excellent examples of impact bond issuance: the Netherlands
recently issued a green bond with a clear framework,
aspirational targets and transparent reporting. You can read
about Insight’s sustainable bond analysis framework in our 2019
annual responsible investment report (see page 44).
IMPACT BONDSA BRIEF INTRODUCTION
September 2019
INVESTORS ARE INCREASINGLY SEEKING MORE THAN FINANCIAL RETURNS: DEMAND IS GROWING TO HAVE A
POSITIVE IMPACT WITH THEIR MONEY AS WELL.
1 Source: Insight Investment. As at 30 June 2019.
Figure 1: Impact bond issuance has boomed in recent years1
050
100150200250
Hea
lth c
are
Tech
nolo
gy
Com
mun
icat
ions
Con
sum
erst
aple
s
Mat
eria
ls
Con
sum
erdi
scre
tiona
ry
Indu
stria
ls
Ener
gy
Util
ities
Fina
ncia
ls
Gov
ernm
ent
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (YTD)
billi
on ($
)
0
50
100
150
200 Social bond/loanSustainability bond/loanGreen bond/loan
2019 (YTD)2018201720162015
billi
on ($
)
� Green bond/loan � Sustainability bond/loan � Social bond/loan
Impact bonds: a brief introduction
What are impact bonds, do you get what
you pay for, is there sufficient capacity
and how does performance compare
to traditional bonds?
FOR PROFESSIONAL CLIENTS AND QUALIFIED INVESTORS ONLY. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.PLEASE REFER TO ALL RISK DISCLOSURES AT THE BACK OF THIS DOCUMENT.
Our new Insight ESG ratings aim to be more dynamic and
complete, and to integrate our analysts’ research more effectively.
No single ESG data provider aligns with our house opinion on ESG
credit risk, and so we have developed our new methodology using
data from multiple third-party data providers.
We reclassify, reweight and organise the data according to our
analysts’ current views on material risks facing industries to generate
an ESG rating and momentum signal for a wide range of entities.
Insight’s methodology involves five key steps (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Insight corporate ESG ratings methodology
Ratingsproduction
Qualitycontrol
Frameworkdevelopment
Datamanagement
Datasources
DATA SOURCES
We incorporate ESG data from four sources. These comprise full
ESG datasets from MSCI, Sustainalytics, VigeoEiris, and CDP climate
change and water metrics.
We also use the Bloomberg legal entities for credit risk datasets to
map the ESG records to all issuers within a credit risk tree.
We have created a robust data management infrastructure which
underpins our quantitative analysis – this is highly scalable, and
intended to support the evolution of our ESG ratings as we (i) add
new datasets over time, (ii) perform historical analysis and
back-testing of our ESG strategies, and (iii) implement enhanced
reporting and visualisations for analysts to dig deep into the ESG
profile of issuers, and portfolio managers to review aggregate
levels in portfolios.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Raw data is collected from data providers at the start of month
(or soon after it becomes available in the case of CDP). Preliminary
checks on the datasets flag up any obvious problems with the
datasets. Common problems include fields being added, removed,
or renamed, or the number of records changing drastically
month-on-month.
Once we are satisfied with the high-level reliability of the data, we
use bespoke software and a modified Bloomberg dataset to assign
global company identifiers, and ultimate parent identifiers to the
data provided. In particular, this modified dataset deals with cases
where the ultimate parent of the issuer is sovereign (or a
sovereign agency, central bank, etc), but the issuer’s credit is not
underwritten in any meaningful way by the sovereign entity. The
‘mapped’ raw data is added to our ESG database, giving us a
consistent history of the raw data.
FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
Each metric that contributes to an issuer’s Insight ESG rating has
two key elements:
1. A score (evaluating an issuer’s performance in that metric)
2. A weight (evaluating the materiality of the metric to the issuer)
Both master datasets are then mapped onto one or more key
issues in our framework (see Figure 2 overleaf).
To generate a weight and a score at key-issue level we combine
inputs from our credit analysts together with third-party averages.
The analysts’ views on the materiality of key issues facing each
industry group are merged with views of the data providers, and
the values are averaged (with a 1:2 weighting).
To ensure our ESG ratings are based on good data coverage, we
include only records which (i) have data under each (E, S and G)
pillar, which are based on (ii) five distinct data points and (iii) more
than five distinct data provider fields.
RATINGS PRODUCTION
Our methodology produces two separate ratings for every issuer:
an overall ESG rating and an overall momentum signal.
INSIGHT ESG FIXED INCOME RATINGSCORPORATE METHODOLOGY SUMMARY
January 2020
AT INSIGHT, WE BELIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) FACTORS CAN HAVE A MATERIAL
IMPACT ON INVESTMENT RISK. IN DEVELOPING OUR PROPRIETARY CORPORATE INSIGHT ESG SCORE, WE HAVE
CREATED A RISK-CENTRIC APPROACH USING ADVANCED QUANTITATIVE TOOLS AND AVOIDING SUBJECTIVE
ETHICAL BIASES. OUR APPROACH LEADS TO HIGH COVERAGE OF GLOBAL BENCHMARKS: OVER 650,000
SUBSIDIARIES FOR 2,600 DIFFERENT PARENT ENTITIES HAVE AN INSIGHT FIXED INCOME ESG RATING.
Insight ESG Fixed Income Ratings: corporate methodology summary
We believe environmental, social and
governance (ESG) factors can have a
material impact on investment risk and
have created a risk-centric approach
using advanced quantitative tools and
avoiding subjective ethical biases.
• What does this mean for the investor community over the longer term?
• What might be the impact of a lack of proactive policymaking on these issues?
CONTRIBUTORS
Joshua Kendall, Senior ESG Analyst, Insight Investment
Phil Craig, Team Leader, Investment Content, Insight Investment
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
This material is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. This document must not be used for the purpose of an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction or in any circumstances in which such offer or solicitation is unlawful or otherwise not permitted. This document should not be duplicated, amended or forwarded to a third party without consent from Insight Investment.
This material may contain ‘forward looking’ information that is not purely historical in nature. Such information may include, among other things, projections and forecasts. There is no guarantee that any forecasts made will come to pass.
Past performance is not indicative of future results.
Investment in any strategy involves a risk of loss which may partly be due to exchange rate fluctuations.
Index returns are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent any actual fund performance. Index performance returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs or expenses. Indices are unmanaged and one cannot invest directly in an index.
Insight does not provide tax or legal advice to its clients and all investors are strongly urged to seek professional advice regarding any potential strategy or investment.
References to future returns are not promises or even estimates of actual returns a client portfolio may achieve. Assumptions, opinions and estimates are provided for illustrative purposes only. They should not be relied upon as recommendations to buy or sell securities. Forecasts of financial market trends that are based on current market conditions constitute our judgment and are subject to change without notice.
The information and opinions are derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources deemed by Insight Investment to be reliable, are not necessarily all-inclusive and are not guaranteed as to accuracy. As such, no warranty of accuracy or reliability is given and no responsibility arising in any other way for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Insight Investment, its officers, employees or agents. Reliance upon information in this material is at the sole discretion of the reader.
Telephone calls may be recorded.
Issued by Insight Investment Management (Global) Limited. Registered office 160 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4LA. Registered in England and Wales. Registered number 00827982. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FCA Firm reference number 119308.
© 2020 Insight Investment. All rights reserved. 14888-02-20
Institutional Business Development businessdevelopment@insightinvestment.com +44 20 7321 1552
European Business Development europe@insightinvestment.com +49 69 12014 2650 +44 20 7321 1928
Consultant Relationship Management consultantrelations@insightinvestment.com +44 20 7321 1023
@InsightInvestIM
company/insight-investment
www.insightinvestment.com
FIND OUT MORE