Carbon Report - SEB Group · Carbon Report - SEB Euroland Free of Management Fee Summary of 10...

Carbon ReportSEB Euroland Free of Management Fee

Report created on: Feb 25, 2019

The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshotof the emissions from the equity holdings of thefund. The calculations are not comprehensive andindirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are basedon reported data or estimates of emissions. Themetric says nothing about how the portfoliocontributes to a low-carbon society. For furtherinformation about the metric, seewww.sebgroup.com.

Carbon Report - SEB Euroland Free of Management Fee

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Executive Summary

. . . . . . . . 4Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Sector Analysis & Stock Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Attribution Analysis

. . . . . . . . . 6Summary of 10 largest absolute contributors . . . . . . . . . . 6Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Scope 3 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Company Sector & Breakdown

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Carbon Ranking

2


Carbon ReportSEB Euroland Free of Management FeeReport created on: Feb 25, 2019 | Holdings Date: Dec 31, 2018 | Benchmark: Nasdaq Euro 50 Index (Net Return Index)Currency: EUR | Industry Classification: GICS | Company Breakdown Metrics: carbon intensity (tCO2e / Mio. revenue) | Value: 18'331'860.00 EURFund Management Company: SEB Investment Management AB

Executive SummaryCarbon emissions

Scope 1-2(tCO2e)

Total carbonemissions incl.

Scope 3 (tCO2e)

Relative CarbonFootprint

(kgCO2e / EUR1'000 invested)

Carbon Intensity(kgCO2e / EUR

1'000 revenue)

WeightedAverage Carbon

Intensity (kgCO2e/ EUR 1'000

revenue)

DisclosingTitles

by Weight(market value)

Portfolio 3'321.0 14'549.4 181.2 232.8 189.5 97.8% 100.0%

Benchmark 3'222.0 13'614.4 175.8 228.3 190.6 98.0% 100.0%

Total carbon emissions

- measure the carbon footprint of a portfolioconsidering Scope 1-2 as well as Scope 3emissions.*)

- SEB Euroland Free of Management Fee isassociated with greenhouse gas emissionsof 3'321.0 tons per year.

Relative carbon footprint

- is a normalized measure of the portfolio'scontribution.

- It enables comparisons with a benchmarkbetween multiple portfolios, over time andregardless of portfolio size.

Carbon intensity

- allows investors to measure how muchcarbon emissions per EUR of revenue aregenerated.

- It therefore measures the carbon efficiencyof a portfolio per unit of output.

This report analyses the portfolio of securities in terms of thecarbon emissions and other carbon related characteristics ofthe underlying portfolio companies, and compares this data tothe performance of a relevant respectively chosen marketbenchmark.

The portfolio’s intensity is 1.9% higher than the benchmark.

100.0 100.098.1 97.0

Carbon Intensity Carbon Emissions0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Portfolio Benchmark

The Sectors Utilities, Energy and Materials (per GICS classification) inthe portfolio make up 17.8% of the weight vs. 91.1% of thecontribution to emissions.

3.5%7.9%

6.5%

82.2%

49.6%

23.9%

17.7%

8.9%

Sector Weight Contribution to Emissions

UtilitiesEnergyMaterialsAll other Sectors

5 smallest contributors to the emissions of the fund are:Financed

emissions(tCO2e)

% of total Relative carbonfootprint

(kg CO2e / EUR 1'000Invested)

ING Groep 0.3 0.0% 0.7

Amadeus IT 0.3 0.0% 1.4

Adidas 0.5 0.0% 1.6

Intesa Sanpaolo 0.5 0.0% 1.6

L'oreal Ord 0.6 0.0% 1.1

5 largest contributors to the emissions of the fund are:Financed

emissions(tCO2e)

% of total Relative carbonfootprint

(kg CO2e / EUR 1'000Invested)

ENGIE 833.7 25.1% 3'486.9

Enel SPA 812.2 24.5% 2'020.2

Total 504.3 15.2% 464.1

Eni 288.1 8.7% 798.6

Air Liquide 250.7 7.5% 550.6

*) Scope 1 emissions are directly generated by company's operations, whereas indirect Scope 2 emissions are related to the company's energy consumption. Scope 3 emissions include other indirect emissions

including e.g. business travel, use of company's products sold, investments, and goods and services purchased.

3


Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint

WeightRel. Carbon Footprint

tCO2e / Mio EUR invested Portfolio vs.Benchmark

Portfolio Benchmark Portfolio Benchmark

Utilities 3.50% 5.05% 2'567.2 1'826.9 40.52%

Energy 7.90% 7.03% 547.5 547.5 -0.00%

Materials 6.46% 5.74% 496.2 496.2 -0.00%

Consumer Staples 15.35% 13.66% 30.6 30.6 0.06%

Consumer Discretionary 14.47% 12.88% 25.6 25.6 0.05%

Industrials 9.39% 12.35% 37.1 29.6 25.39%

TelecommunicationServices

3.45% 5.48% 43.1 45.1 -4.41%

Health Care 7.09% 8.97% 13.7 15.3 -10.16%

Information Technology 11.56% 10.29% 8.3 8.3 -0.01%

Financials 20.84% 18.55% 3.8 3.8 -0.00%

Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison

Util

ities

Ener

gy

Mat

eria

ls

Cons

umer

Sta

ples

Cons

umer

Dis

cret

iona

ry

Indu

stria

lsTe

leco

mm

unic

atio

n Se

rvic

es

Hea

lth C

are

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy

Fina

ncia

ls0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Portfolio Benchmark

Sector Analysis & Stock SelectionThe graph below shows how the carbon allocation in the portfolio differs from the average ofeach sector. Sectors have been defined using the GICS classification at theSupersector/Industry Group level.

Air

Frei

ght &

Log

istic

s

App

arel

, Acc

esso

ries

& Lu

xury

Goo

dsA

utom

obile

Man

ufac

ture

rsCo

nstr

uctio

n &

Engi

neer

ing

Cons

truc

tion

Mat

eria

lsD

iver

sifie

d Ch

emic

als

Elec

tric

Util

ities

Food

Ret

ail

Indu

stria

l Con

glom

erat

esIn

dust

rial G

ases

Inte

grat

ed O

il &

Gas

Mul

ti-U

tiliti

esPa

ckag

ed F

oods

& M

eats

Pers

onal

Pro

duct

sSe

mic

ondu

ctor

Equ

ipm

ent

0%

10%

20%

30%

Portfolio GICS Sub-Industry Emissions

Benchmark, Average GICS Sub-Industry Emissions

4


Attribution AnalysisThe two principal reasons why the carbon exposure of the portfoliomay differ from the benchmark are due to sector allocation as well asstock selection decisions.Sector allocation decision will cause the carbon intensity of theportfolio to diverge from the benchmark where the sectors are eithercarbon intensive or low carbon. If the portfolio is overweight incarbon intensive sectors the portfolio is likely to be more carbonintensive than the benchmark.However, if the stocks within a carbon intensive sector are the mostcarbon efficient companies, it is possible that the portfolio may stillhave a lower carbon footprint than the benchmark.

Sector Allocation Sector Selection

Sector AllocationContribution to Out/Underperformance

(tCO2e)

Sector AllocationContribution to Out/

Underperformance (%)

Stock SelectionContribution to Out/Underperformance

(tCO2e)

Stock SelectionContribution to Out/

Underperformance (%)

Energy 87.0 2.7% -0.0 -0.0%

Materials 64.9 2.0% -0.0 -0.0%

Industrials -16.1 -0.5% 17.0 0.5%

Consumer Discretionary 7.5 0.2% 0.0 0.0%

Consumer Staples 9.4 0.3% 0.0 0.0%

Health Care -5.3 -0.2% -2.6 -0.1%

Financials 1.6 0.0% -0.0 -0.0%

Information Technology 1.9 0.1% -0.0 -0.0%

Telecommunication Services -16.7 -0.5% -2.0 -0.1%

Utilities -519.4 -16.1% 685.0 21.3%

Total -385.2 -12.0% 697.5 21.6%

Explanation: The Underperformance of the portfolio is based on theeffect of over/underweighting certain sectors and selectingmore/less carbon intense stocks within each sector for each of theunderlying holdings. A positive number indicates that the effectincreased the greenhouse gas emission (in tons of CO2e) and anegative number indicated a decreasing effect.In this case, the sector weighting of SEB Euroland Free ofManagement Fee saved 385.2 tCO2e, while the stock selectionharmed 697.5 tCO2e versus the benchmark. This explains a 12.0%outperformance through sector weighting and 21.6% carbonunderperformance by stock picking.

Total Emissions(tCO2e)

Portfolio 3'321.0

Benchmark 3'222.0

Portfolio Carbon Underperformance (tCO2e) 99.0

Portfolio Carbon Underperformance (%) 3.1

Interaction Effect: -213.3 -6.6%

Attribution Analysis - Graph

Ener

gy

Mat

eria

ls

Indu

stria

lsCo

nsum

er D

iscr

etio

nary

Cons

umer

Sta

ples

Hea

lth C

are

Fina

ncia

lsIn

form

atio

n Te

chno

logy

Tele

com

mun

icat

ion

Serv

ices

Util

ities

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Sector Stock Total

5


Summary of 10 largest absolute contributorsThe tables below show the 10 largest greenhouse gas contributorsand the 10 largest holdings respectively of the SEB Euroland Free ofManagement Fee.

Carbon Data section explains your Financed Emissions, i.e. theamount of greenhouse gases that the portfolio finances from thecompany’s overall emissions, relative to company ownership. Youcan further see what % of the overall portfolio GHG emissions eachcompany accounts for and if the company’s GHG emission numberwas disclosed by the company or approximated.

In the Analysis section, the Benchmark emissions are stated and theAverage Sector Emissions allow a comparison of the greenhouse gasintensity of a company against its respective sector, i.e. the amount ofGHG emissions that an investment of the same size would havefinanced, would it have been invested in the overall sector ratherthan the specific company.

The effect on the portfolio can be found under PortfolioContribution: This is a measurement of how much a specific holdingraises or reduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio.

Weight Carbon Data Analysis

Company GICS Sub-Industry Portfolio Benchmark % oftotal

carbonintensity

(tCO2e / Mio.revenue)

FinancedEmissions

(tCO2e)

BenchmarkEmissions

(tCO2e)

Av. SectorEmissions

(tCO2e)

PortfolioContribution

(tCO2e)

ENGIE Multi-Utilities 1.3% 1.2% 25.1% 1'995.3 833.7 742.3 634.4 -800.81

Enel SPA Electric Utilities 2.2% 2.0% 24.5% 1'677.6 812.2 723.1 905.5 -755.95

Total Integrated Oil & Gas 5.9% 5.3% 15.2% 484.6 504.3 448.9 778.8 -326.85

Eni Integrated Oil & Gas 2.0% 1.8% 8.7% 784.5 288.1 256.5 258.6 -227.20

Air Liquide Industrial Gases 2.5% 2.2% 7.5% 1'492.1 250.7 223.1 369.2 -172.47

CRH (Dublin) Construction Materials 1.1% 0.9% 6.3% 1'076.0 207.8 184.8 588.4 -174.24

Basf Diversified Chemicals 2.9% 2.6% 3.9% 386.8 128.9 114.6 404.1 -33.30

Ahold Koninklijke Food Retail 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 92.3 46.4 41.3 34.9 -0.46

Volkswagen AutomobileManufacturers

1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 47.3 33.1 29.4 27.2 20.82

Deutsche Post Air Freight & Logistics 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 121.4 29.5 26.2 80.2 11.60

Summary of 10 largest portfolio companies


Company GICS Sub-Industry Portfolio Benchmark % oftotal

carbonintensity

(tCO2e / Mio.revenue)

FinancedEmissions

(tCO2e)

BenchmarkEmissions

(tCO2e)

Av. SectorEmissions

(tCO2e)


(tCO2e)

Total Integrated Oil & Gas 5.9% 5.3% 15.2% 484.6 504.3 448.9 778.8 -326.85

Unilever NV Personal Products 4.6% 4.1% 0.3% 34.7 10.2 9.1 18.3 148.58

SAP Application Software 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.3 1.1 1.0 3.1 158.03

Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals 4.5% 4.0% 0.3% 28.7 8.3 7.4 10.5 148.87

Siemens IndustrialConglomerates

4.1% 3.6% 0.4% 21.0 13.0 11.6 93.9 128.57

Allianz Multi-line Insurance 3.9% 3.5% 0.1% 2.2 1.8 1.6 7.7 132.70

Lvmh Louis VuittonMoet Hennessy

Apparel, Accessories &Luxury Goods

3.9% 3.5% 0.1% 11.0 2.2 1.9 12.7 132.12

Banco SantanderCentral Hispano

Diversified Banks 3.4% 3.1% 0.1% 3.8 2.4 2.2 3.8 115.31

ASML Holding SemiconductorEquipment

3.1% 2.7% 0.0% 16.9 1.4 1.3 28.0 103.45

Anheuser-Busch Inbev Brewers 2.9% 2.6% 0.4% 119.7 13.7 12.2 22.2 85.49

6


Scope 3 OverviewThe following section provides a top-down approximation of thefinanced scope 3 emissions from each sector. The purpose of thisanalysis is to give an order of magnitude of the emissions in theportfolio on a sector level and should not be used as a basis forcomparing two individual companies.The methodology includes Scope 1, 2 and Scope 3 upstream andproduct use downstream.

The following graph shows the financed scope 1+2 emissions inrelation to the scope 3 emissions of the portfolio.

Energy Materials Industrials ConsumerDiscretionary

ConsumerStaples

HealthCare

Financials InformationTechnology

TelecommunicationServices

Utilities0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

7'204

792

816

587

173

64

378

68

233

86

41

18

58

15

45

17

57

27

2'224

1'646Scope 3Scope 1&2

The graph below compares the total emissions (including Scope 1,Scope2 and Scope 3) between portfolio and benchmark.

Portfolio Benchmark0

5000

10000

15000

11'228

3'321

10'392

3'222Scope 3Scope 1&2

*) The methodology includes Scope 1, 2 and Scope 3 upstream and product use downstream.

7


Company Sector & BreakdownThis table presents all holdings in the portfolio, sorted by sector,following the logic from the sections above.

It shows how each company contributes to the overall portfoliofootprint. It allows you to see which stocks are the greatestcontributors to the portfolio’s emission in absolute as well as relativeterms.

The -/+ signs on the far right indicate if a specific holding raises orreduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio. This helps with portfoliooptimization and in managing the overall carbon portfolio footprintwithout comprising the chosen sector allocation.


Company Portfolio Benchmark % of total carbon intensity(tCO2e / Mio.

revenue)

FinancedEmissions

(tCO2e)

BenchmarkEmissions

(tCO2e)

Av. SectorEmissions

(tCO2e)


(tCO2e)

Integrated Oil & Gas 7.9% 7.0% 23.9% 562.9 792.4 705.4 1'037.4 -575.7 -

Total 5.9% 5.3% 15.2% 484.6 504.3 448.9 778.8 -326.8

Eni 2.0% 1.8% 8.7% 784.5 288.1 256.5 258.6 -227.2

Diversified Chemicals 2.9% 2.6% 3.9% 386.8 128.9 114.6 404.1 -33.3 -

Basf 2.9% 2.6% 3.9% 386.8 128.9 114.6 404.1 -33.3

Industrial Gases 2.5% 2.2% 7.5% 1'492.1 250.7 223.1 369.2 -172.5 -

Air Liquide 2.5% 2.2% 7.5% 1'492.1 250.7 223.1 369.2 -172.5

Construction Materials 1.1% 0.9% 6.3% 1'076.0 207.8 184.8 588.4 -174.2 -

CRH (Dublin) 1.1% 0.9% 6.3% 1'076.0 207.8 184.8 588.4 -174.2

Construction & Engineering 2.2% 2.0% 0.5% 62.7 17.8 15.8 69.8 56.7 +

Vinci 2.2% 2.0% 0.5% 62.7 17.8 15.8 69.8 56.7

Electrical Components & Equipment 1.8% 1.6% 0.1% 20.3 3.7 3.3 13.7 58.8 +

Schneider Electric 1.8% 1.6% 0.1% 20.3 3.7 3.3 13.7 58.8

Industrial Conglomerates 4.1% 3.6% 0.4% 21.0 13.0 11.6 93.9 128.6 +

Siemens 4.1% 3.6% 0.4% 21.0 13.0 11.6 93.9 128.6

Air Freight & Logistics 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 121.4 29.5 26.2 80.2 11.6 +

Deutsche Post 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 121.4 29.5 26.2 80.2 11.6

Auto Parts & Equipment 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 80.5 8.9 8.0 11.7 15.6 +

Continental Gummi - Werke 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 80.5 8.9 8.0 11.7 15.6

Automobile Manufacturers 5.0% 4.5% 1.6% 30.2 54.0 48.0 84.9 119.5 +

BMW stamm 1.3% 1.1% 0.2% 16.3 5.8 5.2 21.4 36.9

Daimler 2.2% 1.9% 0.5% 20.6 15.1 13.4 36.3 57.9

Volkswagen 1.6% 1.4% 1.0% 47.3 33.1 29.4 27.2 20.8

Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods 7.3% 6.5% 0.1% 8.3 3.5 3.1 23.8 257.1 +

Adidas 1.7% 1.5% 0.0% 3.1 0.5 0.4 5.5 55.9

Lvmh Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy 3.9% 3.5% 0.1% 11.0 2.2 1.9 12.7 132.1

Kering 1.7% 1.5% 0.0% 11.8 0.9 0.8 5.7 57.5

Apparel Retail 1.4% 1.3% 0.0% 28.8 1.6 1.4 5.4 45.9 +

Inditex 1.4% 1.3% 0.0% 28.8 1.6 1.4 5.4 45.9

Food Retail 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 92.3 46.4 41.3 34.9 -0.5 -

Ahold Koninklijke 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 92.3 46.4 41.3 34.9 -0.5

Brewers 2.9% 2.6% 0.4% 119.7 13.7 12.2 22.2 85.5 +

Anheuser-Busch Inbev 2.9% 2.6% 0.4% 119.7 13.7 12.2 22.2 85.5

Distillers & Vintners 1.5% 1.3% 0.1% 41.0 2.6 2.3 5.4 46.4 +

Pernod Ricard 1.5% 1.3% 0.1% 41.0 2.6 2.3 5.4 46.4

Packaged Foods & Meats 2.2% 2.0% 0.4% 71.7 12.5 11.2 37.5 62.9 +

Groupe Danone 2.2% 2.0% 0.4% 71.7 12.5 11.2 37.5 62.9

Personal Products 7.4% 6.6% 0.3% 26.5 10.8 9.6 29.5 252.4 +

L'oreal Ord 2.8% 2.5% 0.0% 5.2 0.6 0.5 11.2 94.7

Unilever NV 4.6% 4.1% 0.3% 34.7 10.2 9.1 18.3 148.6

Health Care Equipment 1.7% 1.5% 0.1% 18.9 4.3 3.9 2.6 51.4 +

Koninklijke Philips 1.7% 1.5% 0.1% 18.9 4.3 3.9 2.6 51.4

Health Care Services 0.9% 0.8% 0.2% 41.6 5.1 4.6 3.4 25.1 +

Fresenius Ordinarie 0.9% 0.8% 0.2% 41.6 5.1 4.6 3.4 25.1

Pharmaceuticals 4.5% 6.7% 0.3% 28.7 8.3 16.7 10.5 148.9 +

Sanofi-Aventis 4.5% 4.0% 0.3% 28.7 8.3 7.4 10.5 148.9

8



Company Portfolio Benchmark % of total carbon intensity(tCO2e / Mio.

revenue)

FinancedEmissions

(tCO2e)

BenchmarkEmissions

(tCO2e)

Av. SectorEmissions

(tCO2e)


(tCO2e)

Diversified Banks 13.5% 12.0% 0.3% 4.8 11.0 9.8 15.0 506.6 +

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria 1.6% 1.5% 0.1% 9.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 53.0

Banco Santander Central Hispano 3.4% 3.1% 0.1% 3.8 2.4 2.2 3.8 115.3

Societe Generale SA 1.1% 1.0% 0.0% 5.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 36.4

BNP Paribas 2.4% 2.2% 0.1% 6.0 2.2 1.9 2.7 80.0

Intesa Sanpaolo 1.7% 1.5% 0.0% 3.6 0.5 0.4 1.9 56.3

UniCredit SpA 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 6.7 2.2 2.0 1.3 37.5

ING Groep 2.1% 1.8% 0.0% 0.7 0.3 0.2 2.3 69.6

Multi-line Insurance 5.8% 5.2% 0.1% 1.8 2.7 2.4 11.6 202.5 +

Allianz 3.9% 3.5% 0.1% 2.2 1.8 1.6 7.7 132.7

Axa-Uap 1.9% 1.7% 0.0% 1.2 0.8 0.7 3.8 64.5

Reinsurance 1.5% 1.3% 0.0% 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 49.4 +

Muenchener Rueckversicherung 1.5% 1.3% 0.0% 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 49.4

Data Processing & Outsourced Services 1.4% 1.2% 0.0% 8.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 45.2 +

Amadeus IT 1.4% 1.2% 0.0% 8.8 0.3 0.3 2.4 45.2

Application Software 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.3 1.1 1.0 3.1 158.0 +

SAP 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.3 1.1 1.0 3.1 158.0

Communications Equipment 1.6% 1.4% 0.3% 30.6 8.5 7.6 4.9 45.2 +

Nokia (Helsingfors) 1.6% 1.4% 0.3% 30.6 8.5 7.6 4.9 45.2

Semiconductor Equipment 3.1% 2.7% 0.0% 16.9 1.4 1.3 28.0 103.5 +

ASML Holding 3.1% 2.7% 0.0% 16.9 1.4 1.3 28.0 103.5

Semiconductors 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 128.3 6.1 5.5 10.7 26.6 +

Infineon Technologies 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 128.3 6.1 5.5 10.7 26.6

Integrated Telecommunication Services 3.5% 5.5% 0.8% 40.7 27.3 45.3 32.4 90.6 +

Telefonica Nacional De Espana 1.9% 1.7% 0.5% 44.2 17.7 15.7 18.1 47.3

Orange Telecom 1.5% 1.4% 0.3% 35.4 9.6 8.6 14.3 41.7

Electric Utilities 2.2% 3.9% 24.5% 1'677.6 812.2 948.4 905.5 -756.0 -

Enel SPA 2.2% 2.0% 24.5% 1'677.6 812.2 723.1 905.5 -756.0

Multi-Utilities 1.3% 1.2% 25.1% 1'995.3 833.7 742.3 634.4 -800.8 -

ENGIE 1.3% 1.2% 25.1% 1'995.3 833.7 742.3 634.4 -800.8

Total portfolio 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 232.8 3'320.9 3'221.9 4'577.2

Note that the weighting for the benchmark will not always total 100% as the stocks shown are only for those held by the portfolio.

9


Carbon RankingThis is a standardized ranking of the fund based on the product'sweighted average carbon intensity using two peergroups. Oneconsisting of all other funds in the database (global percentile) andone where the fund is ranked taking the specific Lipper GlobalClassification into account (peer percentile). The ranking is based onpercentiles and ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).

Global Percentile

55(n=5290)

Peer Percentile

55(Lipper Global Equity Global, n=935)

The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshot of the emissions from the equity holdings of the fund. The calculations are not comprehensive and indirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are based on reporteddata or estimates of emissions. The metric says nothing about how the portfolio contributes to a low-carbon society. For further information about the metric, see www.sebgroup.com.

10

http://www.sebgroup.com

Carbon Report - SEB Group · Carbon Report - SEB Euroland Free of Management Fee Summary of 10...

Documents

Transcript of Carbon Report - SEB Group · Carbon Report - SEB Euroland Free of Management Fee Summary of 10...