This topic is gaining momentum because of the European Commission’s Sustainable Finance Action Plan and associated regulatory changes.

One of the new requirements is that asset managers must incorporate sustainability risks in their risk management and reporting as of August 2022. This means that these risks must be measured, assessed and mitigated. However, this is not an easy task due to a lack of uniformity in risk management approaches and lagging data quality.

This prompted AF Advisors and Zanders to organize a round-table session on the subject. The large session turnout showed the importance of managing sustainability risks for the asset management sector. Parties that manage a total of no less than EUR 2.5 trillion in assets joined the session, including a broad selection of the largest asset managers active in the Netherlands. This attendance led to good, in-depth discussions. The discussion was preceded and inspired by a presentation from one of the expertized asset managers in the field of sustainability on how they mitigate, assess and monitor sustainability risks. Two hours of lively discussion is difficult to summarize but we would like to share a few interesting takeaways. Note that these takeaways do not necessarily represent the views of all the participants, though are merely an overview of the topics that were discussed.

Key takeaways

Financial risk management departments increasingly in the lead

While a few years ago, sustainability risks and the management of these risks were still the task of responsible investing teams in many organizations, this task is increasingly being taken up by financial risk managing departments as these are increasingly capable to quantify sustainability risks. This shift leads to new techniques and new requirements for data. Where previously exclusions were an important method for many parties, an integrated portfolio approach is emerging.

Lack of uniformity in the assessment of sustainability risks

The two main problems in managing sustainability risks are a lack of uniformity in approaches and a limited data quality or availability. Limited data quality is a well-known topic, especially for alternative asset classes. Specialized data vendors will be required to address these issues.

Important to realize, however, is that sustainability risk is such a broad and young concept that it is open to many interpretations. This means that the way in which sustainability risks are assessed can still differ considerably between parties. The benefit is that the different approaches help to speed up the evolvement of this new area. In the longer term it is expected that the assessments converge to a best market practice. Until then, there will be little standardization and different use of terminology. This is especially problematic in a multi-client environment with varying clients’ needs. Enforced communication by the regulator can therefore lead to outcomes that are hard to compare and interpret for clients. Listing definitions used and an explanation of the methodologies used is vital in communication on sustainability risks to clients.

ESG risk ratings are most popular concept despite drawbacks

The most frequently mentioned way in which sustainability risks are monitored is by means of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk ratings. For example, by comparing a portfolio’s ESG scores with the scores of a corresponding benchmark and by limiting deviations. By using these ratings, environmental, social and governance factors are included. The major drawback of this approach is that it is partly backward-looking. Participants agreed, due to the long horizon over which most risks materialize, traditional (backward-looking) risk models may not be the most suited.

Most forward-looking data is available for climate risks. In addition to the use of ESG scores, a climate risk methodology is therefore desirable.

Not only European legislation matters

Next to European regulation, it is also important to consider emerging global initiatives and other regulation and reporting frameworks. US regulations such as US SDR can impact organizations and the approaches to sustainability risks to some extent. Global initiatives such as TCFD and TNFD are likely to influence and affect organizations’ risk management processes as well. Potential overlap must be analyzed so that an asset managers can face the challenges efficiently.

Internal organization

Sustainability risks can be defined and monitored at various levels of an organization. Portfolio managers should take them into account in the selection of investments. Second line monitoring and independent assessments must be in place. It is important to realize that this is not a topic that only affects the investment and risk management teams. The legislation explicitly places responsibility for managing sustainability risks on the board level and requires internal reporting, controls and sufficient internal knowledge of the topic.

Conclusion

Sustainability risk management is an important topic that asset managers will need to be working on in the coming years. It is expected that this field will evolve over time, it was even referred to as a ‘journey’. The deadline of MiFID, AIFMD and UCITS in August 2022 – date on which amendments of these regulations to incorporate sustainability risks come into effect – is an important first regulatory milestone but will certainly not be the last. With the organization of the round table, we hope to have assisted parties in getting a better understanding of the topic and to have contributed to their journey.

But to seize the opportunities ESG must become an integrated part of a bank’s strategy, risk management and disclosure regimes. High-quality data is instrumental to identify and measure ESG risks, but it can be lacking. FIs need to improve their internal data and use of external private and public vendors like Moody’s or the IMF, while developing a framework that plugs any data gaps.

The lack of appropriate ESG data is considered one of the main challenges for many FIs, but proxies, such as using a building’s energy rating to work out its carbon emissions, can be used.

FIs need climate change-related data that isn’t always available if you don’t know where to look. This article will give you an overview of the most relevant data vendors and provide suggestions on how to treat missing data gaps in order to get a comprehensive ESG framework for the green future where carbon measurement, assessment, reporting and trading will be vital

The data challenge

In May 2021, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published a ‘Progress report on bridging data gaps’. In this report, the NGFS writes that meeting climate-related data needs is a challenge that can be described along the following three dimensions:

• data availability,
• reliability,
• & comparability.

A further breakdown of the challenges related to these dimensions can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The dimensions of the climate-related data challenge.
Source: Graphic adapted by Zanders from a NGFS report entitled: ‘Progress report on bridging data gaps’ (2021).

Key financial metrics

The NGFS writes that a mix of policy interventions is necessary to ensure climate-related data is based on three building blocks:

1. Common and consistent global disclosure standards.
2. A minimally accepted global taxonomy.
3. Consistent metrics, labels, and methodological standards.

EU Taxonomy, CSRD & EBA’s 3 ESG risk disclosure standards

Several initiatives have started to ignite these needed policy interventions. For example, the EU Taxonomy, introduced by the European Commission (EC), is a classification system for environmentally sustainable activities. In addition, the recently approved Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) provides ESG reporting rules for large listed and non-listed companies in the EU, including several FIs. The aim of the CSRD is to prevent greenwashing and to provide the basis for global sustainability reporting standards. Another example of a disclosure standard is the binding standards on Pillar 3 disclosures on ESG risks developed by the European Banking Authority (EBA).

Even though policy, law and regulation makers have a big part to play in the data challenge, there are also steps that individual institutions could and should take to improve their own ESG data gaps. Regulatory bodies such as the EBA and the European Central Bank (ECB) have shared their expectations and recommendations on the management of ESG data with FIs.

To illustrate, the EBA recommends FIs “[identify] the gaps they are facing in terms of data and methodologies and take remedial action” and the ECB expects institutions to “assess their data needs in order to inform their strategy-setting and risk management, to identify the gaps compared with current data and to devise a plan to overcome these gaps and tackle any insufficiencies”

Collecting data

Collecting ESG data is a challenging exercise. A distinction can be made between collecting data for large market cap companies, and small cap companies and retail clients. Although large cap companies tend to be more transparent, the data often is dispersed over multiple reports – for example, corporate sustainability reports, annual reports, emissions disclosures, company websites, and so on.

For small cap companies and retail clients, the data is more difficult to acquire. Data that is not publicly available could be gathered bilaterally from clients. For example, one European bank has developed an annual client questionnaire to collect data from its clients.

Gathering data from various reports or bilaterally from clients might not always be the best option, however, because it is time consuming or because the data is not available, reliable, or comparable. Two alternatives are:

1. Use tools to collect the data. For example, using open-source tooling from the Two Degrees Investing Initiative (2DII) to calculate Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment (PACTA) portfolio alignment.
2. Collect data from other external data sources, such as S&P Global.

This could be forward-looking external data on macro-economic expectations, international climate scenarios, financial market data or sectoral climate developments. Below we discuss some sources for external ESG and climate change-related data.

External data

Some of Zanders’ clients resort to vendor solutions for acquiring their ESG data. The most commonly observed solutions, in random order, are:

All the solutions above provide an aid to determine if climate related performance data is lacking, or can assist in reporting comparable and reliable data. They all apply a similar process of collecting the data and determining ESG scores, which is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Data collection process for ESG data solutions (Source: Zanders).

Additionally, public and non-commercial data and solution providers are available, such as:

Missing data

Given the data challenges, it is nearly impossible to create a complete data set. Until that is possible, there are several (temporary) methods to deal with missing data:

• Find a comparable loan, asset, or company for which the required data is available.
• Distribute sector data based on market share of individual companies. For example, assign 10% of the estimated emission of sector X to company Y based on its market share of 10%.
• Find a proxy, comparable or second-best metric. For example, by taking the energy label as a proxy for CO2 emission related to properties, or by excluding scope 3 emissions and focusing on scope 1 and 2 emissions.
• Change the granularity level. For example, by gathering data on sector level rather than on individual positions.
• Fill in the gaps with statistical or machine learning techniques.

Conclusion

The increased attention to integrating ESG risks into existing risk frameworks has led to a need for FIs to collect and disclose meaningful data on ESG factors. However, there is still a lack of data availability, reliability, and comparability.

Several regulatory and political efforts are ongoing to tackle this data challenge, such as the EU taxonomy. More policy interventions, however, are required. Examples are additional mandatory disclosure requirements, an audit and validation framework for ESG data, and social and governance taxonomies that classify economic activities that contribute to social and governance goals.

In the meantime, FIs have to find ways to produce meaningful insights and comply with regulatory requirements related to ESG risks. Zanders has experienced that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for defining, selecting, implementing, and disclosing relevant data and metrics. It is dependent on the composition of the asset and loan portfolio, the use of the data, and the data that is (already) available. Regardless of how the lack of data is solved, it is important that FIs are transparent about their choices and methodologies, and that the related metrics and scorings are explainable and intuitive.

Sources:
https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/progress_report_on_bridging_data_gaps.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_en
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220620IPR33413/new-social-and-environmental-reporting-rules-for-large-companies
https://zandersgroup.com/en/insights/blog/ebas-binding-standards-on-pillar-3-disclosures-on-esg-risks
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Reports/2021/1015656/EBA%20Report%20on%20ESG%20risks%20management%20and%20supervision.pdf
https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.202011finalguideonclimate-relatedandenvironmentalrisks~58213f6564.en.pdf
https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/pacta/

In total 104 banks participated in the stress test that was intended as a learning exercise, for the ECB and the participating banks alike. In this article we provide a brief overview of the main results.

The ECB’s goal with the climate risk stress test was to assess the progress banks have made in developing climate risk stress-testing frameworks and the corresponding projections, as well as understanding the exposures of banks with respect to both transition and physical climate change risks. The stress test therefore consisted of three modules: 1) a qualitative questionnaire to assess the bank’s climate risk stress testing capabilities, 2) two climate risk metrics showing the sensitivity of the banks’ income to transition risk and their exposure to carbon emission-intensive industries, and 3) constrained bottom-up stress test projections for four scenarios specified by the ECB¹. The third module only had to be completed by 41 directly supervised banks to limit the burden for some of the smaller banks included in the climate risk stress test.

An understatement of the true risk

The constrained bottom-up stress test projections show that the combined market and credit risk losses for the 41 banks in the sample amount to approximately EUR 70 billion in the short-term disorderly transition scenario. The ECB emphasizes that this probably is an understatement of the true risk, because it does not consider the scenarios underlying the stress test to be ‘adverse’. Second round economic effects from climate risk changes have, for example, not been factored in. Furthermore, only a third of the total exposures of the 41 banks were in scope and, on top of that, the ECB considers the banks’ modeling capabilities to be ‘rudimentary’ in this stage: they report that around 60% of the banks do not yet have a well-integrated climate risk stress testing framework in place, and they expect that it will take several years before banks achieve this. Even though banks are not meeting the ECB’s expectations yet, the ECB does conclude that banks have made considerable progress with respect to their climate stress testing capabilities.

Be aware of clients’ transition plans

A further analysis of the results shows that the share of interest income related to the 22 most carbon-intensive industries amounts to more than 60% of the total non-financial corporate interest income (on average for the banks in the sample). Interestingly, this is higher than the share of these sectors (around 54%) in the EU economy in terms of gross added value. The ECB argues that banks should be very much aware of the transition plans of their clients to manage potential future transition risks in their portfolio. The exposure to physical risks is much more varied across the sample of banks. It primarily depends on the geographical location of their lending portfolios’ assets.

The ECB points out that only a few banks account for climate risk in their credit risk models. In many cases, the credit risk parameters are fairly insensitive to the climate change scenarios used in the stress test. They also report that only one in five banks factor climate risk into their loan origination processes. A final point of attention is data availability. In many cases, proxies instead of actual counterparty data have been used to measure (for example) greenhouse gas emissions, especially for Scope 3. Consequently, the ECB is also promoting a higher level of customer engagement to improve in this area.

Many deficiencies, data gaps and inconsistencies

The outcome of the climate risk stress test will not have direct implications for a bank’s capital requirements, but it will be considered from a qualitative point of view as part of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP). This will be complemented by the results from the ongoing thematic review that is focused on the way banks consider climate-related and environmental risks into their risk management frameworks. The combination will indicate to the ECB how well a bank is meeting the expectations laid down in the ‘Guide on climate-related and environmental risks’ that was published by the ECB in November 2020.

The ECB notes that the exercise revealed many deficiencies, data gaps and inconsistencies across institutions and expects banks to make substantial further progress in the coming years. Furthermore, the ECB concludes that banks need to increase customer engagement to obtain relevant company-level information on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to invest further in the methodological assumptions that are used to arrive at proxies.

If you are looking for support with the integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance risk factors into your existing risk frameworks, please reach out to us.

Notes
1) See our earlier article on the ECB’s climate stress test methodology for more details.

The last three to four years have seen a rapid increase in the number of publications and guidance from regulators and industry bodies. Environmental risk is currently receiving the most attention, triggered by the alarming reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These reports show that it is a formidable, global challenge to shift to a sustainable economy in order to reduce environmental impact.

The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report states that “climate change is a grave and mounting threat to our wellbeing and a healthy planet”. It is a formidable, global challenge to transition to a sustainable economy before time is running out. Banks have an important role to play in this transition. By stepping up to this role now, banks will be better prepared for the future, and reap the benefits along the way.

In the Paris Agreement (or COP21), adopted in December 2015, 196 parties agreed to limit global warming to well below 2.0°C, and preferably to no more than 1.5°C. To prevent irreversible impacts to our climate, the IPCC stresses that the increase in global temperature (relative to the pre-industrial era) needs to remain below 1.5°C. To achieve this target, a rapid and unprecedented decrease in the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG) is required. With CO2 emissions still on the rise, as depicted in Figure 1, the challenge at hand has increased considerably in the past decade.

Figure 1 – Annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

To further illustrate this, Figure 2 depicts for several starting years a possible pathway in CO2 reductions to ensure global warming does not exceed 2.0°C. Even under the assumption that CO2 emissions have already peaked, it becomes clear that the required speed of CO2 reductions is rapidly increasing with every year of inaction. We are a long way from limiting global warming to 2.0°C. This even holds under the assumption that all countries’ pledges to reduce GHG emissions will be achieved, as can be observed in Figure 3.

To quote the IPCC Working Group II co-chair Hans-Otto Pörtner: “Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.”

Figure 2 – CO2 reduction need to limit global warming.

Figure 3 – Global GHG emissions and warming scenario’s.

The role of banks in the transition – and the opportunities it offers

Historically, banks have been instrumental to the proper functioning of the economy. In their role as financial intermediaries, they bring together savers and borrowers, support investment, and play an important role in facilitating payments and transactions. Now, banks have the opportunity to become instrumental to the proper functioning of the planet. By allocating their available capital to ‘green’ loans and investments at the expense of their ‘brown’ counterparts, banks can play a pivotal role in the transition to a sustainable economy. Banks are in the extraordinary position to make a fundamentally positive contribution to society. And even better, it comes with new opportunities.

The transition to a sustainable economy requires huge investments. It ranges from investments in climate change adaption to investments in GHG emission reductions: this covers for example investments in flood risk warning systems and financing a radical change in our energy mix from fossil-fuel based sources (like coal and natural gas) to clean energy sources (like solar and wind power). According to the Net Zero by 2050 Report from the International Energy Agency (IEA)², the annual investments in the energy sector alone will increase from the current USD 2.3 trillion to USD 5.0 trillion by 2030. Hence, across sectors, the increase in annual investments could easily be USD 3.0 to 4.0 trillion. As much as 70% of this investment may need to be financed by the private sector (including banks and other financial institutions)³. To put this in perspective, the total outstanding credit to non-financial corporates currently stands at USD 86.3 trillion⁴. Assuming an average loan maturity of 5 years, this would translate to a 12-16% increase in loans and investments by banks on a global level. Hence, the transition to a sustainable economy will open up a large market for banks through direct investments and financing provided to corporates and households.

The transition to a sustainable economy is also triggering product development. The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) for example reports that the combined issuance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) bonds, sustainability-linked bonds and transition debt reached almost USD 500 billion in 2021H1, representing a 59% year-on-year growth rate. Other initiatives include the introduction of ‘green’ exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and sustainability-linked derivatives. The latter first appeared in 2019 and they provide an incentive for companies to achieve sustainable performance targets. If targets are met, a company is for example eligible for a more attractive interest coupon. Again, this is creating an interesting market for banks.

By embracing the transition, with all the opportunities that it offers, banks are also bracing themselves for the future. Banks that adopt climate change-resilient business models and integrate climate risk management into their risk frameworks will be much better positioned than banks that do not. They will be less exposed to climate-related risks, ranging from physical and transition risks to risks stemming from a reputational perspective or litigation, also justifying lower capital requirements. The early adaptors of today will be the leaders of tomorrow.

A roadmap supporting the transition

How should a bank approach this transition? As depicted in Figure 4, we identify four important steps: target setting, measurement and reporting, strategy and risk framework, and engaging with clients.

Figure 4 – The roadmap supporting the transition to a sustainable economy.

Target setting

The starting point for each transition is to set GHG emission targets in alignment with emission pathways that have been established by climate science. One important initiative that can support banks in setting these targets is the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). This organization supports companies to set targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Unlike many other companies, the majority of a bank’s GHG emissions are outside their direct control. They can influence, however, their so-called financed emissions, which are the GHG emissions coming from their lending and investment portfolios. The SBTi has developed a framework for banks that reflects this. It encourages banks to use the Absolute Contraction approach that requires a 2.5% (for a well-below 2.0°C target) or 4.2% (for a 1.5°C target) annual reduction in GHG emissions. A clear emission pathway guides banks in the subsequent steps of the transition process.

Measurement and reporting

With targets in place, the next important step for a bank is to determine their level of GHG emissions: both for scope 1 and 2 (the GHG emissions they control) and for scope 3 (the financed emissions). Important initiatives for the quantification of the financed emissions are the Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment (PACTA) and the Platform Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). PCAF is a Dutch initiative to deliver a global, standardized GHG accounting and reporting approach for financial institutions (building on the GHG Protocol). PACTA enables banks to measure the alignment of financial portfolios with climate scenarios.

By keeping track of the level of GHG emissions on an annual basis, banks can assess whether they are following their selected emission pathway. Reporting, in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), will contribute to a greater understanding of climate risks with their investors and other stakeholders.

Strategy and risk framework

Setting targets and measuring the current level of GHG emissions are necessary but not sufficient conditions to achieve a successful transition. Climate change risk needs to be fully integrated into a bank’s strategy and its risk framework. To assess the climate change-resilience of a bank’s strategy, a logical first step is to understand which climate change risks are material to the organization (e.g., by composing a materiality matrix). Subsequently, studying the transmission channels of these risks using scenario analysis and/or stress testing creates an understanding of what parts of the business model and lending portfolio are most exposed. This could lead to general changes in a bank’s positioning, but these risks should also be factored into the bank’s existing risk framework. Examples are the loan origination process, capital calculations, and risk reporting.

Engaging with clients

A fourth step in the game plan to successfully support the transition is for a bank to actively engage with its clients. A dialogue is required to align the bank’s GHG emission targets with those of its clients. This extends to discussing changes in the operations and/or business model of a client to align with a sustainable economy. This also may include timely announcing that certain economic activities will no longer be financed, and by financing client’s initiatives to mitigate or adapt to climate change: e.g., financing wind turbines for clients with energy- or carbon-intensive production processes (like cement or aluminium) or financing the move of production locations to less flood-prone areas.

Conclusion

Banks are uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in the transition to a sustainable economy. The transition is already providing a wide range of opportunities for banks, from large financing needs to the introduction of green bonds and sustainability-linked derivatives. At the same time, it is of paramount importance for banks to adopt a climate change-resilient strategy and to integrate climate change risk into their risk frameworks. With our extensive track record in financial and non-financial risk management at financial institutions, Zanders stands ready to support you with this ambitious, yet rewarding challenge.

ESG risk management and Zanders

Zanders is currently supporting several clients with the identification, measurement, and management of ESG risks. For a start, we are supporting a large Dutch bank with the identification of ESG risk factors that have a material impact on the credit risk profile of its portfolio of corporate loans. The material risk factors are then integrated in the bank’s existing credit risk framework to ensure a proper management of this new risk type.

We are supporting other banking clients with the quantification of climate change risk. In one case, we are determining climate change risk-adjusted Probabilities of Default (PDs). Using expected future emissions and carbon prices based on the climate change scenarios of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), company specific shocks based on carbon prices and country specific shocks on GDP level are determined. These shocked levels are then used to determine the impact on the forecasted PDs. In another case, we are investigating the potential impact of floods and droughts on the collateral value of a portfolio of residential mortgage loans.

We also gained experience with the data challenges involved in the typical ESG project: e.g., we are supporting an asset manager with integrating and harmonizing ESG data from a range of vendors, which is underlying their internally developed ESG scores. We also support them with embedding these scores in the investment process.

With our extensive track record in financial and non-financial risk management at financial institutions in general, and our more recent ESG experience, Zanders stands ready to support you with the ambitious, yet rewarding challenge to adopt a climate change-resilient strategy and to integrate climate change risk in your existing risk frameworks.

Foot notes:

1 The IPCC Working Group II contribution: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
2 The IEA report, Net Zero by 2050.
3 See the Net Zero Financing roadmaps from the UN, ‘Race to Zero’ and the ‘Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero’ (GFANZ).
4 Based on the statistics of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) per 2021-Q3.
5 The Climate Bonds Initiative’s Sustainable Debt Highlights H1 2021.

This publication fits nicely into the ‘horizon priority’ of the EBA¹ to provide tools to banks to measure and manage ESG-related risks. In this article we present a brief overview of the way the ITS have been developed, what qualitative and quantitative disclosures are required, what timelines and transitional measures apply – and where the largest challenges arise. By requiring banks to disclose information on their exposure to ESG-related risks and the actions they take to mitigate those risks – for example by supporting their clients and counterparties in the adaptation process – the EBA wants to contribute to a transition to a more sustainable economy. The Pillar 3 disclosure requirements apply to large institutions with securities traded on a regulated market of an EU member state.

Climate change risks are relatively newly identified risks that insurers are facing. These risks can negatively impact both assets and liabilities of insurers. Already in 2018, the European Commission requested the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to investigate how climate change risk could be integrated into the Solvency II Framework.

After various previous publications¹ of (draft) opinions, the investigation resulted in EIOPA’s opinion to include climate change risk scenarios in Own Risk and Solvency Assessment (ORSA)². It basically points out that forward-looking management of climate change risks is essential, and that EIOPA expects insurers to integrate climate change risk scenarios in their ORSA. EIOPA indicates it will start monitoring the application of this opinion two years after publication, i.e. as of April 2023. However, some National Competent Authorities already require insurers to take climate change risks into account.³

So, what will be expected of insurers?

In general terms, insurers are expected to:

• Integrate climate change risks in their system of governance, risk management system and ORSA
• Assess climate change risk in ORSA in the short and long term
• Disclose climate-related information

But what does this mean in practice? We will further explained this per topic.

Integrating climate change risks

The integration requirement ensures that climate change risk becomes an integral part of the day-to-day business and the risk management framework. The EIOPA opinion does not provide much detail on what this entails. Draft amendments to the delegated regulation, published by the European Commission, provide more insight into what insurers can expect.

The draft amendments relate especially to the implementing measures of the system of governance laid out in the Solvency II Directive. This means that responsibilities regarding climate change risk need to be clearly allocated towards the key functions within the organization, and appropriately segregated to ensure an effective system of governance.

This means climate change risk should be included in the following functions/processes:

• Risk Management
  For all the relevant risk management areas – covering both the asset and the liability side of the balance sheet, and including liquidity, concentration and operational risk – climate change risks need to be identified, measured, monitored, managed and reported on.
• ORSA
  The ORSA is a mandatory part of the required system of governance for insurers and will therefore also have to take climate risks into account. In order to properly assess the potential impact of climate change risks and the resilience of the insurers’ business model, these climate change risks need to be analyzed over a longer horizon. EIOPA has therefore advised to include climate change scenarios in the ORSA. This will be discussed in more detail in the next section of this article.
• Internal Control and Internal Audit
  Changes in the system of governance, risk management and ORSA to incorporate climate change risk also requires extension of the internal control system and the scope of internal audit.
• Actuarial Function
  The actuarial function will be responsible for the appropriateness of assumptions, methodologies and models used to assess the impact of climate change risks in underwriting. Especially in the context of ORSA and the assessment of the influence climate risk has on future reserving and capital needs. In addition, the actuarial function will be responsible for the sufficiency and quality of the data used within these calculations.

Consequently, written policies regarding risk management, internal control, internal audit, outsourcing (where relevant) and contingency plans need to be updated to include everything outlined above with regards to climate change risk.

Assess climate change risk in ORSA in the short and long term

Insurers will be required to assess climate change risk in ORSA by analyzing at least two climate scenarios. For the implementation we suggest a four-step approach, largely based on the guidance provided by EIOPA.

Step 1 – Risk identification

EIOPA expects insurers to take a broad view of climate change risks and include all risks stemming from trends or events caused by climate change. EIOPA provides a list of these risks, which distinguishes between:

• Transition risks
  These are defined as follows: ‘Risks that arise from the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy’. This includes the following aspects: Policy, Legal, Technology, Market sentiment and Reputational risks.
• Physical risks
  These are defined as: ‘risks that arise from the physical effects of climate change’ and are subdivided in acute and chronic physical risks.

Materialization of these risks for insurers will translate into impact on traditional risk categories, such as underwriting risk, market risk, credit and counterparty risk, operational risk, reputational risk and strategic risk. To help insurers get started with the implementation of climate change risks in ORSA, EIOPA has provided examples of a mapping in the annex of their opinion.

Step 2 – Materiality assessment

Insurers will be required to include all material climate change risks in ORSA. Under Solvency II, risks are considered material if ignoring the risk could lead to different decision making. This means that insurers are required to assess the materiality of each risk to determine whether these need to be included. If an insurer concludes that a certain climate change risk is immaterial, the insurer must be able to explain how that conclusion was reached.

The materiality assessment should be a combination of a qualitative and a quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis is to provide insight in the relevance of the climate change risk drivers and the way they impact the traditional prudential risks (underwriting risk, market risk etc.). The quantitative analysis will be used to determine the extent to which assets and liabilities are exposed to transition and physical risks.

Step 3 – Defining scenarios

The inclusion of the forward-looking, risk-based approach to ORSA requires insurers to define a set of climate change risk scenarios. EIOPA expects insurers to assess material climate change risks utilizing ‘a sufficiently wide range of stress tests or scenario analysis, including the material short- and long-term risks associated with climate change’. The goal of these scenarios is to assess the resilience and robustness of the insurer’s business strategies, including the impact of risk mitigating measures.

EIOPA states that insurers may develop their own climate scenarios or build on existing ones and provides a number of sources of publicly available scenarios containing pathways for physical and transition risks. The decision for internal scenario development versus building on publicly available may depend on many factors like expected materiality or company size. For example, the underwriting risk for a life insurer is probably less exposed to transition risk than the underwriting risk for a non-life insurer, and a smaller insurer may not have sufficient expertise and resources.

The scenarios must project a multitude of external factors to properly capture the effects of climate change risks. Factors such as demographics (e.g. in case of natural disasters), economic development (e.g. as a result of technological breakthrough) and government policies to reduce carbon emissions, just to name a few. The climate change scenario set should contain at least two long-term climate scenarios:

• Global temperature increase remains below 2◦C, preferably no more than 1.5◦C, in line with Paris Agreement;
• Global temperature increase exceeds 2◦C.

In addition, a reference scenario is needed to be able to determine the impact of the stress scenarios.

The assessment is to be performed for several time horizons. Given the nature of climate change risks, horizons need to be in the order of decades. EIOPA provides examples for length of time horizons, ranging from instantaneous (‘current climate change’) to projected views of climate change for the next 80 years (‘long-term climate change’).

Step 4 – Climate change risk modeling

Modeling climate change risks in ORSA introduces two challenges:

• Assessment of transition and physical risk impacts
  Materialization of transition and physical risks will have to be translated to impact on assets and liabilities. In a discussion paper, EIOPA provides examples of different methodologies for the assessment of transition impacts on assets, that have already been developed by academics, research institutes and regulators⁴. In general, these methodologies use carbon-sensitivities of financial instruments to assess the impact of climate change risk scenarios.
  The basis for the determination of physical risks is the change in temperature over time. This change needs to be translated into impact on frequency and severity of acute natural disasters (e.g. storms, floods, fires or heatwaves) and chronic effects (e.g. rising sea levels, reduced water availability, biodiversity loss and changes in land and soil productivity). The next step is to translate these effects into impact on assets and liabilities. The translation into financial impact on companies in which insurers invest can especially be challenging. Larger companies often have a greater diversity of activities and are more spread out geographically. In addition, companies will not only be hindered by the materialization of physical risks in their own activities, but their supply chain can also be affected. However, some scoring models already exist in which companies are ranked based on their sensitivity to physical risks.⁵
• Long-term multi-period modelling
  Incorporation of the climate change risk scenarios in ORSA aims to assess the viability of current business models and strategies and the adequacy of the insurers’ solvency. For longer horizons, insurers may use a lower precision for balance sheet projections and conduct assessment at a lower frequency than short-term risk assessments.
  The lower precision allows for simplifications as long as the long-term character of the climate change scenarios is preserved. Simplifications may include projecting simple ratios instead of full balance sheets, or assessment of climate change impact on assets and technical provisions in isolation. However, projection of the full balance sheet ensures internal consistency and may provide much more information, especially when assessing the impact of potential management actions to mitigate the impact of climate change risks.

Disclose climate-related information

Insurers are expected to provide explanation on the short- and long-term climate change risk analysis in the ORSA report. This should include:

• An overview of all material risks, how materiality is assessed and an explanation for each risk that is considered immaterial.
• The methods and assumptions used by the insurer in both the materiality assessment of the climate change risks and in ORSA.
• The outcomes and conclusions of the scenario analysis, both quantitative and qualitative.

In addition, climate change risk related disclosures should be consistent with the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD).⁶

How can Zanders help?

As mentioned in the introduction, climate change risks are relatively new to the insurance sector. The same holds for other financial industries like the banking sector and asset management sector. As a consultancy firm for the financial industry, we support various types of financial institutions with the implementation of ESG and climate-related strategies and regulations. In doing so, we can benefit from our experience gained in the insurance, banking and asset management sectors.

We can assist with the implementation of climate change risk management, including:

• Identification of climate change risk exposures and materiality assessment
• Integration of climate change risks in your system of governance and risk management system
• Incorporate climate change risk into your ORSA, including
  • Mapping climate change risks to traditional prudential risk categories
  • Development of climate change risk scenarios
  • Climate change risk modelling
• Support in setting up or adjusting disclosures

Sources

_{[1] Previous EIOPA publications related to climate change risk:}

• _{Opinion on Sustainability within Solvency II, 30 September 2019}
• _{draft Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA, 5 October 2020}

_{[2] Opinion on the supervision of the use of climate change risk scenarios in ORSA, 19 April 2021}

_{[3] See:}

• _{DNB>Insurers>Prudential supervision> Q&A Climate-related risks and insurers (February 2021)}
• _{PRA: Supervisory Statement 3/19 – Enhancing banks’ and insurers’ approaches to managing the financial risks from climate change (April 2019)}

_{[4] Second Discussion Paper on Methodological principles of insurance stress testing, 24 June 2020
[5] See footnote 4
[6] Guidelines on non-financial reporting: Supplement on reporting climate-related information, 17 June 2019}

As the financial sector is key for the transition towards a low-carbon and more circular economy, financial institutions have to deal with climate-related and environmental financial risks (C&E risks). At the same time, the increased importance of these C&E risks also presents new business opportunities for the financial sector. Therefore, to support banks in their self-assessment and action plans, Zanders developed a Scan & Plan Solution on C&E risks.

According to the 2021 World Economic Forum Global Risk Report¹, extreme weather, climate action failure, human environmental damage and biodiversity loss are ranked as four of the top five global risks by highest likelihood and four of the six global risks with the largest impact. It is not surprising that over the past years, numerous articles on C&E risks have been published and many initiatives have been taken to identify, measure and manage these risks. The Paris Agreement², the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development³ and more recently the European Green Deal⁴ are the main examples of international governmental responses to address C&E risks.

The financial sector is considered key for the transition towards a low-carbon and more circular economy. This is illustrated by the fact that the European Central Bank (ECB) has identified climate-related risks as a key risk driver for the euro area banking system in their Single Supervisory Mechanism Risk Map⁵. At the same time, the increased importance of C&E risks also presents new business opportunities for the financial sector, such as providing sustainable financing solutions and offering new financial instruments that facilitate C&E risk management. To illustrate, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change⁶ (IPCC) estimates that the required investment for alignment with the Paris Agreement would be at least $3.5tn per year until 2050 for the energy sector alone.

To address C&E risks, the ECB published a Guide on climate-related and environmental risks⁷ for banks that describes the ECB’s supervisory expectations related to risk management and disclosure. Banks are required by the ECB to perform a self-assessment with respect to the supervisory expectations and to draft an action plan in 2021. The self-assessments and plans will subsequently be reviewed and challenged by the ECB as part of the supervisory dialogue. In 2022, the ECB will conduct a full supervisory review of bank’s practices related to C&E risks.

The Zanders Scan & Plan Solution provides clear insights into gaps with the ECB expectations and proposes practical actions that are tailored to a bank’s nature, scale and complexity. This article provides a brief explanation of C&E risks, outlines a few specific ECB supervisory expectations and elaborates on the Solution.

Definition of C&E risk

Financial risks from climate and environmental change arise from two primary risk categories:

• Physical risks. The first risk category concerns physical risks caused by acute (direct events) or chronic (longer-term events which cause gradual deterioration) C&E events. Examples of acute events are floods, wildfires and heatwaves, whereas chronic events relate to the likes of rising sea levels, acidity and biodiversity losses, for example.
• Transition risks. The second risk category comprises transition risks resulting from the process of moving towards a low-carbon economy. Changes in policy, regulation, technology, market sentiment and consumer sentiment could destabilize markets, tighten financial conditions and lead to procyclicality of losses.

These two risk categories are distinct from other risk categories in the following aspects: 1) they have a correlated and non-linear impact on all business lines, sectors and geographies, 2) they have a long-term nature and 3) the future impact is largely dependent on short-term actions. The risk categories are, among others, drivers of credit, market and operational risk, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Examples of the impact of physical risks and transition risks on traditional risk types from the ECB Guide on climate-related and environmental risks.

ECB Supervisory Expectations

In the Guide on climate-related and environmental risks⁷, published in November 2020, the ECB explains that banks are expected to reflect C&E risks as drivers of existing risk categories (e.g., credit risk, market risk, operational risk) rather than as a separate risk type. This indicates that not only efforts should be made by banks to develop risk management practices related to C&E risks but that these practices should also be integrated in existing risk management frameworks, models and policies.

The ECB Guide covers four main areas. First, in relation to ‘business models and strategy’, the ECB expects banks to understand the impact of C&E risks on their business environment and integrate C&E risks in their business strategy. Secondly, the guide addresses ‘governance and risk appetite’. The ECB expects a bank’s management to include C&E risks in the risk appetite framework, assign responsibilities related to C&E risks to the three lines of defense and establish internal reporting. Thirdly, in relation to ‘risk management’, the ECB expects that banks integrate C&E risks into their existing risk management framework. Finally, regarding ‘disclosures’, the ECB expects banks to disclose meaningful information and metrics on C&E risks. The four above-mentioned areas are covered in 13 expectations, which are in turn further divided in 46 sub-expectations. Banks are required by the ECB to perform a self-assessment with respect to the supervisory expectations and to draft an action plan in 2021. The self-assessments and plans will subsequently be reviewed and challenged by the ECB as part of the supervisory dialogue. The ECB recommends National Competent Authorities, in their supervision of less significant institutions, to apply these expectations proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity of the bank’s activities.

Zanders has thoroughly analyzed all (sub)-expectations and has highlighted a few specific expectations including possible actions below.

Expectation 4.2: Institutions are expected to develop appropriate key risk indicators (KRI) and set appropriate limits for effectively managing climate-related and environmental risks in line with their regular monitoring and escalation arrangements.

Here, the ECB expects institutions to monitor and report their exposures to C&E risks based on current data and forward-looking estimations. In addition, institutions are expected to assign quantitative metrics to C&E risks. It is however acknowledged that, since definitions, taxonomies and methodologies are still under development, qualitative metric or proxy data can be used as long as specific quantitative metrics are not yet available. The ECB deems that the metrics should reflect the long-term nature of climate change, and explicitly consider different paths for temperature and greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the ECB expects institutions to define limits on the metrics based on the risk appetite regarding C&E risks.

This expectation has various elements to it, and Zanders has defined as the most important and first step to identify the internal and external data availability related to C&E risks. If the data availability allows it, an institution should set up quantitative metrics and limits on these metrics that reflect C&E risks. A first step to achieve this would be to define several firmwide KRIs, for example by limiting the carbon emission of the whole portfolio in line with the Paris Agreement² or other (inter)national climate agreements. These KRIs can then be cascaded down to business lines and/or portfolios, such as limiting the exposure to specific sectors with large carbon footprints or substantial use of water. If the current data availability does not allow for quantitative metrics, the bank should identify which data is still lacking and assess ways to collect this data from internal data sources or external data providers in the course of time. In the meantime, qualitative metrics or proxies could be developed such as a qualitative score for the sophistication of the climate strategy of large corporates in the portfolio.

Should a bank already have some metrics in place, Zanders advises to evaluate if these metrics sufficiently cover all material physical and transition C&E risks that the bank is expected to face and if there are ways to increase the sophistication of these metrics, for example by including forward-looking estimations. Finally, Zanders advises banks to create a monitoring procedure to ensure that these metrics and their limits are evaluated regularly.

Expectation 8.1: Climate-related and environmental risks are expected to be included in all relevant stages of the credit-granting process and credit processing.

In this expectation, the ECB underlines that banks should identify and assess material factors that affect the default risk of loan exposures. The quality of the client’s own management of C&E risks may be taken into account in this case. In addition, banks are expected to consider changes in the credit risk profiles based on sectors and geographical areas.

The way to address this expectation is highly dependent on the nature of the bank, on the existing credit granting process and on the availability of data. Some examples of including C&E risk in the credit granting process in a qualitative way, which Zanders has observed in the market, are the development of shadow PD models that trigger mitigating actions in case of large discrepancies with the regular PDs, or the introduction of a scorecard based on quantitative as well as qualitative aspects.

It should be noted that these and other solutions are not mutually exclusive and that multiple approaches can be adopted for different parts of the portfolio. Also, the efforts for several individual expectations can be combined. For example, taking C&E risks into account in the credit granting process could also be linked to the qualitative and quantitative metrics set as part of expectation 4.2 (see above). The quality of the client’s own management of C&E risks can for instance be measured based on the qualitative score for the climate strategy sophistication of large corporates mentioned above.

Expectation 11: Institutions with material climate-related and environmental risks are expected to evaluate the appropriateness of their stress testing, with a view to incorporating them into their baseline and adverse scenarios.

This expectation indicates that banks should evaluate the appropriateness of their stress testing in relation to C&E risks. In this evaluation, the bank should take into account the following considerations: i) how will the bank be affected by physical and transition risks, ii) how will C&E risks evolve under various scenarios (thereby taking into account that these risks may not fully be reflected in historical data), and iii) how may C&E risks materialize in the short-, medium- and long-term. Based on these considerations and on scientific climate change pathways as well as on assumptions that fit with their risk profile and individual specification, banks should incorporate C&E risks in their baseline and adverse scenarios.

To address this recommendation, Zanders advises banks to first identify C&E risks scenarios with different severities based on the materiality of C&E risks for the bank. Examples of this include early or late transition to a low-carbon economy (transition risk), introduction of a carbon tax (transition risk) or staying below or above a 2°C temperature increase (physical risk). These scenarios could be based on scientific scenarios from the IPCC⁸ or the International Energy Agency⁹. The next step is to translate these scenarios into macro-economic variables, such as GDP, inflation and loan valuations, over a range of relevant sectors and geographies. Since there is not yet a single methodology to do this, banks need to be creative and combine new qualitative and quantitative approaches with existing modeling methodologies.

Zanders Scan & Plan Solution

To manage C&E risks, to seize new business opportunities and to meet the regulatory expectations related to C&E risks, it is crucial for banks to have transparency about their exposure to these risks. To support banks with this, the Zanders Scan & Plan Solution is available. The Scan assesses the gaps between the bank’s current practices and each of the expectations in the ECB guide. These gaps are scored based on a pre-defined scoring system and are shown in a heatmap that is easy to interpret. Subsequently, the Plan proposes possible actions to close the identified gaps. These possible actions will be tailored to the nature, scale, and complexity of the bank and to the level of sophistication of the bank in the field of C&E risks. The Scan & Plan will be provided in the form of a detailed report.

Zanders has previously supported clients on topics related to climate change, published market insights and supported research. In addition, Zanders has broad experience in supporting clients in each of the areas of the ECB guide: business models and strategy, governance and risk appetite, risk management and disclosure. Hence, Zanders is in an excellent position to also support banks with the implementation of the proposed actions from the Scan & Plan or with shaping new business activities related to C&E risks.

To learn more about the Zanders Scan & Plan solution and how Zanders can support your institution with managing C&E risks, please contact Petra van Meel, Marije Wiersma or Pieter Klaassen.

References
1) http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf
2) https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
3) https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
4) https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
5) https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/ra/html/ssm.ra2021~edbbea1f8f.en.html#toc1
6) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter4_Low_Res.pdf
7) https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.202011finalguideonclimate-relatedandenvironmentalrisks~58213f6564.en.pdf
8) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/emissions-scenarios/
9) https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-model/sustainable-development-scenario

One of the key subjects in this re-assessment is the implementation of tangible and transparent Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors into the business.

Treasury can drive sustainability throughout the company from two perspectives, namely through initiatives within the Treasury function and initiatives promoted by external stakeholders, such as banks, investors, or its clients. When considering sustainability, many treasurers first port of call is to investigate realizing sustainable financing framework. This is driven by the high supply of money earmarked for sustainable goals. However, besides this external focus, Treasury can strive to make its own operations more sustainable and, as a result, actively contribute to company-wide ESG objectives.

Figure 1: ESG initiatives in scope for Treasury

Treasury holds a unique position within the company because of the cooperation it has with business areas and the interaction with external stakeholders. Treasury can leverage this position to drive ESG developments throughout the company, stay informed of latest updates and adhere to regulatory standards. This article shows how Treasury can become a sustainable support function in its own right, highlights various initiatives within and outside the Treasury department and marks the benefits for Treasury – on top of realising ESG targets.

Internal initiatives

Automation and digitalization drive certain environmental initiatives within the Treasury department. Full digitalized records and bank statement management and the digitalization of form processes reduce the adverse environmental impact of the Treasury department. Besides reducing Treasury’s environmental footprint, digitalization improves efficiency of the Treasury team. By reducing the number of manual, cumbersome operational activities, time can be spent on value-adding activities rather than operational tasks.

Another great example of how Treasury can contribute to the ESG goals of the company, is to incorporate ESG elements in the capital allocation process. This can be done by adding ESG related risk factors to the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) or hurdle investment rates. By having an ESG linked WACC, one can evaluate projects by measuring the real impact of ESG on the required return on equity (ROE). By adjusting the WACC to, for example, the level of CO2 that is emitted by a project, the capital allocation process favours projects with low CO2 emissions.

An additional internal initiative is the design of a mobility policy with the objective to lower CO2 emissions. On one hand, this relates to decreasing the amount of business trips made by the Treasury department itself. On the other hand, it relates to the reduction of business travel by stakeholders of treasury such as bankers, advisors and system vendors. A framework that offsets the added value of a real-life meeting against the CO2 emission is an example of a measure that supports CO2 reduction on both sides. Such a framework supports determination whether the meeting takes place online or in person.

Furthermore, embedding ESG requirements into bank selection, system selection and maintenance processes is a valuable way of encouraging new and existing partners to undertake ESG related measures.

When it comes to social contributions, the focus could be on the diversity and inclusion of the Treasury department, which includes well-being, gender equality and inclusivity of the employees. Pursuing these policies can increase the attractiveness of the organization when hiring talent and make it easier to retain talent within the company, which is also beneficial to the Treasury function.

The development of a structured model that defines the building blocks for Treasury to support the achievement of companywide ESG objectives is a governance initiative that Treasury could undertake. An example of such a model is the Zanders Treasury and Risk Maturity Model, which can be integrated in any organization. This framework supports Treasury in keeping track of its ESG footprint and its contribution to company-wide sustainable objectives. In addition, the Zanders sustainability dashboard provides information on metrics and benchmarks that can be applied to track the progress of several ESG related goals for Treasury. Some examples of these are provided in our ‘Integration of ESG in treasury’ article.

External initiatives

Besides actions taken within the Treasury department, Treasury can boost company-wide ESG performance by leveraging their collaboration with external stakeholders. One of these external initiatives is sustainability linked financing, which is a great tool to encourage the setting of ambitious, company-wide ESG targets and link these to financing arrangements. Examples of sustainability linked financing products include green loans and bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and social bonds. To structure sustainability-linked financing products, corporates often benefit from the guidance of external parties when setting KPIs and ambitious targets and linking these to the existing sustainability strategy. Besides Treasury’s strong relationships with banks, retaining good relationships with (ESG) rating agencies and financial institutions is critical to stay abreast of the latest updates and adhere to regulatory standards. Additionally, investing excess cash in a sustainable manner, using green money market funds or assessing the ESG rating of counterparties, is an effective way of supporting sustainability.

Apart from financing instruments, Treasury can drive the ESG strategy throughout the organization in other ways. Treasury can seek collaborations with business partners to comply with ESG targets, which is another effective manner to achieve ESG related goals throughout the supply chain. An increasing number of corporates is looking to reduce the carbon footprint of their supply chain, for which collaboration is essential. Treasury can support this initiative by linking supplier onboarding on its supply chain finance program to the sustainability performance of suppliers.

To conclude

As developments in ESG are rapidly unfold9ing, Zanders has started an initiative to continuously update our clients to stay ahead of the latest trends. Through the knowledge and network that we have built over the years, we will regularly inform our clients on ESG trends via articles on the news page on our website. The first article will be devoted to the revision of the Sustainability Linked Loan Principles (SLLP) by the Loan Market Association (LMA) and its American and Asian equivalents.

We are keen to hear which topics you would like to see covered. Feel free to reach out to Joris van den Beld or Sander van Tol if you have any questions or want to address ESG topics that are on your agenda.