Investing in a low-carbon economy
By seeking out more environmentally efficient operators, investors can help offset carbon risk and potentially improve risk-adjusted returns.
There is no shortage of data underpinning the serious consequences of global warming. With the reversal of important environmental policies by the former administration, tackling climate change head-on is a key priority of President Biden and the current administration. Through aggressive measures and swift action for decarbonization, the impending transition to a low-carbon economy suggests promising opportunities for job creation while potentially mitigating the ecological catastrophes associated with global warming.
Many investors are contemplating the implications climate issues could have on their personal well-being and financial stability, along with broader humanitarian consequences. While there are differing views on the severity, timing and potential effects of climate change, there is considerable discussion among both institutional and individual investors about reallocating capital away from fossil fuel-centric companies toward more sustainable operators, including those investing in clean energy technologies and infrastructure. As companies continue to disclose more reliable data pertaining to their carbon footprint and overall environmental impact, investors will likely gain a clearer picture of leaders and laggards in this area and have the ability to make better-informed decisions.
Climate Science & Environmental Impact
There is consensus in the scientific community that rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere is one of the leading contributors to global warming. Data has shown that temperatures have risen consistently over the past few decades, the last five being the warmest on record. (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: Decades of Temperature Rises Continued 2011-2020.
Source: Copernicus Climate Change Service: Annual average temperature (degrees Celsius) relative to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-defined pre-industrial level. As of January 8, 2021.
Climate experts seem to have identified a strong correlation between rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) Global Energy Review 2021, energy-related CO2 emissions in 2020 were measured at 31.5 global temperature (GT), contributing to the highest-ever atmospheric CO2 concentration of 412 parts per million, 50% higher than at the start of the industrial revolution.
The environmental effects of global warming are numerous and multiplying at an increasingly rapid pace. Geographical changes such as melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels and warming ocean temperatures pose a permanent threat to our planet. Essentials like food, water and medicine are commodities that may still be abundant today but whose supplies could be strained in the future due to global warming. Extreme weather events like massive heat waves countered by frigid cold, as well as droughts and wildfires countered by hurricanes and floods, amplify challenges for farming and agriculture, and threaten carbon-dioxide absorbing forests that are essential to the health of the planet.
As societies wrestle with the economic implications associated with global warming, scientists and researchers are consumed with measuring the predicted stagnation in productivity and growth of gross domestic product (GDP). The United Nations (UN) forecasts1 economic damages from climate change at 1% to 3% of U.S. GDP per year by 2100, with 3% to 10% as the worst-case scenario (Exhibit 2). From a global perspective, developing economies may be even more vulnerable, with low-income countries having lost nearly 2% of GDP between 1998 and 2017 from climate-related events.
Exhibit 2: U.S. Economic Damages at Different Levels of Global Warming.
Source: from World Resources Institute; Hsiang, S., Kopp, R.E., Jina, A., Rising, J., Delgado M., Mohan, S., Rasmussen, D.J., Muir- Wood, R., Wilson, P., Oppenheimer, M., Larsen, K., and Houser, T. (2017) “Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change in the United States”, Climate Impact Lab; United Nations Environment Programme, 2019.
Investor Risks and Potential Opportunities
There is a compelling investment case that suggests environmentally efficient companies (i.e., those using fewer natural resources and generating less waste in the production process) have an economic advantage over their peers in their ability to manage risk and increase productivity. Financial impacts can arise from environmental issues, resulting in both near-term direct costs related to energy and waste management, as well as potential longer-term indirect impacts related to reputation and competitive positioning. Poor environmental performance can also have implications on long-term cost of capital and license to operate. A study of over 5,000 companies across the European Union and U.S. markets over the 2016-2018 period, found that companies with better environmental performance enjoyed a lower cost of capital associated with debt financing.2
Investors may have differing views on how to best position a portfolio for the transition to a low-carbon economy. A key decision is whether to fully divest from carbon-intensive market sectors such as energy and fossil fuel-burning utilities or, rather, to invest in companies from all market sectors that are best positioned for this transition. Some environmental, social and governance (ESG) investors believe that divesting entirely from fossil fuel companies is the “right” thing to do. One can argue that starving fossil fuel development projects of capital will raise the cost of extraction and further level the playing field with renewable energy sources.
A less restrictive or pragmatic approach is to avoid carbon-intensive industries like coal or tar sands oil, and seek out companies with a positive trend toward reducing their carbon footprint. While this slightly different approach maintains exposure to the energy sector, the strategic focus is on solutions-oriented companies providing renewable energy infrastructure, clean technology and resource efficiency tools, with business models that are well positioned to thrive in a carbon-regulated environment, underscored by the improving economics of low-carbon technologies, renewable energy power production and storage. In addition to solving environmental challenges, investing in these companies may lead to better operational and resource efficiency, potentially improving the bottom line and driving long-term growth. Research suggests that investment in the energy transition has increased by over 400% between 2004 and 2020, reaching over $500 billion in 2020 (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3: Global Energy Transition Investment, 2004-2020.
Note: electrified heat figures begin in 2006; electrified transport in 2016; hydrogen and CCS in 2018.
Source: BloombergNEF. As of January 21, 2021. The figures represent capital spent on deployment of low-carbon technology.
CIO Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability (E2S) & Carbon Reserve Free (CRF) Portfolios
Our Chief Investment Office (CIO) Socially Innovative Investing (S2I) platform offers two internally managed investment strategies with an environmental focus, Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability (E2S) and Carbon Reserve Free (CRF). Both strategies seek to identify companies within the S&P 1500 universe with leading environmental policies and practices compared to their industry peers. The two-part due diligence framework examines corporate disclosure of policies relating to the environment and considers a company’s track record and performance on quantifiable factors to ensure that policy decisions produce the intended outcomes.
While this scoring process takes into account a variety of ESG factors, environmental metrics such as carbon intensity, water management, waste and recycling, and environmental solutions revenue have a more significant contribution to the overall company assessment. While companies that provide “green” solutions are often looked at favorably within the context of the S2I framework, it is unlikely that a speculative renewable energy company will qualify for inclusion, due to size, maturity or other fundamental factors.
While the E2S portfolio seeks to invest in the top-performing companies in each economic sector―even those industries with a poor reputation for environmental performance―the CRF portfolio uses the same rigorous stock selection methodology but restricts energy and fossil fuel-burning utility companies. In order to help avoid adding unintended risk, the resulting portfolio is “optimized” to reduce tracking error to the benchmark. This final step aligns the risk characteristics of the portfolio with the overall market, resulting in a portfolio of companies with superior environmental performance, with the potential for more favorable risk-adjusted returns over the long term. Over the last five years, both the E2S and CRF portfolios have had a substantially lower average carbon intensity as compared to the market as a whole (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 4: Average Carbon Intensity.
Source: Most recent available data from MSCI as of 2019. The 2020 year-end holdings use 2019 carbon emissions data. This figure represents the most recently reported or estimated Scope 1 + Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, normalized by sales in USD, as a weighted average of the companies held in each portfolio. Certain information contained herein (the “Information”) has been provided by MSCI ESG Research LLC, a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and may include data from its affiliates (including MSCI Inc. and its subsidiaries (“MSCI”)), or third party suppliers (each an “Information Provider”), and may have been used to calculate scores, ratings or other indicators and it may not be reproduced or disseminated in whole or in part without prior written permission.
Conclusion
Today’s investors have many choices when it comes to applying an environmental lens to their portfolio. More-sophisticated portfolio construction techniques make it possible to adhere to an “environmentally friendly” investment mandate without adding significant risk. In fact, given the recent evidence supporting the case for investing in environmental leaders, potential risk-adjusted returns may offer an attractive and compelling investment strategy. Even with the heightened scrutiny around decarbonization and climate change, evaluating your investment portfolio for environmental and economic risk will likely be an ongoing process. There is no one “right” strategy, and your implementation strategy may evolve over time. But given the direction of the global economy and development of investment strategies, we believe now may be a great time to get started.
In addition to the proprietary equity strategies offered in the S2I suite, the CIO maintains a broad investment platform of third party managers covering a range of asset classes. Together, these offerings are intended to address the CIO four pillars of sustainable investing.
People
Commitment to engaged and healthy workers
Planet
Contributions to climate and environmental sustainability
Principles of Governance
Commitment to ethics and societal benefit
Prosperity
Contributions to equitable, innovative economic growth and sustainable communities
Please note that the examples under each theme are illustrative of the types of investments possible, and are not necessarily strategies available today.
To learn more about investment opportunities and the Chief Investment Office’s sustainable investing portfolios, please contact your advisor or the Socially Innovative Investing Team at dg.s2i-core@bankofamerica.com.
ABOUT THE CIO SOCIALLY INNOVATIVE INVESTING TEAM
The CIO Socially Innovative Investing (S2I) team manages a suite of proprietary equity portfolios that invest in industry leaders with respect to environmental stewardship, human capital engagement and corporate governance. The S2I strategies are based on a growing awareness that strong ESG and financial performance are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are mutually beneficial qualities.
1 UN World Social Report 2020, taken from page 16 of Climate Wars)
2 “Does a Company’s Environmental Performance Influence Its Price of Debt Capital?” The Journal of Impact and ESG Investing Spring 2021.
Index Definition
Securities indexes assume reinvestment of all distributions and interest payments. Indexes are unmanaged and do not take into account fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Indexes are all based in U.S. dollars.
S&P Composite 1500 Index is a stock market index of U.S. stocks made by Standard & Poor’s. It includes all stocks in the S&P 500, S&P 400 and S&P 600. This index covers 90% of the market capitalization of U.S. stocks.
Important Disclosures
Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Bank of America, Merrill, their affiliates and advisors do not provide legal, tax or accounting advice. Clients should consult their legal and/or tax advisors before making any financial decisions.
The Chief Investment Office (“CIO”) provides thought leadership on wealth management, investment strategy and global markets; portfolio management solutions; due diligence; and solutions oversight and data analytics. CIO viewpoints are developed for Bank of America Private Bank, a division of Bank of America, N.A., (“Bank of America”) and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“MLPF&S” or “Merrill”), a registered broker-dealer, registered investment adviser and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (“BofA Corp.”). This information should not be construed as investment advice and is subject to change. It is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be either a specific offer by Bank of America, Merrill or any affiliate to sell or provide, or a specific invitation for a consumer to apply for, any particular retail financial product or service that may be available.
The Global Wealth & Investment Management Investment Strategy Committee (“GWIM ISC”) is responsible for developing and coordinating recommendations for short-term and long-term investment strategy and market views encompassing markets, economic indicators, asset classes and other market-related projections affecting GWIM.
All recommendations must be considered in the context of an individual investor’s goals, time horizon, liquidity needs and risk tolerance. Not all recommendations will be in the best interest of all investors.
Asset allocation, diversification and rebalancing do not ensure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets.
Risk management and due diligence processes seek to mitigate, but cannot eliminate risk, nor do they imply low risk.
Impact investing and/or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) managers may take into consideration factors beyond traditional financial information to select securities, which could result in relative investment performance deviating from other strategies or broad market benchmarks, depending on whether such sectors or investments are in or out of favor in the market. Further, ESG strategies may rely on certain values-based criteria to eliminate exposures found in similar strategies or broad market benchmarks, which could also result in relative investment performance deviating.
Investments have varying degrees of risk. Some of the risks involved with equity securities include the possibility that the value of the stocks may fluctuate in response to events specific to the companies or markets, as well as economic, political or social events in the U.S. or abroad. Investments in a certain industry or sector may pose additional risk due to lack of diversification and sector concentration.
