ESG - Allianz Global Investors

ESG
matters
Environmental, Social and Governance
thought pieces
Issue 8 | September 2014
Women in the
Boardroom
– Why Europe is winning the race
A ‘green’ price
tag for
sustainability?
Climate
change: What
investors need
to know
Safety matters:
Measuring
companies’
safety
performance
Fixed returns to
fix the planet?
The Global ESG Team
LONDON
Bozena Jankowska, Global Co-Head of ESG
Marissa Blankenship, ESG Analyst
Brian Kennedy, Product Specialist,
Global Sustainability & EcoTrends
Bozena Jankowska
Jeremy Kent, ESG Analyst
PARIS
Dear reader
Welcome to the 8th edition of ESG matters. Within the lead article, Marissa Blankenship
examines the challenge companies face globally of achieving diversity in the boardroom and
how the topic has progressed at differing speeds regionally. This issue commences with
Henrike Kulmann examining how environmental risk assessment is driving innovation in the
clothing industry and discusses its potential to impact consumer preferences. We look at the
risk and opportunities which climate change presents to the investment community
according to the latest report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Also, Jeremy Kent addresses the issues around workplace safety, focusing on the
challenges around the measurement of workplace injuries and the potential of safety issues
to materially impact companies’ financial performance. Finally, Ange-Wilfried Ezoua
addresses at the rapidly developing market for green bonds and assesses their suitability for
environmental financing.
We hope that you find the issues raised through the articles in this edition insightful and, as
always, we welcome comment and questions on any of the pieces raised in this edition of
ESG matters.
David Diamond, Global Co-Head of ESG
Marie-Sybille Connan, ESG Analyst
Ange-Wilfried Ezoua, Proxy Voting Officer
Mathilde Moulin, ESG Analyst
FRANKFURT
Ioannis Papassavvas, Proxy Voting Specialist
Rainer Sauer, Proxy Voting Specialist
HONG KONG
Henrike Kulmann, ESG Analyst
SAN FRANCISCO
Verity Chegar, ESG Analyst
CONTACT DETAILS
For any further information please contact:
Bozena Jankowska
Global Co-Head of ESG
Bozena Jankowska
Global Co-Head of ESG
 [email protected]
 +44 20 7065 1468
Allianz Global Investors Europe GmbH,
UK Branch
199 Bishopsgate
London EC2M 3TY
 www. allianzgi.co.uk
 0800 317 573
© 2014 Allianz Global Investors
All rights reserved
2
ESG Matters | Issue 8
EXECUTIVE
PAY
04
08
12
Contents
16
21
04 A ‘GREEN’ PRICE TAG FOR SUSTAINABILITY?
08 CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT INVESTORS NEED TO KNOW
12 SAFETY MATTERS: MEASURING COMPANIES’ SAFETY
PERFORMANCE
16 WOMEN IN THE BOARDROOM – WHY EUROPE IS WINNING
THE RACE
21 FIXED RETURNS TO FIX THE PLANET? PUTTING GREEN BONDS
AT THE HELM OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCING
26 ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS AND ESG
3
Price tag for
Sustainability/
section 1
A ‘green’ price tag for
sustainability?
HENRIKE KULMANN EXPLORES HOW ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT DRIVES
INNOVATION IN THE APPAREL INDUSTRY AND COULD CHANGE CONSUMERS’
SHOPPING BEHAVIOUR.
What do you pay attention to when shopping for
clothes – design, fit, price, brand, fabric? What
about the environmental impact of the piece of
clothing you are intending to buy?
Henrike Kulmann
ESG Analyst,
Hong Kong
4
While factors such as price or fabric are very easy
to consider for purchase, the big question for the
conscious customer is HOW to integrate the
environmental footprint of products when
shopping for clothes. An industry-wide tag
indicating how resource intensive the item was
to produce simply does not exist yet. A big effort
and willingness by the industry would be
required in order to reach a scale which would
allow for adoption of a common methodology to
calculate the footprint and promote clothes
based on a ‘green’ tag together with the price
tag. Yet, there are inspiring industry initiatives
such as the Higg Index which could potentially
provide a starting point for innovating the way
brands interact with their clients.
If we look at consumers’ behaviour, the picture is
quite paradox. On the one hand, there is evidence
that environmentally friendly clothing is on
customers’ minds. According to Hennes and
Mauritz (H&M), which constantly measures how
its brand is perceived from an environmental,
social and governance (ESG) perspective, almost
30% of its customers say they are actively looking
ESG Matters | Issue 8
“
Some players in the industry are
already working on solutions to track
“
the environmental footprint across
the life-cycle of a product.
for environmentally friendly clothing.
However, while the interest in the area is
increasing, there has been no noticeable
negative impact on clothing sales following
negative media reporting about chemicals
used in textiles or supply chain practices,
for example. That said, customer behaviour
could eventually change – especially if the
means to assess the environmental
footprint with a single look on the price tag
were offered either by external parties or
competitors.
We argue that one explanation of why
controversies have not translated into
negative sales impact is that the average
customer does not have the tools to make
an informed decision that enables him/her
to differentiate brands based on the energy
and water intensity of products expressed
in one consolidated sustainability score that
forms part of the price tag. As the apparel
industry is in the spotlight of nongovernment organisations (NGOs) with
controversies being reported constantly,
the perception of the sector as a whole is
suffering. In our view, this might give the
majority of the consumers the impression
that they do not have alternatives even if
they wanted to include environmental
concerns into their purchasing decision.
This could be one reason why sales do not
decline significantly despite negative news
flow. Going forward, an environmental tag
at the product level could differentiate
companies that follow high standards and
set themselves apart from the competition.
However, a tag showing a standardized
scale for the environmental footprint for
example an item of clothing, is still some
way from becoming the norm. There are
initial steps being made in creating more
transparency for customers. Testex, a Swiss
based company providing certification for
eco textiles, set up a platform to enable
customers to check the validity of their
Oeko-Tex label. Each textile carrying the
label has a certification number which
customers can validate online. When we
turn to the consumer staples industry,
mobile apps such as “My Food Facts”
already allow consumers to scan any
barcode with their phone and instantly
receive inform­
ation on ingredients and
food allergy alerts. In cosmetics, apps such
as “Think Dirty” and “Skin Deep” rate the
health impact of products focusing on
potentially hazardous ingredients. The
regulations around food products and
cosmetics leave companies no choice but
to disclose the ingredients of their products
and this subsequently makes it easy for
consumer advocacy groups to leverage the
information
provided.
While this is not the case in the textile and
apparel sector, these examples still show
that there’s a lot of innovation potential
around the issue which could serve as an
inspiration for apparel brands.
Some players in the industry are already
working on solutions to track the
environmental footprint across the lifecycle of a product. If successful, their work
could lay the foundations for an
environmental tag. A front runner is
outdoor company Timberland which
created a “Green Index®” to measure the
impact of their products on the
environment. Products are rated from a
scale from 10 to 0 and are shown in a tag.
The lower the score, the smaller the
footprint compared to other Timberland
products. However, the customer can only
benchmark Timberland products against
each other, without including industry
information as it is not available yet. One
key industry initiative trying to change that
is the “Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC)”
which has been developing the “Higg
Index” to measure the environmental and
social footprint of apparel and footwear
products. 
5
Price tag for
Sustainability/
section 1
• Environment: Apparel/Footwear:
used to assess environmental performance of material, packaging and
manufacturing facilities.
Facility
• Social/Labour: Apparel/Footwear – Beta: used to assess the social and
labour performance of material, packaging and manufacturing facilities.
• Environment: Apparel: assess apparel product-specific environ­mental
practices at the brand level.
Higg Index
2.0
• Environment: Footwear: assess footwear product-specific environ­mental
practices at the brand level.
Brand
• Social/Labour: Apparel/Footwear – Beta: assess social and labour, apparel
and footwear product-specific social and labour practices at the brand level.
• Rapid Design Module (RDM) – Beta: prototype to test how we can guide
designers on sustainable product design with directi­on­ally correct inform­ation
and streamline decision support framework.
• Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) Data Explorer: online platform to
allow users to understand the data and methodology behind MSI Base Material
Scores, which can be seen in the RDM - Beta. Also serves as a data submission
platform to improve the quality of material scores or add new materials,
performance of material, packaging, and manufacturing facilities.
Product
Source: Sustainable Apparel Coalition - http://www.apparelcoalition.org/higgindex/
60 corporate members such as Nike,
Burberry, VF (incl. Timberland), Adidas,
Kering, Ikea, Gap, H&M, Inditex, Macy’s,
Target and Walmart have teamed up with
selected producers, industry associations
and the US Environmental Protection
Agency1 aiming to:
“lead the industry toward a shared vision of
sustainability built upon a common approach
for measuring and evaluating apparel and
footwear product sustainability performance
that will spotlight priorities for action and
opportunities for technological innovation”.
Their key focus is the “development,
piloting and broad adoption of the Higg
Index”.
6
The work scope includes the following
topics:
•
Water use and quality
•
Energy and emissions
•Waste
•
Chemicals and toxicity
•
Social and labour
In June 2012, the Higg Index 1.0 was
released based on tools that have been
developed separately before by companies
such as Nike, industry associations and
NGOs. After a pilot testing phase of 14
months, an updated version was made
available in December 2013.
All Higg Index content is open source to
allow for wider adoption. It was primarily
designed for companies to identify areas
for internal process improvement and help
to evaluate impacts through three different
lenses – facility, brand and product.2 In our
view, this could set the foundation for a
sustainability tag.
At the moment, the most robust data
appears to be available for the product
segment and is continuously evolving.
Thus, this could be a good starting point for
a green tag and could have the potential to
eventually reflect the environmental
impact of clothes across the full life-cycle.
Currently, the product models are used by
designers to integrate the environmental
ESG Matters | Issue 8
impact of materials in the design process.
On the facility side, the modules available
have only started to also integrate
quantitative data such as energy and water
usage in order to help facilities to create
“baseline” measurements. At this stage, the
Higg Index specifically mentions that the
data collected in the facility segment is not
intended to help create environmental
product declarations.
That being said, the efforts of the SAC are
quite remarkable and have been
unprecedented. It showcases that key
industry players are strategically thinking
about assessing the environmental impact
of their products across the life-cycle of
their products even though there is still a
long way to go. In our view, companies
ahead of the curve could also use these
tools to help sell their most innovative
products. Nike and Adidas, for example
have started to produce apparel via a
waterless and chemical dyeing process. A
green tag would help to get out the
message to customers in an easy and
efficient way. Currently, these efforts are
mainly driven by considerations related to
operational risk management, i.e. by
preparing for water and energy related
risks. In the future they could benefit
further by developing a tag that translates
these efforts into a score to be
communicated to a broad customer base.
There is a significant number of customers
that consider themselves to be environ­
mentally conscious but it is still a niche
market. A green price tag could release that
untapped market potential. 
1
http://www.apparelcoalition.org/currentmembers/
2
The web tool for the index is currently
available for SAC members and nonmember manufacturers only.
7
Climate
change/
section 2
8
ESG Matters | Issue 8
-
Climate change: a new era of
uncertainty and opportunity
IN THE INVESTMENT WORLD, UNCERTAINTY AND OPPORTUNITY SIT AT OPPOSITE
ENDS OF THE INVESTMENT APPETITE SPECTRUM. YET, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST
ASSESSMENT REPORT FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE
CHANGE (IPCC), THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF MIXED FUTURE THE WORLD IS
FACING. BOZENA JANKOWSKA INVESTIGATES.
For investors wanting to avoid uncertainty
and identify opportunity, it will be
increasingly critical to understand the
unappreciated complexities and mechan­
isms that are working in tandem with
climate change. So what do investors need
to know and what can they do?
The fifth IPCC report highlights that the
consequences of climate change are not
solely limited to the decisions we make
about the environment. It states that, the
scale and impact of climate change will also
be determined by a myriad of socioeconomic factors and the decisions we take
Bozena Jankowska
Global Co-Head of ESG,
London
in areas such as agriculture, water use, land
management and infrastructure. In addition
it states that poor policies and management
of these areas will act to magnify climate
change, further spurred by the stresses
imposed on the world’s resources by a
growing global population which, 
9
Climate change/
section 2
according to the World Bank and United Nations, is
expected to reach over 9bn by 2050.
The now familiar call to move away from ‘business as
usual’ continues to resonate in the IPCC report coupled
with calls from the Co-Chairs of the Working Group III
(responsible for the fifth IPCC report), to “decouple
greenhouse gas emissions from the growth of economies
and populations” which can only be achieved via major
institutional change, technological change and
investment.
So what are we looking at? In 2010, total man-made
greenhouse gas emissions were the highest in human
history. Emissions have grown at double the rate per
year in the last decade compared to 1970-2000. Food
production is expected to be impacted, particularly
wheat, rice and maize yields, in already poor and
vulnerable areas of the world such as Africa. Combined
with poorly thought-out policies around land and
water management which leave little room for climate
change adaptation, we can expect to see complex
economic scenarios play out. For example, we may see
greater volatility in soft commodities prices, higher
input costs for food manufacturers and retailers and
higher food prices. Recent history has shown food
price hikes can be a catalyst for political and social
instability and uncertainty, all of which among other
things, impact investor confidence. Major
unpredictable weather events which the IPCC expects
to become more frequent, will require appropriate
infrastructure systems to protect us from the worst
effects of climate change. The current infrastructure
may have been adequate to deal with weather events
of the past but may not be suitable to deal with the
climate change driven weather patterns of the future.
For example, inadequate inland and coastal flooding
defence pose risks for large urban areas in addition to
heat stress, extreme rainfall, droughts and water
scarcity. Decisions taken today on infrastructure
systems and spend therefore need to incorporate
long-term thinking on climate change if they are to
remain resilient and future proof.
What can investors do and how can than they find
opportunities in all of this uncertainty?
The most obvious investment route that investors can
explore lies with low carbon technologies, i.e. those
which specifically provide climate change mitigation
10
and adaptation solutions such as alternative energy,
energy efficiency or technologies which address
broader climate concerns such as water and pollution
control. The market opportunity despite the recent
downturn cannot be ignored. According to the Global
Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2013 Report1,
investment in renewable power and fuels was US$244
billion in 2012, down 12% from the previous year’s
record figure of US$279 billion. Despite this, 2012’s
total was still the second-highest ever and 8% up on
2010. Part of this slowdown is attributable to
uncertainty in policy regimes for alternative energy in
developed economy markets. However, activity in
developing markets is acting to shift the balance,
whereby total investment in developed economies in
2012 was down 29% at US$132 billion. In developing
economies it was up 19% at US$112 billion, the highest
ever suggesting that over the next few years, the
majority of renewable energy investment is likely to be
in developing countries.
The green bond market (bonds whose proceeds are
used to fund environmentally friendly projects) is
another emerging investment opportunity. Since
government funds alone will not be enough to build
the resilience needed to address the extreme weather
events that threaten energy, water and food supply,
there is a need for private and institutional investors to
step in and provide much needed investment. Two
entities of the World Bank – the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development and the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) – have been at the heart of
the development of the global green bond market. The
added benefit for investors is that they are Aaa/AAA2
rated issuers. What contribution can green bonds
make towards climate change mitigation and
adaptation? In China, green bonds have helped to
reduce community vulnerability to natural disasters
through flood defences and warning systems. In
Colombia and Mexico they have helped to support
mass transport systems and renewable energy
projects, whilst in Tunisia improved efficiency in
irrigation and reliable water supply in areas of
groundwater stress have been funded via green bonds.
The most recent offering from the IFC of $1 billion
issued in November 2013, attracted a new set of green
bond investors, including the Ford Motor Company,
Microsoft, and the central banks of Brazil and Germany.
Corporates themselves are also issuing green bonds as
evidenced by the French utility company EDF, which
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Global new investment in renewable energy: developed vs. developing countries, 2004-2012, $bn
Developed
186
Developing
150
132
112
103
73
48
32
8
2004
17
2005
2006
2007
64
59
43
27
112
104
2008
2009
77
2010
94
2011
2012
Source: UNEP, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, June, 2013
“
The most obvious
invest­ment route that
investors can explore
“
lies with low carbon
technologies.
issued a €1.4 billion green bond and was two-times
oversubscribed suggesting that appetite for green
bonds is solid.
At the stock level, investors may want to take a closer
look at how companies within their portfolios are
mitigating and adapting to climate change. For
instance, evaluating what climate change strategies
and innovations are being developed across the
business to manage material climate change.
Companies reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP) have described how climate change related
factors have already impacted their operations. Gap
Inc. reported experiencing higher material costs for
cotton due to changes in rainfall and drought in China.
Hewlett-Packard described a decline in revenue of 7%
following the 2011 floods in Thailand, whereas
Consolidated Edison, Inc. disclosed costs related to
Superstorm Sandy at over $431 million. The level of
disclosure by companies on their climate change
exposure including their carbon emissions is increasing
(as evidenced by the Carbon Disclosure Project and
data available on Bloomberg) allowing investors to
compare and contrast how companies are performing,
as well as managing and identifying future business
opportunities arising from climate change impacts. It
is here where focused environmental, social and
governance research can come into its own for the
climate change engaged investor.
Climate change and its interplay with various socioeconomic factors are highly complex issues. Yet, the
supporting science continues to evolve and contributes
to our growing level of confidence (which, according
to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report published on 30th
September 2013 shows a 95% confidence level) that
climate change and human activity are linked. With
the high level of scientific confidence, growing body of
evidence from corporates and evolving capital
markets, this surely lays the foundation for investors to
begin to explore what climate change means for their
investments. 
1
Report compiled by Frankfurt School United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) Collaborating
Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance and
Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
2
Standards and Poor’s.
11
Safety
matters/
section 3
Safety matters:
Measuring
companies’ safety
performance
MATERIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE ISSUES DRIVE THE
ALLIANZGI ESG RATINGS. JEREMY KENT LOOKS AT ONE METRIC AND WHY IT
IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR INVESTORS TO INCORPORATE IN THEIR
ANALYSIS.
Jeremy Kent
ESG Analyst,
London
In the next 15 seconds 160 workers will
experience a work related accident and one will
die as a result of a work related accident or
disease. The social and economic costs of work
related incidents are vast with the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) estimating poor
occupational safety practices coming in at a
staggering cost of 4% of global gross domestic
product (GDP) every year. These costs burden
both society and companies where they occur.
Before taking the decision to invest in a company,
assessment of how the business manages its
exposure to safety risk should be conducted.
Safety is important across most sectors and all
regions. Activities such as mining, energy, and
construction are well known for their dangerous
work environments highlighted by headlines
12
ESG Matters | Issue 8
such as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010 or
more recently the Turkish mining disaster
in May 2014 where 301 miners died. The
importance of safety is not limited to
dangerous industries, it can be equally
relevant to companies in less hazardous
sectors such as retail. Employees working in
a store front may only be exposed to slips,
trips and falls but the more important
aspect of safety to control is throughout the
supply chain where incidents can cause
significant disruption to the business. The
Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh
last year is an extreme example of the
potential impact that poor safety standards
can have for the industry. The tragic loss of
life illustrates the direct effect of improper
safety controls but the indirect effects can
cause severe disruptions to the business.
The American Society of Safety Engineers
estimates that the indirect costs of injuries
can be as much as 20 times the direct costs.
Indirect costs of a workplace injury include
training and compensation, repairing
damaged equipment, scheduling delays,
lost productivity, and lower workplace
morale. The aftermath of the building
collapse in Bangladesh shows the ongoing
efforts needed to remedy safety issues
when they are not managed properly. More
than 200 factory inspections a month were
being conducted as a result of the collapse
but 12 months after the incident only a
quarter of garment factories in the country
had been inspected.
Measuring safety performance
There are several measures that can be
used to asses a company on its safety
performance:
•
Number of fatalities
•
Frequency of injuries
•Near-misses
•
Hours of safety training provided
• Evidence of management systems
and policies 
13
Safety matters/
section 3
Figure 1: Lost time incident rate
0.56
0.45
Consumer Discretionary
Consumer Staples
Industrials
Financials
Telecommunications
Utilities
Energy
Materials
Information Technology
Health Care
0.12
0.72
0.32
0.28
0.16
0.58
0.70
0.69
Source: Bloomberg data as of June 2014, lost time injury rate per 200,000 hours worked State
time period of chart and label Y axis.
Figure 2: Lost time industry frequency – company and contractors
(per million hours worked)
2.0
Contractor
Overall
Company
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: OGP; Safety Performance Indicators Report, June 2013.
2010
2011
2012
A common metric that we highlight here is
the lost time incident rate (LTIR). This metric
measures the number of incidents that
result in an employee losing time from
work per 200,000 hours worked (roughly
equivalent to 100 full-time employees).
Nearly 1,000 companies across the world
report the LTIR for the business which
allows for comparison across peers and
even industries. Figure 1 shows the lost
time incident rate by sector for the
companies in the MSCI World Index.
It is perhaps surprising to see consumer
companies with the highest lost time injury
rates but familiar injuries such as a back
strain explain many of the workplace
injuries. According to a 2011 study by
Liberty Mutual’s Research Institute for
Safety, overexertion such as lifting a heavy
object accounted for more than 25% of all
workplace injuries in the US by direct cost.
Most of these injuries are preventable and
eliminating them can drive productivity
gains and cost savings. The relatively low
LITR’s seen in intensive industries such as
energy and mining is a reflection of the
significant effort that these industries have
placed on improving safety during the last
decade and a testament that progress can
be made. Figure 2 from the International
Association of Oil & Gas Producers shows
the industry has cut the injury rate by more
than half during the last 10 years.
Linking the lost time injury rate metric to an
employee’s pay is a good mechanism for
driving improvement in safety. While it is
relatively uncommon for the highest level
executives to have compensation tied to
safety performance, though there are
exceptions, mid-level managers will often
have
safety
objectives
tied
to
compensation.
The LTIR metric is not without imperfections
as a tool for analysing safety performance.
This indicator is not often verified or audited
by a third party, so the accuracy of the data
14
ESG Matters | Issue 76
“
The LTIR is just one
of several factors that
AllianzGI ESG research
uses to assess the social
“
performance of a
company.
is subject to the diligence of the company.
Also, different countries have different
standards on reporting and classifying
whether an injury should be recorded. This
can make it difficult to collate a group rate
for a company that has operations in many
regions. However, as more companies
record and report this figure, the quality of
the information should continue to
improve.
The LTIR is just one of several factors that
AllianzGI ESG research uses to assess the
social performance of a company. Within
the social domain many indicators can be
qualitative by nature, whereas this metric
allows for quantitative measurement.
Materiality to the business and
measurability are just the type of
characteristics we like when generating
ESG ratings for our global universe of
companies. 
15
Women in the
Boardroom /
section 4
16
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Women in the Boardroom
– Why Europe is winning
the race
ACHIEVING DIVERSITY IN THE BOARDROOM IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE TO ALL
COMPANIES GLOBALLY. OUTSIDE OF EUROPE, THE PATH TO INCREASING DIVERSITY
IN THE BOARDROOM IS UNDENIABLY SLOW, REPORTS MARISSA BLANKENSHIP.
Marissa Blankenship
ESG Analyst,
London
But unlike the famous Aesop fable,
The Tortoise and the Hare, slow and
steady is unlikely to win the ‘race’.
With European states leading the way
in the form of quotas and the United
Kingdom
embracing
voluntary
targets, the rest of the world lacks
strategy and has failed to take enough
action to make a difference in
balancing the boardroom.
A further look at some of the leaders
shows that positive change has resulted from a combination of
quotas, voluntary targets, corporate governance codes and
shareholder activism. The laggards have demonstrated that historic
corporate governance structures as well as cultural norms can
create a significant barrier to achieving balanced boardrooms. This
includes the risk that reforms are not taken seriously and can lead to
tokenism which is neither good for business nor diversity.
Adding one is not enough
Based on analysis completed by governance specialist and proxy
voting house Glass Lewis in 2013, of 1,400 global companies and
15,500 board directors, 69% of companies have at least one female
director but at the current pace of change, it will take an astonishing
70 years to reach boardroom equality.1
Any discourse focused on adding one woman to the board is simply
not productive. To balance the boardroom, companies,
governments, and investors must raise awareness and set the bar
high. Taking Europe and the UK as models, the benchmark must be
at least 25% women’s representation on boards. Currently only
Norway, Sweden, Finland and France meet this benchmark but
Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are not far behind and recent
data from the UK also suggest that representation is now over 20%.
The leaders - Europe
Increasing diversity in Europe has largely taken effect due to changes
in legislation and the introduction of quotas. The trend began in
2005, when Norway amended the Norwegian Public Limited
Liabilities Act and implemented the 40% requirement for women on
boards. Companies which did not meet the requirement faced fines
or dissolution and companies who did not want to comply went
private.
Other European countries followed suit. Both France and Italy passed
quota legislation. Germany amended its corporate governance code
to encourage companies to respect diversity and consider women
when nominating directors. Subsequently Germany passed
legislation requiring 30% of supervisory boards to be women by
2016. Most recently, the European Union has considered adopting
quotas with a proposal of 30% representation by 2015 and 40% by
2020.
It is important to note that not all success in Europe has been driven
by quotas as Sweden (27% representation),2 Finland (26.8%
representation) , and the UK (20.7% representation) have done so
with a voluntary approach. In Sweden, the corporate governance
code recommends that companies strive for equal gender
distribution. The Finnish corporate govern­ance code 
17
Women in the
Boardroom/
section 4
Figure 1: Female board representation by country (2011-2013)
50%
2013
2012
2011
40%
30%
20%
Korea
Japan
Brazil
India
Australia
United Kingdom
United States
Canada
Italy
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
France
0%
Norway
10%
Source: Glass Lewis.
recommends the both genders should be
represent­ed on the board and companies
that fail must explain why.
In the UK, the balanced boards’ voluntary
approach has resulted that 20.7% of board
directors are women at FTSE 100
companies as of March 2014. The UK differs
from Europe in its push for women on
boards as the Department of Business,
Innovation & Skills (BIS), which is the UK
department for economic growth,
instituted the target programme in 2011.
While it is not completely free from political
pressure, it is driven from the perspective
that women on boards make good business
sense. In order to reach the 25% target, less
than 50 new appointments need to be
made to FTSE 100 boards by the end of
2015.3
tenure resulting in fewer turnovers in board
seats.
The biggest obstacle is the combined role
of Chair and CEO. Institutional Shareholder
Services (ISS) has analysed Annual General
Meetings (AGMs) from 2011-2014 with data
on 39,000 public companies and has found
that there are 4,405 separate companies
with a combined CEO and Chair. Of these
companies, 62.5% or 2,754 companies are
in the United States and only 2.8% or 78
companies are chaired by women. Figure 1
above further demonstrates that this type
of governance structure leads to restrictive
growth for women not only in the United
States but also in other countries including
the United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada and
South Korea.
The laggards - The United States, Japan,
India, and Brazil to name a few
Generally perceived to be behind its Euro­
pean competitors on all areas environ­
ment­al, social, or governance related, the
United States is in favour of voluntary
change, collective engagement or investor
pressure. Three major road­
blocks for
women to reach the boardroom exist in the
form of the high number of combined
Chair/CEO roles, large number of nonexecutive directors, and variable board
18
Japan – just off the blocks
Japan’s statistics are dismal and indicate
that change has not been a priority for
companies or shareholders. Of a sample of
447 companies, Japan only has 1.1% female
directors meaning that less than five
women serve on boards. In 2013 there
were not any shareholder resolutions
relating to board diversity yet 21% of
governance resolutions were related to
appointing more outside directors or
outside chairmen.4
It is curious that Japan has finally sought to
address this issue with the launch of the
Japan Stewardship Code in February 2014.
However, the code is not progressive
enough and even though Prime Minister
Abe has urged companies to promote more
women to executive roles, the language
dictates that business leaders set a target of
appointing at least one female executive at
each company. This is obviously an
enormous task but still falls far short of
what it will take to achieve balance both in
language and action.
India – Family matters
Japan could be at serious risk of falling into
the same trap which is plaguing India. India
currently sits at the lowest position
among­st its emerging market peers with
women occupying 4.7% of board seats.
Despite heavy corporate lobbying against a
quota system, India passed the Companies
Bill in December 2012 with the require­ment
that public companies must have at least
one woman director in place by October
2014. This was enacted to improve upon
the low level of women on boards with only
40% of companies on the National Stock
Exchange having at least one woman
director.
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Brazil – BOVESPA Bust?
In a much different light to Japan and India’s
tokenism, Brazil’s lack of diversity planning
almost appears to be an oversight. The
BM&FBOVESPA stock exchange has been
praised globally for its forward thinking and
for promoting the business case for
sustainability through the creation of the
Novo Mercado in December 2000. The
Novo Mercado is the elite listing board only
accessible to companies meeting a set of
voluntary best practice guidelines on
corporate governance which are more rigid
than current legislation requires.
However, these best practices do not
include a provision for diversity. In fact,
Brazil still has very low levels of women
directors being proposed to boards and
there is an absence of recommendations or
regulation on how to move diversity 
Figure 2: Percentage of women on the board where the CEO/chair are combined as of
March 2014 (number of companies in parenthesis)
France (160)
10%
Spain (51)
19%
22%
Italy (36)
37%
0 Women
31%
42%
Hong Kong (142)
44%
China (34)
44%
USA (2,754)
45%
2 Women
44%
3 Women
31%
UK (72)
71%
Brazil (44)
73%
Canada (751)
1 Women
35%
20%
6 Women
18%
88%
0%
5 Women
18%
77%
S. Korea (112)
4 Women
19%
12%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: ISS.
Figure 3: Percentage of women on the board in emerging markets (March 2014)
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
South
Africa
Turkey
China
Brazil
Indonesia Mexico
Russia
India
Source: Catalyst.org.
“
Positive change has
resulted from a combination
of quotas, voluntary targets,
“
The catch here is that the one woman
director does not need to be independent
and in order to comply with the deadline of
October 2014; companies have started to
add women to their boards who do not
bring expertise or have the necessary
qualifications. The most recent blatant
violation of the spirit of the law comes from
Reliance Industries where the chairman
Mukesh Ambani has just named his wife to
the board in order to meet the deadline.
corporate governance codes
and shareholder activism.
19
Women in the
Boardroom/
section 4
forward. The Senate has discussed a
compulsory quota of 40% but only for stateowned or mixed capital companies with
compliance by 2022. There is clearly room
for voluntary reform by adding additional
guidelines to the Novo Mercado which
currently has 165 companies in compliance.5
term corporate performance in order to
act. Active shareholders are one way in
which investors can vote and influence
what they believe is best for optimising
performance but this needs to be a widespread and concerted effort amongst
investors.
Conclusion
In order for the world to converge on this
issue, a top down voluntary framework by
governments and a bottom-up approach
from investors may be the most practical
way to encourage companies to place
qualified and committed women on
boards. Governments and companies that
are slow to change will miss opportunities
and are likely to be subject to greater risk
from a lack of diversity. Furthermore,
companies need to communicate and
share best practices with other companies
on what has changed and why action to
The race to increase diversity is indeed two
separate competitions. Europe is running a
marathon, committed for the long term
while the rest of the world is running a
sprint either setting up policies likely to
have a short life span or not starting the
race at all.
The lack of success in increasing diversity is
not completely down to governments how­
ever. Companies need evidence that board
diversity is essential to improving long-
20
make the boardroom look like modern
society is a valuable culture shift. 
1
Keantinge, Courteney and David Eaton,
“Mind the Gap, Board Gender Diversity in
2013,” Glass Lewis & Co. 2014.
2
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/
women-boards.
3
https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/women-on-boards-2014third-annual-review.
4
Keatinge, Courteney and David Eaton,
“Shareholder Proposals, An Overview of
the 2013 Proxy Season,” Glass Lewis & Co.,
2013.
5
http://www.bmfbovespa.com.br/en-us/
markets/equities/companies/corporategovernance.aspx?Idioma=en-us.
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Green bonds
/section 5
Fixed returns to fix the planet?
Putting ‘green’ bonds at the helm
of environmental financing
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY FIXED-INCOME MARKET IS IN ITS INFANCY,
BUT AS THE GREEN BOND TREND GAINS MOMENTUM IT MAY BE A SIGN OF
THINGS TO COME, WRITES ANGE-WILFRIED EZOUA.
Closing the environmental investment
gap
Ange-Wilfried Ezoua
Proxy Voting Officer,
Paris
In order to limit global warming to two
degrees, according to the International
Energy Agency, investments in low-carbon
energy technologies will need to at least
double, reaching US$500bn annually by
2020 and then double again to US$1trn by
20301.
There is already an international consensus
on the fact that transitioning to a lowcarbon and climate resilient economy will
require significant investment. However,
the funding largely exceeds the capability
of the public sector. Indeed, one of the
major barriers to the deployment of
technologies that would significantly
increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon
emissions and provide other environmental
benefits is lack of capital: corporates, 
21
Green bonds/
section 5
infrastructures and other projects have reduced access to traditional
finance given the financial crisis effect on the global financial sector.
This is a Herculean funding challenge of environmental initiatives
which lie ahead, but the truth is that governments lack the financial
resources to meet current and future requirements. The natural
solution is to attract private sector investment and debt capital
markets represent a key pool of assets that must be tapped – that’s
where an innovative funding stream is starting to make a difference;
welcome to the concept of Green bonds.
The Green Bond Principles recognize several broad
categories of potential eligible green bonds. The main
use of proceeds categories include:
One color, different shades
Green bonds are fixed-income securities issued by governments,
supranational institutions or corporations in order to raise capital
that is used exclusively to support projects with specific
environmental benefits. They can be asset-backed securities tied to
specific green infrastructure projects or plain vanilla treasury-style
bonds issued to raise capital that will be allocated across a portfolio
of green projects. They don’t expose holders to any specific risk
related to funded projects and are issued with the same yield and
risk as the issuer’s traditional bonds.
There is some debate on defining exactly what green really is, but
beyond these differences issuers and investors have converged on a
set of products they agree can constitute an emerging space. Within
this scope, one can find projects based on their contribution to
emissions mitigation, which might include a variety of investments
in, for instance, energy efficiency retrofitting, alternative energy or
transit infrastructure, or business development for green
technologies, which have the intended impact. But others may
define the concept of being green as being beyond emissions
mitigation, and include issues such as conservation and sustainable
agriculture.
The great quest for the universally accepted green bond definition
picked up steam this year with the introduction of the Green Bonds
Principles in early 2014 by a coalition of leading investment banks
including Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and HSBC. They outline a
voluntary process that aids issuers launch credible green bonds,
ensure investors had the necessary information to evaluate the
environmental impact of their investments and assist underwriters
by moving towards standardized disclosure requirements.
“Now it’s up to the market to determine how green an issuer’s green
bond is” said Marilyn Ceci, Managing Director at JPMorgan, who coauthored these Principles. The market reacted positively as the
Principles are likely to drive volume, but their implementation would
need to be clearly monitored to see if issuers meet the expectations
they have established.
22
•
Renewable energy.
•
Energy efficiency (including efficient buildings).
•
Sustainable waste management.
•
Sustainable land use (including sustainable
forestry and agriculture).
•
Biodiversity conservation.
•
Clean transportation.
•
Clean water and/or drinking water.
Market at a glance
Seven years after being developed by the World Bank and the
European Investment Bank, a record US$16.6bn of green bonds have
been issued to-date in 2014, vs. US$10.9bn last year2.
At the last World Economic Forum in Davos, World Bank Group
President Jim Yong Kim called for a doubling of the global market for
green bonds to US$20bn by September 2014.
Issuance has begun to spread from supranational organizations.
With growing investor demand, there is also growing numbers of
issuers setting up programs to meet the demand, ranging from
development banks to local authorities, corporates and utilities: the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts even issued the first municipal
green bond last year, while the largest green bonds to date was
issued by a corporate, GDF Suez, which printed a US$3.4bn
transaction that smashed the US$1.9bn previous record set by
Electricite de France.
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Keep in mind that whatever the actual market size is, it is probably
growing rapidly. The multiple issues and reissues by institutions
suggest that both the issuers and investors are generally satisfied
with green bonds as an investment vehicle, while common
oversubscription is indicative of growth in demand among investors
and increased confidence in the products by issuers.
The appeal for institutional investors
For investors concerned about climate change, the opportunity to
invest in bonds that meet their existing yield and risk requirements
“
All stakeholders should have an
eye on green bonds evolution, in the
“
The Climate Bond Initiative, a UK-based not-for-profit working at
mobilizing the bond market for climate change solutions, made a
first estimate of the global bond market size linked to key climate
change themes. It found a US$346bn outstanding universe where
low-carbon transport and energy sectors account for the bulk of
issuance3. There is the potential to fund a variety of projects outside
of a common conception of climate projects, matching investor
demand for both refinancing of existing assets and new assets.
hope that they lead to a new era of
environmental financing.
while also addressing green issues is generally seen as attractive.
Internationally, this investor pool is large.
Institutional investors – such as pension funds, mutual funds,
insurance companies and sovereign wealth funds – fear the risks of
environmental issues that increase uncertainty and as such need to
be proactively managed. This leads to greater integration of
environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues into investment
decision-making to signal commitment to stakeholders ranging
from policymakers to clients. Therefore they appear as the natural
market for high-quality-credit, green bond investment 
23
Green bonds/
section 5
opportunities. The interest for these bonds
goes well beyond the scope of responsible
investors. Not so much because they are
green, but because they position themselves
as long-term financial instruments with
inflation protection and providing attractive
returns that match their long-term liabilities,
as any regular bond.
Whereas institutional investors initially
played the main role in the early days of
supranational issuance, that has changed
over the past year and investment
managers have now taken over as the
market’s largest investor group.
Green bonds also appeal to retail investors,
albeit on a much smaller scale. Households
may not be directly managing these funds,
but they can raise their voice and set
guidelines for the institutional investors who
manage their wealth. The World Bank has
already targeted this market with green
bonds tailored for Japanese individual
investors on the Uridashi bond market.
Bonds are ideal for financing the long-term
environmental infrastructures required to
build a low-carbon, climate resilient
economy. They can provide a constant
stream of capital over long term periods,
allowing projects on a large scale to be
launched and kept afloat before they
become profitable; while also giving
Why painting bonds in green?
Figure 1: Historical green bond issuance (US$bn)
60
Cumulative amount outstanding
50
Issued per year
40
30
20
10
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance - Green Bonds Market Outlook 2014 - As of June 2014.
Figure 2: Disclosed use of proceeds by bank (US$Bn)
40
30
World Bank (IFC & IBRD)
European Investment Bank (EIB)
African Development Bank (AfDB)
20
10
0
Climate
change
Energy
efficiency
Forestry
Renewable
energy
Transmission
Transport
Water
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance - Green Bonds Market Outlook 2014 - As of June 2014.
24
investors the long-term returns that they
are looking for and fulfilling their desire to
improve their green credentials.
As growing consciousness of environment
and reputation enhancement become
investment criteria, this is a remarkable
opportunity for green bonds to capture
significant amounts of capital from the
international bond market, valued at
around US$100trn4. It suggests a
competitive advantage for green bonds
over traditional ones coming from the
satisfaction of knowing investment
proceeds will be used in a positive manner.
Furthermore, investors are extending the
integration of sustainability factors beyond
listed equities into other asset classes,
creating appetite for bonds linked to
climate change. Green bonds allow
investors’ money to be directly invested in
environment-friendly projects rather than a
whole company. This is quite an advantage
given that company-level equity metrics
such as ESG scores have limited ability to
determine what a bond is financing and
whether it has an environmental impact.
Then investors can easily integrate
environmental initiatives into their
portfolios, notably with a structure identical
to traditional treasury-style bonds. This
means green bonds can fit into existing
asset structures and boost environmental
responsibility profiles without requiring
additional effort.
First things first, get standards! Investors
need to be assured that green bond funds
are genuinely being invested in green
assets. That will depend on clear and
coherent definitions of green and on
verification and monitoring systems being
in place. Until now, issuers have been wellknown, trusted names, but as the market
grows one expects the third-party
certification to become the norm. The
hope is that once standards are in place and
ESG Matters | Issue 8
broadly endorsed, investors can be assured that green bonds from
the private sector really are green and not just “green washed,” that
part of the market will get a boost.
The way the green bond market is defined impacts the types of
projects supported and the ability of the instrument to narrow the
environmental investment gap. These standards would de facto
help to consolidate the market by identifying unlabelled bonds for
projects that are not specifically tagged as green but which qualify
as such since they have a beneficial impact on environment –
therefore enabling market liquidity.
To succeed in providing the massive amounts of financing required
green bonds will have to participate in leveraging the power of the
market by targeting the majority of investors, profit could be the
incentive bringing investors to the table. Institutional investors have
a responsibility to clients meaning that the top priority is to maximize
their risk-adjusted returns. If it is in their financial interests to go
green, they will do so, but only to the degree that stakeholder
pressure and profitability concerns dictate. Hopefully, green bond
issuances to-date demonstrate that investors do not have to sacrifice
yield to invest in assets and projects that support climate change
mitigation and adaptation efforts.
The development of this new market demonstrates that this is truly a
green bonds ecosystem that is emerging around this market. As
evidence, the launch in March 2014 of the first index to offer
exposure to green bonds, the “Solactive Green Bond” index should
improve access for passive and small investors, should open up
development opportunities for ETFs and structured products using
the index as the underlying for a capital-return product in order to
maintain the green theme throughout the whole structure of a
product.
Finally, Governments can help setting in place policy and regulatory
frameworks that provide guarantees, tax incentives, a secure
environment for environmental initiatives and support public/
private issuance of green bonds that lead to market development.
Bottom line
The green bond market seems poised to accelerate in growth as an
attractive theme bond to investors looking for secure returns in a
time of volatile equity markets.
Time will help in building a robust track record required to support
the creditworthiness of potential bonds and attract mainstream
institutional capital.
All stakeholders should have an eye on green bonds evolution, in the
hope that they lead to a new era of environmental financing. The
best is yet to come.
1
Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 – International Energy Agency.
2
Green Bonds market outlook 2014 – Bloomberg new energy finance.
3
Bonds and Climate change state of the market in 2013 – Climate
Bond Initiative and HSBC.
4
Bond Markets 2012 - TheCityUK.
25
AllianzGI and
ESG /
section 6
Allianz Global Investors
and ESG
At Allianz Global Investors, we have a longstanding commitment towards sustain­
ability, dating back to 1999, recognizing
that sustainability issues have the potential
to materially impact the performance of
our investee companies. Our commitment
to sustainability is integrated with the work
of our parent company, Allianz SE, with
whom we jointly run a Group ESG Board.
The importance of sustainability to Allianz
Global Investors is demonstrated through
our:
•
•
26
Dedicated ESG team. Allianz Global
Investors maintains a team of 10 ESG
specialists who are wholly committed
to providing proprietary ESG research
and supporting our proxy voting
activities. This team has been in place
since 2000.
Holistic approach. We believe in an
integrated approach with involvement
upstream, through involvement in
industry-wide
initiatives,
and
downstream, through individual
company engagement. This involve­
ment complements our proprietary
security-specific ESG research to form
the cornerstone of our ESG
proposition.
•
Dedicated ESG strategies. We operate
dedicated SRI (sustainable and
responsible investment) strategies
across the asset class spectrum,
including equity, fixed income, multiasset and money market funds, with
combined assets under management
or advisement of over EUR 23 billion.
What we do
We believe that the analysis of ESG factors
provides vital input in analysing potential
security-specific investment risks. Our
commitment to fundamental analysis is
underlined by the importance we place on
sustainability criteria. We believe that
through consideration of sustainability
criteria, our clients will be rewarded with
enhanced investment performance, while
also contributing to creating a more stable,
sustainable market and society. As such, all
our investment staff have access to our ESG
research through our proprietary research
database.
In order to add true and lasting value, we
are committed to engaging on ESG issues
across the entire investment process, from
industry-wide initiatives through to
company research and engagement. This
holistic approach aims to support our core
business purpose of generating long-term
returns for our clients, and is fully aligned
with our commitment as signatories to the
UN Principles for Responsible Investment.
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Global ESG team
Bozena Jankowska*
David Diamond
Global Co-Head of ESG
Global Co-Head of ESG
ESG Research
Engagement and Proxy Voting
ESG Research
Engagement** and Proxy Voting
Marissa Blankenship
Verity Chegar*
Ioannis Papassavvas
Analyst
Analyst
Analyst
European Proxy Voting Officer
London
London
San Francisco
Frankfurt
Marie-Sybille Connan
Mathilde Moulin
Henrike Kulmann*
Rainer Sauer*
Analyst
Analyst
Analyst
European Proxy Voting Officer
Paris
Paris
Hong Kong
Frankfurt
Jeremy Kent, CFA
* Partial Proxy Voting responsibilities.
**ESG Research also responsible for implementing AllianzGI’s engagement strategy.
Source: AllianzGI, as at 30 June 2014.
We seek to integrate ESG considerations
into the investment process in the following
ways:
•
•
Upstream: participating in corporate
or multi-stakeholder initiatives and
investor networks to bring about
more
sustainable
government
policies, financial markets and
corporate practices.
Investing: identifying and understand­
ing, through proprietary research, the
financial impact of ESG factors on
investments and acting on this in our
investment decisions.
• Downstream: demonstrating active
share ownership for improved
corporate governance and ESG
performance of investee companies
through proxy voting and engage­
ment.
ESG Matters
ESG Matters is the flagship publication of
our ESG team. Here, we draw on the insight
of our ESG team in an attempt to highlight
some of the most topical ESG trends of the
quarter.
Our team
As mentioned, we maintain a Global ESG
team consisting of 10 dedicated ESG
analysts, some of whom also have
overlapping proxy voting responsibilities.
The team was founded in 1999 and is jointly
led by Bozena Jankowska, who is primarily
responsible for ESG research, and David
Diamond, who is primarily responsible for
engagement and proxy voting.
Each analyst on the team specialises in a
specific sector recognizing the different
ESG characteristics of different sectors. In
practice, this means they have the in-depth
knowledge necessary to identify and track
key ESG matters impacting the issuers in
their sectors. This approach also ensures
we are not overly reliant on external
research providers and sell-side brokers,
enabling us to generate independent and
differentiated insights into ESG topics
ahead of the market.
With ESG analysts based in London, Paris,
San Francisco and Hong Kong, the Global
ESG team’s global footprint allows us to
examine ESG factors from a regional as well
as a sector-specific perspective, accounting
for cultural ESG differences.
In turn, these geographical and sectorspecific insights feed into our holistic ESG
approach, influencing our research,
engagement approach and also our
positions on ESG initiatives.
27
AllianzGI and
ESG/section 6
Please find below biographies of the
contributors to this edition of ESG Matters:
Marissa Blankenship
ESG Analyst
Ange-Wilfried Ezoua
Proxy Voting Officer
Bozena Jankowska
Global Co-Head of ESG
Marissa Blankenship is an ESG analyst with
Allianz Global Investors, which she joined in
2011. As a member of the firm’s
Environmental, Social and Governance
(ESG) team, she is responsible for
conducting sustainability research on the
financial sector. Marissa has 13 years of
investment-industry experience. Before
joining the firm, she worked as an associate
in the equity-strategies group at Hall Capital
Management. Ms. Blankenship also
conducted sustainability research on a wide
range of sectors, companies and funds at
Truestone Impact Investment Management
and Incofin Investment Management. She
has a B.S. in economics from the University
of California, Davis and a master’s in Latin
American economic development from the
University of London. Marissa holds the IMC
designation.
Ange-Wilfried Ezoua serves as Proxy Voting
Officer with Allianz Global Investors, which
he joined in 2013. As a corporate governance
specialist, Ange works on policy develop­
ment and process management for proxy
voting on behalf of the firm and its clients,
and, engagement with French issuers with a
focus on governance-related themes. Prior
to this role, he gained experience in listed
equity
investment
strategies
and
investment advisory services. Ange holds an
MSc in Financial Markets from Toulouse
Business School, France.
Bozena Jankowska is based in London and is
responsible for running ESG research
globally. This involves the ongoing evolution
of Allianz Global Investors’ ESG research and
thought leadership relating to strategy and
process at a global level. Bozena is Chair of
the UKSIF Analyst Committee and also sits
on the UKSIF Leadership Committee. She
also represents Allianz Global Investors on
the Cambridge Sustainability Leaders
Investment Leader­
ship Group (ILG)
programme.
Henrike Kulmann
ESG Analyst
Henrike Kulmann is an ESG analyst with
Allianz Global Investors, which she joined in
2011. She is a member of the Asia Pacific
Environmental, Social and Governance
(ESG) research team and is responsible for
ESG stock analysis, engagement and proxy
voting. Ms. Kulmann has three years of
investment-industry experience and six
years of overall experience in the ESG field.
She previously worked at Deutsche Post
DHL in environmental-strategy manage­
ment and corporate-responsibility evalua­
tion. Ms. Kulmann has an M.A. in political
science, with a focus on business
communication and economics, from
Friedrich Schiller University of Jena,
Germany.
Jeremy Kent
ESG Analyst
Jeremy serves as back-up portfolio manager
for the Global Sustainability strategy and is
an ESG analyst responsible for covering
Industrials. Jeremy joined AllianzGI in 2008
through the graduate programme, starting
an 18 month rotation of roles within the
company which include investment
management and research analysis. Jeremy
graduated from California State University
in 2007 with a BA in Entrepreneurial
Management. Jeremy is a CFA charterholder
and holds the IMC designation.
Biographies
28
ESG Matters | Issue 8
Disclaimer
Investing involves risk. The value of an investment and the income from it will fluctuate and
investors may not get back the principal invested. Past performance is not indicative of future
performance. This is a marketing communication. It is for informational purposes only. This
document does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold
any security and shall not be deemed an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any
security.
The views and opinions expressed herein, which are subject to change without notice, are
those of the issuer or its affiliated companies at the time of publication. Certain data used are
derived from various sources believed to be reliable, but the accuracy or completeness of the
data is not guaranteed and no liability is assumed for any direct or consequential losses
arising from their use. The duplication, publication, extraction or transmission of the contents,
irrespective of the form, is not permitted.
This material has not been reviewed by any regulatory authorities. In mainland China, it is
used only as supporting material to the offshore investment products offered by commercial
banks under the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investors scheme pursuant to applicable
rules and regulations.
This document is being distributed by the following Allianz Global Investors companies:
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC); Allianz Global Investors Europe GmbH, an investment company
in Germany, authorized by the German Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
(BaFin); Allianz Global Investors Hong Kong Ltd. and RCM Asia Pacific Ltd., licensed by the
Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission; Allianz Global Investors Singapore Ltd.,
regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [Company Registration No. 199907169Z];
and Allianz Global Investors Japan Co., Ltd., registered in Japan as a Financial Instruments
Business Operator; Allianz Global Investors Korea Ltd., licensed by the Korea Financial Services
Commission; and Allianz Global Investors Taiwan Ltd., licensed by Financial Supervisory
Commission in Taiwan.
29
Telephone: 0800 317 573
14-1764 | August 2014
Allianz Global Investors Europe GmbH, UK Branch
199 Bishopsgate
London
EC2M 3TY
www. allianzgi.co.uk