Category Archives: Esg

Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2023

Paradice Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2023

After having published our inaugural Climate Action Plan (CAP) in late 2022, we have prepared a progress report on the first full year of implementation of our multi-year plan.

Following the structure of our CAP, across the three pillars of Governance, Investments and Stewardship & Advocacy, we provide an update on the status of activities intended for completion or commencement in CY2023. We also share some highlights from our climate-related stewardship efforts.

Read the Report here

Disclaimer:

This material (or any contribution to it) is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including legal, tax or investment advice or security recommendation) of any kind.  It is of a general nature only and was current only at the time of initial publication. The information and opinions contained herein are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents.  It may contain certain forward looking statements, opinions and projections that are based on the assumptions and judgments of Paradice with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond the control of Paradice. Because of the significant uncertainties inherent in these assumptions, opinions and judgments, you should not place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. You should consider your own needs and objectives and consult with a licensed financial adviser. For the avoidance of doubt, any such forward looking statements, opinions, assumptions and/or judgments made by Paradice may not prove to be accurate or correct.  References to securities may or may not represent the holdings of the Paradice Funds.  The content of this publication is current as at the date of its publication and is subject to change at any time. It does not reflect any events or changes in circumstances occurring after the date of publication.

Paradice publishes summary stewardship report for 2023

Paradice publishes stewardship summary report for 2023

We’re pleased to publish our second report summarising the Australian equities teams’ stewardship-related activity undertaken in 2023. This includes ESG-related engagement with investee companies, how we exercised our voting rights, and highlights from our advocacy and collaborative efforts.

Collectively in 2023, the Australian equities teams held 167 ESG-related engagements with 71 companies. Transition risks relating to climate change dominated engagement during the year, with a total of 109 engagements on this topic. The next most common topic was environmental management, with 48 engagements. The report not only provides key statistics but offers some insights into how we engage at both a company level and through topic-specific programs through case study examples.

We also lay out some key statistics around this year’s voting activity, and highlight some actions taken with respect to advocacy and our participation in collaborative investor initiatives. 

Read the Paradice Annual Stewardship Summary here

Disclaimer:

This material is prepared by Paradice Investment Management Pty Ltd (ABN 64 090 148 619, AFSL No. 224158) (“Paradice”, “we” or “us”).

This material is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including investment advice or security, market or sector recommendations) of any kind.

This material is not to be copied, reproduced or published at any time without the prior written consent of Paradice.

The information herein is intended to provide an indication of the engagement activity undertaken by the investment teams responsible for managing Australian equities. The material presented contains information derived from the various portfolios managed by Paradice, including, but not limited to, Paradice Australian Equities Fund (ARSN 617 679 071), Paradice Australian Mid Cap Fund (ARSN 620 055 138), Paradice Australian Small Cap Fund (ARSN 620 056 091), Paradice Equity Alpha Plus Fund (ARSN 631 044 678), and Paradice Australian Small Cap Opportunities Fund (ARSN 667 664 137) (together “the Paradice Funds”).  

Equity Trustees Limited (“Equity Trustees”) (ABN 46 004 031 298), AFSL 240975, is the Responsible Entity for the Paradice Funds.  Equity Trustees is a subsidiary of EQT Holdings Limited (ABN 22 607 797 615), a publicly listed company on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX: EQT).

The information and opinions contained herein, including information obtained from third party sources which are considered to be reliable, are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents.

Any specific securities identified herein are not representative of all securities purchased, sold, or recommended by Paradice.

In addition, the information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general and educational purposes only.

In preparing this material we did not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any particular person. It is not intended to take the place of professional advice and you should not take action on specific issues in reliance on this information. Neither Paradice, Equity Trustees nor any of its related parties, their employees or directors, provide and warranty of accuracy or reliability in relation to such information or accepts any liability to any person who relies on it. Past performance should not be taken as an indicator of future performance. You should obtain a copy of the Product Disclosure Statement for any relevant Paradice Fund before making a decision about whether to invest in the product.

The Target Market Determinations for the Paradice Funds are available here: https://paradice.com/au/investor-centre/. A Target Market Determination is a document which is required to be made available from 5 October 2021. It describes who this financial product is likely to be appropriate for (i.e. the target market), and any conditions around how the product can be distributed to investors. It also describes the events or circumstances where the Target Market Determination for this financial product may need to be reviewed.

ESG considerations may vary across investments, and not every ESG factor may be identified or evaluated for every investment. There is no guarantee that the evaluation of ESG characteristics will be additive to a strategy’s performance. ESG is not a uniformly-defined characteristic and information used to evaluate ESG characteristics may not be readily available, complete, or accurate, and may vary across providers and issuers. Because of the subjective nature of ESG assessment, there can be no guarantee that ESG factors considered will reflect the beliefs or values of any particular client / investor.

The services described may not be suitable for or offered to all investors and investors should consult with an investment advisor to determine the appropriate investment strategy. All investments carry a certain risk, and there is no assurance that an investment, strategy, or approach will provide positive performance over any period of time. There is no guarantee that an investment in any strategy offered has or will be profitable. Strategies are actively managed and subject to change. Additional important risk disclosures can be found here for Paradice https://www.paradice.com/au/terms-conditions/

Any forecasts or estimates contained in this publication are not guaranteed. It is of a general nature only and was current only at the time of initial publication.

Paradice publishes inaugural stewardship report

Paradice publishes inaugural stewardship report

We’re pleased to publish our first report summarising the Australian Equities teams’ stewardship-related activity undertaken in 2022. This includes ESG-related engagement with investee companies, how we exercised our voting rights, and highlights from our advocacy and collaborative efforts.

After enhancing the way we structure and track engagements related to ESG issues, 2022 was the first full year of implementation. These changes enabled improved collection of data around the number of meetings, seniority of attendees, and granularity on the topics discussed.

Collectively in 2022, the Australian Equities teams held 137 ESG-related engagements with 65 companies. Transition risks relating to climate change dominated engagement during the year, with a total of 88 engagements on this topic. The next most common topic was human capital management, with 39 engagements. The report not only provides key statistics but offers some insights into how we engage at both a company level and through topic-specific programs through case study examples.

We also lay out some key statistics around this year’s voting activity, and highlight some actions taken with respect to advocacy and our participation in collaborative investor initiatives. For example, we support group engagement with four companies as a participant in Climate Action 100+.

Read the Paradice Annual Stewardship Summary here

Disclaimer:

This material (or any contribution to it) is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including legal, tax or investment advice or security recommendation) of any kind.  It is of a general nature only and was current only at the time of initial publication. The information and opinions contained herein are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents.  It may contain certain forward looking statements, opinions and projections that are based on the assumptions and judgments of Paradice with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond the control of Paradice. Because of the significant uncertainties inherent in these assumptions, opinions and judgments, you should not place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. You should consider your own needs and objectives and consult with a licensed financial adviser. For the avoidance of doubt, any such forward looking statements, opinions, assumptions and/or judgments made by Paradice may not prove to be accurate or correct.  References to securities may or may not represent the holdings of the Paradice Funds.  The content of this publication is current as at the date of its publication and is subject to change at any time. It does not reflect any events or changes in circumstances occurring after the date of publication.

Understanding the human side of cyber resilience to mitigate risk

Understanding the human side of cyber resilience to mitigate risk

With cyberattacks and data breaches dominating news headlines since high profile incidents have impacted the likes of Optus and Medibank Private, investors are scrutinising the cyber practices of listed companies. Many are asking questions such as whether IT systems are up to scratch, what kind of sensitive data is held, and how capable are board directors in overseeing this rapidly evolving risk.

These are all valid questions to ask of companies. However there are a number of human capital and social related elements of cyber resilience which warrant greater consideration by companies and investors alike. One thing we know when it comes to cyber security is that the best IT systems and processes are still not enough to stop a cyberattack or data breach. We also know that protection is only part of the story when it comes to resilience – the way a company responds to an incident is just as important.

Human elements are integral to a company’s overall cyber resilience and its ability to limit potential financial impacts from an event – in particular, company actions which shape employees’ behaviour before and after an incident, as well as having a response plan informed by a customer-first mindset.

Company and investor approaches to cyber resilience should look beyond specific cyber capabilities and IT systems, and extend to human capital and customer management practices. In this piece, we outline five factors which we believe play an under-appreciated role. Companies can mitigate risk by seeking to address these, while investors can better protect returns by including these in their cyber resilience assessments.

Pre-empting human error

It is important to not lose sight of how influential human error is enabling cyberattacks or data breaches. In its 2022 Global Risks Report, the World Economic Forum cited studies which found that up to 95% of cybersecurity issues can be traced back to mistakes made by people. Mistakes often relate to employees falling victim to phishing campaigns or other social engineering practices deployed by attackers, but can also include failure to properly secure credentials or equipment, mistakenly emailing or publishing information, as well as staff not realising they should not install certain applications on personal devices.

This reinforces the need for companies to carefully consider how to most effectively allocate capital and resources to cyber and data security. While investment in adequate IT systems is essential, this should be complemented by employee-focused initiatives targeted at reducing the likelihood of human error. This includes allocating resources to training and awareness building, as well as efforts to develop a cyber-aware culture amongst the workforce.

More effective training and awareness programs are regular; tailored as relevant to different business divisions, noting some teams will need deeper or more technical training; and as engaging as possible. Education on the proper collection and storage of personal data in the context of privacy laws will be expected for many businesses.

With respect to developing a cyber-aware workplace, leadership teams should be conscious of how they can set the tone from the top, recognising that this can shape employee behaviour.  While staff should be expected to adhere to cyber policies and procedures, it is inevitable honest mistakes will occur. Leadership teams that demonstrate an acknowledgement that anyone can make a mistake could help avoid an individual delaying action in the event of a breach due to a fear of punishment. It is ultimately in a company’s interest for employees to feel comfortable enough to admit a mistake as soon as possible and alert necessary parties.

Fostering an inclusive company culture

Human capital management strategies targeted at fostering a more inclusive company culture, which are often already in place at listed companies for other reasons such as employee engagement and retention, are also relevant to maintaining robust cyber and data controls. This should further strengthen the business case for such initiatives at companies looking to boost cyber resilience.

Inclusion is linked to more engaged employees. In our experience, staff which are engaged and find their respective employers a great place to work are going to be more motivated to act in the company’s best interests. This includes being more attentive to training and awareness and more inclined to act with greater care on cyber and data matters, in order to reduce potential harms to the business.

Cyber resilience is also enhanced by employees who speak up – whether this is to raise a concern about a weakness in cyber or data protections, or to come forward with new ideas about improving a process. Inclusion is an important driver of the settings in which staff feel confident in coming forward.

Incentivising the right behaviours

While it can be a tricky path to navigate, disincentivising poor cyber-related behaviour and rewarding good practices has an impact on a company’s overall resilience. As mentioned above, with so many breaches being tied back to actions taken by individuals, proactively seeking to shape staff performance in this area is important and incentives provide a means to do so.

Incentives do not necessarily need to be as formal as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for executives, although in some cases this will be appropriate. Good “cyber hygiene” and practices can be rewarded in other ways, such as positive acknowledgement in staff communications or prizes.

At times, it will be appropriate to hold individuals to account through disciplinary action in instances where they have breached cyber security policies and put the company at risk through negligent behaviour. Finding a balanced way to communicate internally that accountability does exist for non-compliance (while accepting honest mistakes occur) can drive staff to take cyber seriously and maintain familiarity with policies and procedures.

Unlocking agile collaboration

In the event of a cyberattack or significant data breach, the response and recovery can significantly influence the operational disruption and potential financial impacts a company faces. In the wake of Optus and Medibank, many companies will rightly be looking to develop or strengthen their response plan. Some may even be looking to run simulation exercises or undertake tests of their systems.

A large focus of any response and recovery plan should undeniably be on the technical aspects of understanding the extent of a breach, securing and recovering systems, and strengthening IT security, as well as complying with any regulatory requirements. However, we believe companies should also be factoring into plans how they will unlock agile collaboration across relevant business units in crisis settings. This kind of mobilisation of people and internal expertise at short notice requires pre-planning and practice.

Companies will need to consider how the incident or breach intersects with each and every team or business unit and consider developing a cross-function response team with relevant representatives. From past incidents, we’ve learned that impacted companies have had the effectiveness of their response and recovery reduced  due to internal siloes remaining, and individual roles and responsibilities being unclear. In a time of crisis, problem solving and execution can be strengthened by collaboration, such as between IT and cyber security, senior leadership, customer-facing teams, and the key contact personnel for regulators and media. If in the course of ordinary business forums to bring these functions together don’t exist, it is unlikely rapid mobilisation and an agile cross-business response will be able to occur without dedicated preparation as part of cyber resilience planning.

It is worth reiterating that each cyberattack or data breach will play out differently, whether this is in how the event occurs in the first place or the environment in which the company must respond and recover. Information will be fluid, stakeholder reactions will be varied, and the cyber criminals may have different motivations, making it challenging to pre-empt. This all reinforces the need for companies – in order to support an orderly response and to mitigate reputational damage – to proactively create the settings in which agile collaboration can occur, and that all relevant personnel are included and have clear responsibilities.

Proactively developing a customer-centric communications and remediation plan

A communications and remediation plan will support stakeholder management and mitigate reputational damage which have the potential to translate into financial impacts. High profile cyberattacks on corporates have demonstrated that in many ways a poor communications plan can cause more harm than the operational disruption or initial reputational damage from the event itself.

In our view, a superior communications and remediation plan is one that puts customers first, subject to any legal requirements or advice from relevant authorities. In these situations there is strong alignment between the interests of a company’s customers and its investors. If the company puts customers at the heart of any communications and remediation plan, shareholder value will be better protected.

Proactive planning can help companies to most effectively keep customers informed of developments in the wake of an incident, at a time when there is heightened customer stress and media scrutiny. Companies should consider how they can stay on top of direct communications with customers and have internal plans to brief customer-facing teams in a timely manner. The more customers feel they have insufficient information or that they hear new information through the media, the more this may place stress on customer service teams dealing with a surge in inbound calls. Long wait times to connect to call centres or service representatives being unsure of reported developments and support available will only further exacerbate negative experiences for customers.

Messaging and services offered to customers should also be cognisant that for many, any breach of personal information could cause significant stress and in some cases compromise safety. While some people are not concerned about generic personally identifiable information being leaked, for others even information such as an address – let alone medical history or passport details – can be highly sensitive, for example domestic violence survivors or police. For this reason, communications should acknowledge customers as the victim and be informed by the varied potential reactions and impacts across the customer base.

Companies would also be well served by putting in place a framework outlining what kinds of support or compensation might be available  in the event of an incident. Not only should this assist in managing customer relations, but it could also mitigate potential class action risks. Examples of financial compensation we have seen to date include reimbursing the cost of ID replacement, waiving service charges for a period, and paying for credit monitoring subscriptions. Other forms of support include provision of counselling, cyber security resources, personal duress alarms for particularly vulnerable customers, and dedicated customer apps and hotlines.

Conclusion

People (employees and customers) are integral in shaping a company’s overall cyber resilience and its ability to limit potential financial impacts from an event through a well-managed response. While it is essential that companies (and their investors) reflect whether IT systems, policies and procedures, and cyber capabilities are adequate, we encourage greater consideration of how these aspects of cyber resilience intersect with human capital and social related factors.

In our own assessments of investee companies’ cyber resilience, Paradice is working to more deeply understand this rapidly evolving space and take a holistic approach in determining the appropriateness of company controls. This includes looking at the five factors mentioned above and encouraging due consideration of such practices when engaging with companies on cyber resilience.

 

By Maddy Dwyer & Julia Weng

Disclaimer:

This information is prepared by Paradice Investment Management Pty Ltd (ABN 64 090 148 619, AFSL No. 224158). This material (or contribution to it) is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including legal, tax or investment advice or security recommendation) of any kind. It may contain certain opinions that are based on the assumptions and judgments of Paradice which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and are beyond the control of Paradice. Because of the significant uncertainties inherent in these assumptions, opinions and judgments, you should not place undue reliance on this information. The information and opinions contained herein, including information obtained from third party sources which are considered to be reliable, are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents. The content of this publication is current as at the date of its publication and is subject to change at any time. It does not reflect any events or changes in circumstances occurring after the date of publication. This material is not to be distributed and must not be copied, reproduced, published, disclosed or passed to any other person at any time without the prior written consent of Paradice.

Copyright © 2022 Paradice.

All the Rage: ESG and the Inevitable Backlash

All the rage: ESG and the inevitable backlash

If you’ve been reading the business pages lately you would be forgiven for thinking that ESG investing – or Environmental, Social and Governance investing – is in the midst of a backlash. Depending on who you ask, this has either been a long time coming or it is an unfair characterisation of a part of the finance industry which is increasingly mainstream. In this month’s newsletter, we thought it would be helpful to demystify ESG (and terms like responsible and sustainable investing which are also used interchangeably) and outline how ESG fits in to investment management at Paradice.  

ESG and responsible investing – what’s the difference? 

Responsible investment or investing is best thought of as an umbrella term for investment strategies which consider ESG-related factors including associated activities such as long-term investing, engagement and voting. Confusingly, though, terms which refer to a specific investment strategy will be used interchangeably with ‘responsible investment’, or ‘ESG’ will be used as a catch-all, adding to lack of clarity on its meaning. 

We find it helpful to think of ESG as an information set (relating to environmental, social or corporate governance matters) which can be variously applied within different investment strategies, depending on an investor’s priorities. For example, in many cases an investor’s focus is to generate risk-adjusted returns. In this case ESG information will be relevant where it may affect a company’s earnings, reputation or liabilities, or other such financially material impacts. A key question in this approach is how does the ESG issue impact the company? 

However, for some investors, they may have additional considerations they would like included in investment decision making. Whether this is motivated by religious beliefs, personal preference or a sense of social responsibility (i.e. values), these investors will look for financial products which in some shape or form limit the investment universe ultimately through the use of ESG-related information. This can be achieved by using such information to either avoid certain types of investments (e.g. products identified as causing social harm such as tobacco), or to actively seek out investments that meet certain characteristics (e.g. a company offering climate solutions or a company whose operations are best-in-class). In contrast to the above, the key question is how does the company impact society or the environment?

Key responsible investment strategies 

The most common strategy in this area is ‘ESG Integration’ and refers to the consideration of financially material ESG factors – both risks and opportunities – within the investment process. The key criteria being that the ESG information is financially material – if it isn’t, it will largely be ignored in investment decision making. For instance, even though climate change may present risks for many companies (and some investors may rightly want to be part of the solution), an investment manager applying an ESG integration approach would only meaningfully consider a company’s greenhouse gas emissions if these were significant enough to present a financial risk. Generally, this will be highly relevant for the energy and heavy industrials sectors, and much less so for professional services and IT as an example.  

If ESG Integration is the strategy which focuses on protecting or enhancing value, the three other core responsible investing strategy types variously incorporate values-based considerations, alongside financial ones. In simplified form, these are: 

  1. Ethical investing: avoiding certain sectors/business activities in line with ethical considerations (e.g. through formal exclusions).  
  2. Sustainable investing: targeting companies with sustainable business practices and/or more sustainable products/services. There is a broad range within this category, with some products much more focused on outcomes with others more aligning to structural trends. 
  3. Impact investing: seeking to achieve targeted and measurable environmental and/or social outcomes (in addition to financial returns). Ideally investments deliver outcomes that wouldn’t otherwise have occurred. 

To add to the confusion, many products will apply more than one strategy at a time. For example, it is common to practice ESG Integration, however this can be supplemented with additional layers of investment decision making such as ethical or sustainable factors. These supplementary layers of decision making may be rules-based (e.g. exclusions), through a structured framework or at the Portfolio Manager’s discretion.  

In our view, common misunderstandings across the market about the nuances of investing for value or to align with values has fuelled some of the current backlash. One outcome has been greater scrutiny of ‘greenwashing’ among stakeholders, and a move for regulators to provide more specific guidelines. We think this will only be positive for the industry, as consumers’ expectations will be better met and true responsible investors will rise to the challenge.

What we do at Paradice  

Paradice strives to be a responsible investor in that we believe it’s important to consider the full range of risks or opportunities that may be financially material to a company and as such we also look to relevant ESG information. In short, Paradice practices ESG Integration in all of our strategies as we strongly believe this helps us to achieve superior risk-adjusted returns for our clients. Besides firm-wide exclusions (tobacco and controversial weapons), currently we do not offer any investment strategies which apply values-based considerations.  

Another reason we consider ourselves to be responsible investors is that we take a longer-term view when investing in portfolio companies. The longer the investment horizon, the more relevant it is to consider ESG information as such issues can often play out over extended time periods. For example, a company cutting corners on safety today will not see this reflected in the share price tomorrow, however, as time passes and safety processes weaken, the greater likelihood a business-disrupting failing will occur. We also see an active approach to company engagement and proxy voting as integral to our active investment management style.

Disclaimer:

This material (or any contribution to it) is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including legal, tax or investment advice or security recommendation) of any kind.  It is of a general nature only and was current only at the time of initial publication. The information and opinions contained herein are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents.  It may contain certain forward looking statements, opinions and projections that are based on the assumptions and judgments of Paradice with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond the control of Paradice. Because of the significant uncertainties inherent in these assumptions, opinions and judgments, you should not place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. You should consider your own needs and objectives and consult with a licensed financial adviser. For the avoidance of doubt, any such forward looking statements, opinions, assumptions and/or judgments made by Paradice may not prove to be accurate or correct.  References to securities may or may not represent the holdings of the Paradice Funds.  The content of this publication is current as at the date of its publication and is subject to change at any time. It does not reflect any events or changes in circumstances occurring after the date of publication.

The Other COP: Biodiversity and Natural Capital Enter the Spotlight

The Other COP: Biodiversity and natural capital enter the spotlight

As the COP26 climate summit at Glasgow has drawn to a close, the first session of another COP also finished recently. The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity may have made less headlines, but it’s a COP being closely watched by investors grappling with the implications of the world’s biodiversity and natural capital being under threat. Here is a brief guide to biodiversity and natural capital, the ecosystem services they provide, and the ways investors can respond.

Biodiversity loss and degradation of our natural ecosystems is emerging as a significant threat to the planet. Protecting nature is critical to sustaining future life on earth and, given that protecting biodiversity and ecosystems can limit nature-based carbon emissions and slow climate change’s progression, the criticality in doing so has only increased.

The deterioration of biodiversity and degradation of natural capital, and therefore the reduction in the ecosystem services provided to humans, has grown as a concern to investors given its potential to adversely impact the global economy. First and foremost, it is a risk to be managed, requiring additional considerations of how a company’s operations and supply chains may be impacted by changes to the natural world.

However, it also presents investment opportunities. Events such as COP15 which shape global goals and agreed actions to conserve nature are making it clearer what role companies can play in developing nature-related solutions.

This guide highlights the value that nature offers to the economy – which is typically under-appreciated – and why it requires protection. We also detail how investors can respond to the risks and opportunities this challenge presents, before highlighting what we can expect by way of near-term policy developments.

Key concepts

What is biodiversity?

Biodiversity can be understood as all living things on earth – from humans and animals to plants and bacteria. Sadly, the state of biodiversity is struggling – the World Wildlife Fund has estimated that global animal populations fell by 68% on average between 1970 and 2016, with some regions suffering much higher losses.[1] This has largely been driven by human-caused habitat destruction, invasive species and disease, and is being accelerated by climate change.

What is natural capital?

Natural capital is a term that has emerged over the past decade or so. It refers to the stocks or reserves of natural assets or resources that benefit humans, such as water, air, soils, plants and animals. Some natural capital is renewable or regenerative, while some is finite.

What are ecosystem services?

Ecosystem services are closely related to natural capital. They are generally defined as the direct or indirect benefits provided to humans from the transformations of natural capital into a flow of ‘services’. An obvious example would be that some plants and animals (natural capital) can transform into food (a service). Ecosystem services also include natural processes such as pollination, water purification and erosion control, as well as non-material benefits such as spiritual enrichment and recreation. Some natural processes are so essential that all ecosystems, including human life within them, would collapse without them. These include processes such as photosynthesis, soil formation and the water cycle.

The link between biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biologically diverse ecosystems enable greater ecosystem services than those which aren’t. Unfortunately, human activity which has historically sought to extract as many benefits from nature as possible, has driven the biodiversity loss described above, which in turn leaves the ecosystem less able to provide services in the future.

[1] World Wildlife Fund, ‘Living Planet Report 2020’

Nature and the economy

Although nature has intrinsic value, markets have typically not placed financial value on nature’s role or use to humans. Not doing so has undoubtedly driven unsustainable use of natural capital, biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services.

Putting a price on nature is a complex exercise, especially when it is hard to quantify the value – either in monetary terms or otherwise – of ecosystem services such as pollination. Nevertheless, this is changing as the world moves towards a more sustainable model of economic development, necessitating a greater financial appreciation of nature’s use to the economy.

Those that have tried to quantify at least the more measurable aspects of biodiversity and natural capital have found the value of nature to the global economy is considerable. However, if society does not begin to employ more nature-positive practices to curtail biodiversity loss, damage to natural capital and ecosystem services, we can anticipate that much of this value will be destroyed.

A 2020 study by the World Economic Forum (WEF)[2] has estimated that more than half of the world’s GDP (over $59 trillion in economic value) is either moderately or highly dependent on nature and consequently these economic activities can be considered exposed to biodiversity loss and ecosystem destruction. It is unsurprising then that the WEF’s 2021 Global Risks Report has also placed biodiversity loss and human environmental damage as top risks – both by likelihood and by impact.

To further illustrate what a world economy dependent on yet accelerating the degradation of nature looks like, consider the small snapshot offered from the below:[3]

  • A World Bank estimate of a collapse in select ecosystem services could result in a USD 2.7 trillion decline in global GDP annually by 2030
  • More than 2 billion people rely on timber as their primary source of fuel for cooking, heating and other energy needs
  • Over a billion people depend on the earth’s forests for some part of their livelihoods and food security
  • The combined market value of livestock and fisheries was nearly USD 1.3 trillion in 2016
  • Tourism to protected areas generates an estimated USD 600 billion annually
  • 25–50% of pharmaceutical products are derived from natural organisms

Protecting nature

As our collective understanding of the importance of biodiversity and the benefits we derive from nature has rapidly improved, there is increasing global attention on driving action to conserve nature. Not only for the long-term viability of the planet but to enable economic development to progress in a more sustainable way.

This is demonstrated by the efforts of COP15 and other UN initiatives as well as the contribution to the literature on natural capital for policymakers by the likes of the World Bank and the WEF. Previously, such conversations were led by scientists and environmental activists.

With biodiversity and natural capital closely intertwined with climate change, global efforts to address the latter will further accelerate public policy efforts to not only integrate considerations of nature in broader decision making, but to drive action for its protection.

Actions will go beyond halting degradation of what remains to also include efforts to reverse damage already done to ecosystems and biodiversity loss. Doing so will require a range of responses – from the regulatory and market-based, to those driven by technological advances and local communities.

Responding as an investor

Given nature’s links to human wellbeing and the economy, biodiversity loss and damage to natural ecosystems is an investment risk. Concurrently, the need to address these negative impacts creates significant investment opportunities in the conservation and sustainable use of nature.

While this is inherently a systematic issue, investors can still consider the company-specific implications of biodiversity and natural capital. At Paradice, we have begun thinking about how we can assess nature-based risks and pursue investment opportunities to protect and enhance returns for our clients.

Assessing risk

Assessing a company’s exposure to biodiversity loss and ecosystem services requires consideration of the impact a company’s operations or products have upon the environment, as well as the extent to which it is dependent on natural capital or ecosystem services.

If a company’s activities drive significant biodiversity loss or contribute to other environmental harms they will be increasingly at risk of reputational damage, regulatory restrictions and legal liabilities. Environmental impact assessments and obligations around mine site rehabilitation obligations have been in place for the resources sector for many years. Investors have long been cognisant of sectors which produce significant amounts of waste or air pollutants in the production process (e.g. chemicals) or contribute to land clearing (e.g. agriculture).

The next frontier is understanding how companies have considered and are responding to their impact on biodiversity specifically. This requires new forms of assessment which go beyond traditional environmental impact assessments. For example, surveying proximity to protected ecosystems, the make-up of local wildlife (especially if it includes endangered species) and the extent to which operations may impact animals’ migratory patterns.

Investors are increasingly looking for evidence in company disclosures that such analysis has been done and the company is mitigating impacts as appropriate. Further, that biodiversity is increasingly being integrated into business considerations, such as specific location of sites (accommodating local ecosystems) or adoption of alternative processes (e.g. lower impact pesticides in agriculture).

Now attention is moving to other sectors where such impacts have been under-considered, such as those which occur further down the value chain. Single-use plastics and packaging is one such example, where environmental impacts of the production site may be limited but throughout the products’ lifecycle it could significantly impact biodiversity.

The other key angle for assessment relates to a company’s dependencies, given availability of natural resources and ecosystem services is at risk. Water provides an essential ecosystem service, upon which many industries heavily rely during production processes. Investors have long considered location-specific water availability, especially in regions more susceptible to drought. However, there are other ecosystem services upon which many companies rely, such as the provision of raw materials or genetic resources.

Dependencies can be local and direct (grazing land for livestock) or throughout the supply chain. Investors are increasingly looking for companies to consider what nature-based inputs are required for their key components, and to what extent these are at risk from biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. Further, whether risks can be mitigated, such as through geographic diversification throughout the supply chain or substituting for more sustainable materials.

Pursuing opportunities

While some may think nature-related investment opportunities are most readily available to investors in private equity and real assets, there are many publicly listed companies whose products or services offer solutions relevant to more sustainable use of resources and enabling greater protection of nature. These companies will be well positioned to benefit as global action to address biodiversity loss and protection of nature accelerates.

Many opportunities are closely linked to driving more efficient use of natural resources, especially water, land and non-regenerative resources. For example, in the agricultural sector – where the world is also seeking to address food security for a growing population – efficiencies are particularly important. Innovation and technological advances have enabled precision agriculture and vertical farming, which minimise water use and maximise crop yields.

Another set of opportunities relates to those products or services which enable reduced environmental impacts. Some solutions are more targeted, such as green pesticides for crops which reduce chemicals leaching into surrounding waterways, while others contribute to addressing system-wide issues, for instance recycling infrastructure and alternatives to single-use plastics.

Given the scale of the challenge, which requires multi-varied changes to occur throughout the global economy, we believe the opportunities in this space will only increase. The key will be for companies to provide sufficient disclosures around the environmental benefits of their products or services to secure investors’ capital.

Where to next?

International efforts are underway to not only drive action to conserve nature, but also to standardise nature-based accounting and to support financial market participants navigate nature-based risks. All of these developments will only serve to mainstream the consideration of biodiversity and natural capital within the investment process.

The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is being held in two sessions due to covid-19. The first session was held virtually in October, and the second will be held in person next year in late April in Kunming, China. The Paris Agreement, borne out of the climate-focused COP held in 2015, demonstrates the potential impact of such forums which determine global protocols and ambitions.

COP15 will review the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2020 and consider a framework for the coming decade. What is agreed by UN member states will provide signals to companies and investors alike regarding future policy action and priority areas.

June 2021 saw the launch of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), an initiative building on the model developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) which has become widely adopted by companies and investors alike. The TNFD’s purpose is to “develop and deliver a risk management and disclosure framework for organisations to report and act on evolving nature-related risks”. Working towards delivery in 2023, the taskforce comprises various groups and multi-disciplinary expertise and will be consulting with institutions globally.

For Paradice specifically, we will be monitoring developments globally and enhancing how we think about biodiversity and nature within our investments accordingly. We acknowledge that we are early on the journey ourselves, and many of our investee companies have not yet commenced thinking about nature-based risks. We will be seeking to have constructive conversations to build awareness in this area and in time progressively communicate our expectations as investors with respect to management of related risks and opportunities. As a result of these conversations, and our own internal research, we hope to be better positioned to identify the winners and losers that will emerge in the coming decades.

[2] World Economic Forum, ‘Nature Risk Rising’, 2020

[3] World Bank, ‘The Economic Case for Nature’, 2021; IPBES, ‘The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, 2019  

Disclaimer:

This material (or any contribution to it) is not intended to constitute advertising or advice (including legal, tax or investment advice or security recommendation) of any kind.  It is of a general nature only and was current only at the time of initial publication. The information and opinions contained herein are not necessarily all-inclusive and, as such, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of any assumption contained herein and no responsibility arising for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by Paradice, its officers, employees or agents.  It may contain certain forward looking statements, opinions and projections that are based on the assumptions and judgments of Paradice with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions and future business decisions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of which are beyond the control of Paradice. Because of the significant uncertainties inherent in these assumptions, opinions and judgments, you should not place undue reliance on these forward looking statements. You should consider your own needs and objectives and consult with a licensed financial adviser. For the avoidance of doubt, any such forward looking statements, opinions, assumptions and/or judgments made by Paradice may not prove to be accurate or correct.  References to securities may or may not represent the holdings of the Paradice Funds.  The content of this publication is current as at the date of its publication and is subject to change at any time. It does not reflect any events or changes in circumstances occurring after the date of publication.

Subscribe to our newsletter for updates.

Visit our site for individuals and financial advisors.

Visit our site for institutional investors.