Shanu Mathew Profile picture
Aug 11, 2022 40 tweets 11 min read Read on X
Have you ever been curious about how public asset managers are trying to figure out implementing Net Zero across portfolios? Bunch of approaches all with their own nuances and pros/cons. GFANZ portfolio alignment released updated guidance - 140 pages. Here are some highlights.🧵
4 categories of alignment metrics: In increasing complexity, they are 1) binary, 2) maturity scale alignment, 3) benchmark divergence, & 4) implied temperature rise (ITR)

Metrics should be simple, transparent, science-based, broadly applicable, aggregable, and incentive optimal Image
Each of these has their own merits and nuances and none of them are perfect in isolation. Unless you have unlimited resource/time, you're likely opting for 1-2 of these approaches.

A drawback of these metrics is that there may be differing data sources and definitions used.
1) Binary approach focuses on measuring alignment based on the percentage of portfolio companies with net-zero aligned emission reduction targets.

Ex: 50% of portfolio companies should have validated Net Zero targets.

Pros: easy to measure/track
Cons: doesn't assess credibility
2) Maturity scale metrics bucket portfolio companies into alignment categories, for example, based on a categorical scale of “aligned”, “aligning”, “committed to aligning”, or “not aligned”.

Pros: assesses credibility
Cons: lack of consistent standards between managers
3) Benchmark divergence metrics provide the cumulative over or undershoot from a net-zero aligned benchmark.

Ex: Conduct alignment hotspot analysis where companies ranked by overshoot

Pros: most scientifically robust
Cons: which benchmark to use? hard to segment region/sectors
4) ITR metrics go one step further by translating this over/undershoot into a science-based, end-of-century global warming outcome.

Pros: Intuitive to understand
Cons: Obscures complexity of underlying assumptions and leads to misuse
Use cases for these metrics? Boils down to 1) communications aka client reporting and 2) decision-making aka portfolio construction and investment research/decision-making. 1 drives most of this activity today imo but over the long-run w/ better data, 2 will be more important Image
Portfolio alignment metrics are effectively the aggregated/compiled result of individual company analysis. Switching gears from portfolio level to company-level.
Four types of companies: providers of 1) climate solutions, companies that are 2) 1.5 degrees C-aligned, 3) companies that need to transition to 1.5 degrees C-aligned, and 4) companies that need to phase out high-emitting assets before their end-of-life Image
The idea is if you're managing to a Net Zero portfolio, companies likely fall in one of these 4 buckets. You hold certain companies for the products/services they deliver, their leadership on climate, or engage to get them on a trajectory consistent with Net Zero pathways.
When you're assessing an individual company's trajectory, you're often assessing what targets they have, what pathway they are on, what that compares to regional/sectoral benchmarks, and what they're doing to phase out legacy high emitting assets Image
Assessing climate solutions is more opaque, @IIGCCnews recommended four metrics:
- Green investment ratio
- Priority net zero investment ratio
- Green capex intensity alignment metric
-Portfolio carbon return metric measures the emissions abated relative to total investments Image
The Green investment ratio measures a portfolio’s investment in overall climate solutions relative to total investments and is aligned with the EU’s green taxonomy.
The Priority net zero investment ratio measures each portfolio’s investments in priority technologies or regions relative to its total investments.
The Green capex intensity alignment metric measures the alignment of a sector’s green capex intensity relative to a Paris-aligned benchmark.
The Portfolio carbon return metric measures the emissions abated relative to total investments, helping to quantify the relative impact of investment decisions, similar to the avoided and emissions savings examples illustrated above.
Might say wow - between just the portfolio alignment metrics and company assessments, we already need so much data and it's probably far from consistently reported/standardized measurements, and you'd be 100% right! Need to do the work but the quality of the data is not there yet
Biggest gaps to address? One is Scope 3 - aka company's full supply/value chain emissions. This data might not be available/is incomplete/or inaccurate, so often times large asset managers need to fill in the gaps. Guidance suggests to incorporate where material and available. Image
Relative importance of Scope 3 emissions varies across sectors. However, in several high impact, Scope 3 accounts for 40-90% of total emissions.

GFANZ uses 2 criteria for identifying priority sectors:
1) high absolute Scope 3 magnitudes
2) high Scope 3 as % of total ImageImageImage
"Challenges characterized by an imbalance between disclosed and material emissions, data quality issues, and need for convergence on methodological best practices to reporting Scope 3 emissions"

GFANZ recommends estimating via bottom-up or regression models. Image
Most of this is backward looking, what about where they're going? After all, that's the point of these targets.

Asset managers need to incorporate forward-looking data (emissions trends, production/capacity trends, short-term plans, long-term targets) to get an accurate view
Asset managers can forecast emissions but DEFINITELY more ART than science.

-Neutral: emissions held constant
-Backward-looking: extrapolate emissions from past trends
-Forward-looking: interpolate emissions data taking a start date, target year, & respective emissions baselines
GFANZ recommends combining elements of backward-looking and forward-looking data. You can probability-weight outcomes.

How much weight you want to put into future targets should tie to your credibility assessment? Historical track records, discussions w/ mgmt, etc. Image
GFANZ outlines target credibility framework to use different weightings based on whether certain quantitative/qualitative indicators are met.

These includes things like having targets, disclosing green capex, having c-suite tied to achievement of Net Zero outcomes, etc. ImageImage
To get a forward view of where your portfolio is headed, you can aggregate individual company metrics (emissions, ITRs, scores).

Few ways to do this too: aggerated budget, portfolio-owned approach, portfolio-weighted approach.
Aggregated budget approach uses a weighting based on financed emissions to determine a portfolio or sub-portfolio “owned” portion for each company’s emissions and benchmark using a PCAF attribution factor.

Ex: Own 10% of a company, own 10% of their emissions/budget Image
Portfolio-owned approach is similar but, instead of combining owned emissions/budgets into a single combined trajectory, it simply assigns a weight to the final alignment metric (e.g., ITR) of each investment/company based on proportion of total portfolio-owned emissions Image
Portfolio-weight approach calculates the portfolio-level score by weighting individual company alignment metrics (e.g., ITR) by the outstanding values held in the portfolio. It provides insight on the impact of capital-allocation decisions (through respective value of each) Image
The official publication can be found here gfanzero.com/publications/

August 2022 is an updated version of the June 2022 document, after incorporating guidance from many institutions assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/…

#GFANZ #NetZero #FinancialInstiutitons #NetZeroPortfolios
Asset managers are all grappling with the fact there is no methodological consensus on this stuff and that's why publications like this are released to assess the most realistic options and weigh the pros/cons of them. What will the dominant approach look like in 5-10years?
A lot of dunking on public asset managers and their treatment of net zero. When you get into the practical elements of how to define/measure/assess/use these data and frameworks, it immediately gets complex and there's no clear answers.
Crap I totally forgot to double click on the different ways to look at emissions at a company level which I think is important. Few follow-up tweets:
3 choices of units:
-Absolute emissions (e.g., tons of CO₂)
-Production or production capacity (e.g., barrels of oil produced, number of vehicles sold, watts of electricity generated)
-Emissions intensity (units of absolute emissions per unit of output - physical or economic)
Absolute emissions preserve a direct link to the carbon budget and therefore direct measurement of climate impact. However, measuring absolute emissions can penalize important transition activities, such as organic or inorganic growth or expansion into net-zero technologies
Assessing on production capacity can reinforce link between transition progress and real world emissions. However, using this method might also penalize specific transition activities, including inorganic growth. Capacity also does not reflect differences in production processes.
Intensity metrics compare emissions relative to size/output but key disadvantage is that they rely more heavily on energy demand assumptions compared to absolute emissions, thereby weakening the link to the carbon budget.

Ex O&G co can lower intensity but grow absolute emisisons Image
There's so many more rabbit holes I can go down - how to use benchmarks/pathways that adjust for regions (developed markets vs. emerging) or how do you adjust carbon budgets for companies taking share from others or how do you ensure everyone uses same reference base cases...
Ultimately Net Zero measurement/alignment will come down to client (asset owner) preference - what are they seeking to measure, what can they intuitively understand, and can the asset manager reliably deliver against those outcomes and reporting requirements.
Likes/shares are appreciated if you learned something useful or found the content helpful! I spend a lot of time thinking about Corporations and the achievement of Net Zero targets so this is core to what I do day-to-day

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Shanu Mathew

Shanu Mathew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ShanuMathew93

Jun 14
Incredible presentation. My favorite slides below. 🧵

Manufactured technologies (e.g., solar and wind) enjoy cost learning curves; (fossil) commodities don’t... which also means they grow faster. Even neutral actors modeled in linear terms. But change has been exponential.Image
Image
Image
Electricity is the largest supplier of useful* energy.

Useful energy is the total energy left after all processing and conversion losses.Image
Efficiency gains since 2010 have reduced energy demand growth more than any other fact. Efficiency gains over the last decade were one fifth
of primary energy demand in 2022 of 632 EJ.Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 29, 2023
I wish everyone that spouted off on the ICE vs. EV debate had to simply acknowledge first that most of the energy you put into a gasoline car is wasted and EVs are far more efficient at converting energy to motion. This is a simple, objective fact.
While we're at it, this is also true for all combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the energy burned becomes waste heat! I wish more people knew that when arguing this stuff. Imagine on a first principles basis arguing that the optimal state is one that wastes 2/3 of the output.
This isn't an argument saying all fossil fuels are bad. All energy is good-just cleaner and dirtier forms of it.

I'm acknowledging on a systems basis that the current status quo results in a lot of waste we can prevent and we should redesign where we have better solutions.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 12, 2023
This will be Decarbonization’s equivalent version of Mary Meeker’s landmark Internet Trends report. Incredible resource from one of the best minds on the topic. Check it out ⬇️
Some of the charts/visuals/points that stood out most to me.

The US uses 40% of its corn crop to meet 10% of its motor gasoline demand. Image
China's renewables out-generate all of Europe Image
Read 15 tweets
Nov 20, 2022
Two great macro pods that I'd highly recommend

1) @LeitnerJim on @breaking_fever on the relationship between levels of democracy and market returns.

2) @BobEUnlimited on @joincolossus @InvestLikeBest masterclass on how to think about macro/economic cycles.

Incredible orators.
Financial markets, democracy, and power with Jim Leitner open.spotify.com/episode/2hfy3c…
Bob Elliott - A Macro Tour joincolossus.com/episodes/69469…
Read 4 tweets
Nov 18, 2022
Compiling some resources, charts, and company quotes on the impact the IRA is having on capital deployment, corporate strategy, and reshoring industries critical to our clean energy future. Let's visit all the announcements and commentary after 3Q/422 earnings season 🧵
First off, from a tends perspective, there were 2,500+ mentions in 3Q22 and 1800+ mentions of the Inflation Reduction Act for companies that reported in 3Q22 and 4Q22. Snapshot of the companies that mentioned it most - mix of clean energy, utilities, and auto companies. Image
Bloomberg has some great figures that compile a ton of announcements across Solar, EV production, and batteries.

"Biden Climate Law Spurs at Least $16.2 Billion of Cleantech"

Sources:
1) bnef.com/news/1101105?e…
2) bnef.com/shorts/14923
3) bnef.com/shorts/15045 ImageImageImage
Read 31 tweets
Jun 22, 2022
I have been harping on Scope 3 a lot, but it's important and recent comments and research further push the issue(s) into the spotlight.

1) Unilever CEO says 'no idea' how they will meet Net Zero b/c of Scope 3
2) AlixPartners finds most food & bev. cos behind schedule on targets
"[CEO] said it would require significant changes in consumer behavior & action from governments, including the adoption of much higher use of renewable energy worldwide. Unilever focuses on advocacy to help promote the changes needed as part of overall carbon reduction strategy"
Unilever CEO comments link: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(