‘Garbage in, garbage out’ - why data is key to climate disclosures

Key takeaways
The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) started in 2015 as a voluntary initiative with the backing of global financial leaders. The initiative was designed to be broad and inclusive, and aimed to bring a strategic focus to climate management in the financial world.
Since then, the initiative has taken root with local regulators, proxy advisors and investors around the world. Indeed, the TCFD has become a baseline requirement for most listed corporations. Looking at the different regulations in the table below indicates the global nature of this trend.
Regulators in the United Kingdom, United States, Hong Kong and Singapore, all require companies to disclose climate-related metrics. Most countries focus on emissions data (defined as scope 1, 2 and 3), while in Hong Kong and the UK the regulators have gone further and asked for scenarios like implied temperature-rise metrics. The common thread is that regulations are getting more specific and detailed, all under the umbrella of the TCFD.
Category | Details | Standard | United Kingdom FCA | Hong Kong SFC | Singapore MAS | United States SEC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scope 1 and 2 Greenhouse gas emissions | Scope 1 – direct GHG emissions Scope 2- consumption of purchased electricity heat/ steam |
TCFD |
Y (incl. historical) |
Y (in terms of intensity) |
|
Y |
Scope 3 Greenhouse gas emissions | Scope 3 – indirect emissions |
TCFD |
Suggested |
Suggested |
|
Y |
Total Carbon emissions | Absolute greenhouse gas emissions associated with portfolio; expressed in tons CO2e |
TCFD |
Y (incl. historical) |
|
|
Y |
Total carbon footprint | Total carbon emissions for portfolio normalized by market value of portfolio; expressed in tons CO2e/ $M invested |
TCFD PCAF Standard |
Y (incl. historical) |
Y enterprise value as base |
Suggested |
Y |
Weighted average carbon intensity | Portfolio exposure to carbon-intensive companies; tons CO2e/ $M rev. |
TCFD |
Y (incl. historical) |
|
Suggested |
Y (per unit econ value or production) |
Scenario Analysis | Scenario Analysis of investment strategies to climate risks |
NGFS |
Y (incl. historical) |
Suggested |
Suggested |
If scenario analysis done, incl. scenarios used, parameters, principal financial impact |
Climate value at risk | Assessing the potential future financial impact of a product’s or portfolio’s climate exposure |
TCFD |
Suggested |
Suggested |
Suggested |
If scenario analysis done, incl. scenarios used, parameters, principal financial impact |
Implied temp rise | Forward-looking view of a product’s or portfolio’s carbon exposure |
TCFD |
Suggested |
Suggested |
Suggested |
If scenario analysis done, incl. scenarios used, parameters, principal financial impact |
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced its climate disclosures proposal, which was deemed as incredibly significant for the industry. Mandating scope 1 and 2 and material scope 3 disclosures, in an audited fashion for scope 1 and 2, is a big step for many US companies.
By our estimates1 approximately 90% of the S&P500 report some form of emissions to the CDP, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project, or in their sustainability or annual reports. Still, the remaining 10% requires modelled emissions. Assurance would be a much greater step. It’s been reported that only 6% of S&P500 constituents externally audit their environmental, social and governance (ESG) information2.
The focus on increased disclosure by companies is helpful for investors who are in turn required to disclose fund-level metrics and aggregate these metrics into portfolio-level disclosures. “Garbage in, garbage out,” as the saying goes. Although investors are trying their best to provide meaningful disclosures, they’re limited by the quality and consistency of the data input.
The International Sustainability Standards Board, a new standard-setting body, was formed in recognition of this challenge and has since issued draft guidance for corporate disclosure. As ever, there are geopolitical tensions on these issues. It remains to be seen what the final result and ultimately what the uptake by local regulators will be, after the consultation period.
In the meantime, proxy advisors have started incorporating baseline ESG practices into the standard policies. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the two largest providers of proxy guidance by market share, both have disclosure to the TCFD as a standard requirement. Both have stopped short of dictating the nature of the disclosure but both are bringing shareholder attention to this topic.
All these developments continue to raise the bar for companies around the world.
A version of this article first appeared on Incisive Media’s Sustainable Investment website.
Related insights
Footnotes
-
1Source: ISS Climate Solutions
2S&P 500 and ESG Reporting | The Center for Audit Quality (thecaq.org)
Investment risks
-
The value of investments and any income will fluctuate (this may partly be the result of exchange rate fluctuations) and investors may not get back the full amount invested.
Important information
-
This document has been prepared only for those persons to whom Invesco has provided it. It should not be relied upon by anyone else. Information contained in this document may not have been prepared or tailored for an Australian audience and does not constitute an offer of a financial product in Australia. You may only reproduce, circulate and use this document (or any part of it) with the consent of Invesco.
The information in this document has been prepared without taking into account any investor’s investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Before acting on the information the investor should consider its appropriateness having regard to their investment objectives, financial situation and needs.
You should note that this information:
- may contain references to dollar amounts which are not Australian dollars;
- may contain financial information which is not prepared in accordance with Australian law or practices;
- may not address risks associated with investment in foreign currency denominated investments; and
- does not address Australian tax issues.
While any Invesco fund referred in this page may consider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) aspects to better manage risks and improve returns, it is not bound by any specific ESG criteria. The fund may invest across the ESG spectrum and will not necessarily exclude companies with controversial business areas – such as those with significant revenues from coal, fossil fuel, nuclear power, weapons and tobacco – from the investable universe. Information used to evaluate ESG factors may not be readily available, complete or accurate. ESG factors may vary across types of investments and issuers, and not every ESG factor may be identified or evaluated. There is no guarantee that the evaluation of ESG considerations will be additive to the fund’s performance.
Issued in Australia by Invesco Australia Limited (ABN 48 001 693 232), Level 26, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia which holds an Australian Financial Services Licence number 239916.
- may contain references to dollar amounts which are not Australian dollars;