Carbon report SEB Nordenfond

Transcription

1 Carbon report SEB Nordenfond Report created on: February 27, 218 The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshot of the emissions from the equity holdings of the fund. The calculations are not comprehensive and indirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are based on reported data or estimates of emissions. The metric says nothing about how the portfolio contributes to a low-carbon society. For further information about the metric, see

2 Contents Executive Summary 3 Sector weighthing and relative carbon footprint 4 Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison 4 Sector Analysis & Stock selection 4 Attribution Analysis 5 Summary of 1 largest absolute contributors 6 Summary of 1 largest portfolio companies 6 Scope 3 overview 7 Company sector & breakdown 8-9 Carbon Barometer & Carbon Ranking 1 Carbon Report - SEB Nordenfond 2

3 Carbon Report SEB Nordenfond Report created on: Feb 27, 218 Holdings Date: Dec 31, 217 : VINX Cap Sek (Net Return) Currency: SEK Industry Classification: GICS Company Breakdown Metrics: carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Value: 6'613'747'72. SEK Fund Management Company: SEB Investment Management AB Executive Summary Carbon emissions Scope 1-2 Total carbon emissions incl. Scope 3 Relative Carbon Footprint (kgco2e / SEK 1' invested) Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / SEK 1' revenue) Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (kgco2e / SEK 1' revenue) Disclosing Titles by Weight (market value) 97' ' % 95.7% 78' ' % 97.7% Total carbon emissions - measure the carbon footprint of a portfolio considering Scope 1-2 as well as Scope 3 emissions. *) - SEB Nordenfond is associated with greenhouse gas emissions of 97'266.8 tons per year. Relative carbon footprint - is a normalized measure of the portfolio's contribution. - It enables comparisons with a benchmark between multiple portfolios, over time and regardless of portfolio size. Carbon intensity - allows investors to measure how much carbon emissions per SEK of revenue are generated. - It therefore measures the carbon efficiency of a portfolio per unit of output. This report analyses the portfolio of securities in terms of the carbon emissions and other carbon related characteristics of the underlying portfolio companies, and compares this data to the performance of a relevant respectively chosen market benchmark. The portfolio s intensity is 1.1% higher than the benchmark. 12. The Sectors Materials, Industrials and Energy (per GICS classification) in the portfolio make up 46.9% of the weight vs. 98.2% of the contribution to emissions Sector Weight 1.8% Contribution to % 34.5% 34.1% 61.9% Materials Industrials Energy All other Sectors. Carbon Intensity Carbon 2.% 1.8% 1.7% 5 smallest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / SEK 1' Invested) Storebrand A..%. Investor B.2.%. DnB 1.6.%. Swedbank A 2.3.%. Addlife 4.2.%.8 5 largest contributors to the emissions of the fund are: emissions % of total Relative carbon footprint (kg CO2e / SEK 1' Invested) Ahlstr m-munksj EUR 23' % Yara International 22' % DSV, De Sammensluttede Vognmaend af Stora Enso R, Trade Helsinki 14' % ' % 33.5 A P Moller - Maersk B 8' % *) Scope 1 emissions are directly generated by company's operations, whereas indirect Scope 2 emissions are related to the company's energy consumption. Scope 3 emissions include other indirect emissions including e.g. business travel, use of company's products sold, investments, and goods and services purchased. Carbon Report - SEB Nordenfond 3

4 Sector weighting and relative carbon footprint Weight Rel. Carbon Footprint tco2e / Mio SEK invested vs. Materials 1.75% 8.78% % Industrials 34.12% 25.98% % Energy 2.5% 4.8% % Consumer Staples 3.74% 4.66% % Health Care 1.9% 13.25% % Financials 33.17% 19.66% % Information Technology.64% 6.26% % Consumer Discretionary 1.15% 7.73% % Relative Carbon Footprint Comparison Materials Industrials Energy Consumer Staples Health Care Financials Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Sector Analysis & Stock Selection The graph below shows how the carbon allocation in the portfolio differs from the average of each sector. Sectors have been defined using the GICS classification at the Supersector/Industry Group level. 4% 3% 2% 1% % Aerospace & Defense Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks Diversified Banks Diversified Metals & Mining Diversified Support Services Environmental & Facilities Services Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals Food Retail Marine Multi-Sector Holdings Oil & Gas Equipment & Services Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Paper Products Pharmaceuticals Trucking GICS Sub-Industry, Average GICS Sub-Industry 4

5 Attribution Analysis The two principal reasons why the carbon exposure of the portfolio may differ from the benchmark are due to sector allocation as well as stock selection decisions. Sector allocation decision will cause the carbon intensity of the portfolio to diverge from the benchmark where the sectors are either carbon intensive or low carbon. If the portfolio is overweight in carbon intensive sectors the portfolio is likely to be more carbon intensive than the benchmark. However, if the stocks within a carbon intensive sector are the most carbon efficient companies, it is possible that the portfolio may still have a lower carbon footprint than the benchmark. Sector Allocation Sector Selection Sector Allocation Contribution to Out/ Underperformance Sector Allocation Contribution to Out/ Underperformance (%) Stock Selection Contribution to Out/ Underperformance Stock Selection Contribution to Out/ Underperformance (%) Energy % % Materials % 2' % Industrials 2' % 1' % Consumer Discretionary % % Consumer Staples % % Health Care % % Financials 5.2.5% % Information Technology % % Telecommunication Services % % Utilities % % Others % % Total 2' % 3' % Explanation: The Underperformance of the portfolio is based on the effect of over/underweighting certain sectors and selecting more/less carbon intense stocks within each sector for each of the underlying holdings. A positive number indicates that the effect increased the greenhouse gas emission (in tons of CO2e) and a negative number indicated a decreasing effect. In this case, the sector weighting of SEB Nordenfond harmed 2'744. tco2e, while the stock selection harmed 3'796.9 tco2e versus the benchmark. This explains a 25.6% underperformance through sector weighting and 35.4% carbon underperformance by stock picking. Interaction Effect: 1' % Carbon Underperformance Total 97' ' '16.1 Carbon Underperformance (%) 76. Attribution Analysis - Graph 4% 3% 2% 1% % -1% Energy Materials Industrials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Health Care Financials Information Technology Telecommunication Services Utilities Others Sector Stock Total 5

6 Summary of 1 largest absolute contributors The tables below show the 1 largest greenhouse gas contributors and the 1 largest holdings respectively of the SEB Nordenfond. Carbon Data section explains your, i.e. the amount of greenhouse gases that the portfolio finances from the company s overall emissions, relative to company ownership. You can further see what % of the overall portfolio GHG emissions each company accounts for and if the company s GHG emission number was disclosed by the company or approximated. In the Analysis section, the emissions are stated and the Average Sector allow a comparison of the greenhouse gas intensity of a company against its respective sector, i.e. the amount of GHG emissions that an investment of the same size would have financed, would it have been invested in the overall sector rather than the specific company. The effect on the portfolio can be found under Contribution: This is a measurement of how much a specific holding raises or reduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio. Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total Ahlstr m-munksj EUR Yara International DSV, De Sammensluttede Vognmaend af Stora Enso R, Trade Helsinki Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Paper Products 2.5% % ' ' '62.41 Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals 2.4%.7% 23.9% ' ' ' ' Trucking 3.9% 1.4% 15.1% '94.8 4' '65.3-1' Paper Products 4.3%.8% 1.8% '7.4 1' '77.3-5' A P Moller - Maersk B Marine 1.% 1.1% 9.3% ' ' ' '729.7 Wilh Wilhelmsen Holding-A Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics Marine.4% - 3.7% ' '51.8-3'46.89 Marine.5% - 2.7% ' ' ' Huhtam?ki Paper Packaging.6%.4% 1.% ' Boliden Aker BP Diversified Metals & Mining Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 1.%.8%.9% ' %.2%.9% ' Summary of 1 largest portfolio companies Company GICS Sub-Industry % of total Weight Carbon Data Analysis carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals 9.5% 8.9%.1% ' Investor B Multi-Sector Holdings 9.4% 2.1%.% '7.5 1' Danske Bank Ord Diversified Banks 9.4% 2.5%.1% '556.3 Volvo B Stora Enso R, Trade Helsinki Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks 6.2% 2.8%.5% '133. 6' Paper Products 4.3%.8% 1.8% '7.4 1' '77.3-5' SEB A Diversified Banks 4.% 1.6%.% ' Swedbank A Diversified Banks 4.% 2.1%.% '21.42 DSV, De Sammensluttede Vognmaend af Tomra Systems Trucking 3.9% 1.4% 15.1% '94.8 4' '65.3-1' Environmental & Facilities Services 3.3% -.3% ' '164.4 SAAB B Aerospace & Defense 3.%.3%.1% '

7 Scope 3 Overview The following section provides a top-down approximation of the financed scope 3 emissions from each sector. The purpose of this analysis is to give an order of magnitude of the emissions in the portfolio on a sector level and should not be used as a basis for comparing two individual companies. All emissions are in tco2e metrics. The following graph shows the financed Scope 1+2 emissions in relation to the Scope 3 emissions of the portfolio. 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Energy Materials Industrials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Health Care Financials InformationTelecommunication Utilities Technology Services Scope 3 Scope 1&2 13'68 1'634 76'634 6'239 83'188 33' '679 1' The graph below compares the total emissions (including Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) between portfolio and benchmark Scope 3 Scope 1&2 177'977 97'267 19'124 78'51 *) The methodology includes Scope 1, 2 and Scope 3 upstream and product use downstream. 7

8 Company Sector & Breakdown This table presents all holdings in the portfolio, sorted by sector, following the logic from the sections above. It shows how each company contributes to the overall portfolio footprint. It allows you to see which stocks are the greatest contributors to the portfolio s emission in absolute as well as relative terms. The -/+ signs on the far right indicate if a specific holding raises or reduces the carbon footprint of the portfolio. This helps with portfolio optimization and in managing the overall carbon portfolio footprint without comprising the chosen sector allocation. Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Oil & Gas Equipment & Services 1.%.5%.8% ' SUBSEA 7 1.%.3%.8% ' Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 1.%.6%.9% ' Aker BP 1.%.2%.9% ' Fertilizers & Agricultural Chemicals 2.4%.7% 23.9% ' ' ' ' Yara International 2.4%.7% 23.9% ' ' ' '355.7 Paper Packaging.6%.6% 1.% ' Huhtam?ki.6%.4% 1.% ' Diversified Metals & Mining 1.%.8%.9% ' Boliden 1.%.8%.9% ' Paper Products 6.8% 2.5% 36.1% '587. 7' ' ' Stora Enso R, Trade Helsinki 4.3%.8% 1.8% '7.4 1' '77.3-5'874.9 Ahlstr m-munksj EUR 2.5% % ' ' '62.4 Aerospace & Defense 3.%.3%.1% ' SAAB B 3.%.3%.1% '954. Construction & Engineering.2% 1.4%.1% Veidekke.2%.1%.1% Electrical Components & Equipment 1.7% 1.2%.4% ' ABB (SEK) 1.7% 1.2%.4% '358.5 Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks 6.2% 3.3%.5% '133. 6' Volvo B 6.2% 2.8%.5% '133. 6'226.9 Industrial Machinery 7.7% 1.9% 1.5% 2.8 1' ' ' ' Metso 1.2%.4%.3% Cargotec B 2.4%.2%.3% '248.1 Valmet 1.8%.2%.6% '33.7 Sandvik 2.3% 1.7%.4% '33.3 Trading Companies & Distributors.5%.2%.1% Cramo.3% -.% AddTech.3% -.% Environmental & Facilities Services 3.3%.%.3% ' ' Tomra Systems 3.3% -.3% ' '164. Diversified Support Services 2.2%.8%.3% ' ' Intrum Justitia 1.%.2%.% ' Bravida Holding 1.2% -.2% '54.1 1'7.5 Security & Alarm Services 2.%.7%.4% ' Securitas B 2.%.5%.4% '772.1 Research & Consulting Services 1.6%.%.% ' F B 1.6% -.% '67.7 Marine 2.% 1.8% 15.7% ' ' ' ' A P Moller - Maersk B 1.% 1.1% 9.3% ' ' ' '729.1 Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics.5% - 2.7% ' ' '982.2 Wilh Wilhelmsen Holding-A.4% - 3.7% ' '51.8-3'46.9 Trucking 3.9% 1.4% 15.1% '94.8 4' '65.3-1' DSV, De Sammensluttede Vognmaend af % 1.4% 15.1% '94.8 4' '65.3-1'581.8 Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods 1.2% 1.1%.% ' Pandora 1.2% 1.1%.% '

9 Weight Carbon Data Analysis Company % of total carbon intensity (tco2e / Mio. revenue) Av. Sector Contribution Food Retail 1.2%.9%.5% ' Kesko B 1.2%.3%.5% ' Packaged Foods & Meats 2.5% 1.8% 1.1% ' ' Bakkafrost 2.2%.1%.6% ' '738.2 Austevoll Seafood.3% -.5% Health Care Equipment.6% 1.1%.% Sectra B.6% -.% Pharmaceuticals 9.5% 1.3%.1% ' Novo Nordisk 9.5% 8.9%.1% '544.5 Life Sciences Tools & Services.1%.%.% Addlife.1% -.% Diversified Banks 21.3% 13.3%.1% '4.1 27' Danske Bank Ord 9.4% 2.5%.1% '556.3 DnB 2.9% 1.4%.% '86.1 SEB A 4.% 1.6%.% '196.7 Swedbank A 4.% 2.1%.% '21.4 Nordea 1.% 3.5%.% '18.6 Regional Banks.5%.%.% Sparenbank 1 SMN.5% -.% Multi-Sector Holdings 9.4% 3.4%.% '7.5 1' Investor B 9.4% 2.1%.% '7.5 1'624.4 Consumer Finance.8%.%.% Resurs Holding.8% -.% Life & Health Insurance 1.1%.3%.% ' Storebrand A 1.1%.3%.% '16.8 Electronic Equipment & Instruments.6% 1.1%.% Hexagon B.6% 1.1%.% Total portfolio 95.7% 97.7% 1.% ' ' Note that the weighting for the benchmark will not always total 1% as the stocks shown are only for those held by the portfolio. 9

10 Carbon Ranking This is a standardized ranking of the fund based on the productís weighted average carbon intensity using two peergroups. One consisting of all other funds in the database (global percentile) and one where the fund is ranked taking the specific Lipper Global Classification into account (peer percentile). The ranking is based on percentiles and ranges from (worst) to 1 (best). Global Percentile 62 (n=438) Peer Percentile (Lipper Global Equity Sweden, n=51) The carbon footprint provides a historic snapshot of the emissions from the equity holdings of the fund. The calculations are not comprehensive and indirect emissions, e.g. from suppliers, are based on reported data or estimates of emissions. The metric says nothing about how the portfolio contributes to a low-carbon society. For further information about the metric, see 1