- Investment Specialist
- About Us
- My Account
The views expressed are those of the authors at the time of writing. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. The value of your investment may become worth more or less than at the time of original investment. While any third-party data used is considered reliable, its accuracy is not guaranteed. For professional, institutional or accredited investors only.
In recent years, the market for labelled, or sustainable, debt has continued to expand — with an estimated US$3.5 trillion outstanding as of 31 May 20231 — as issuers face increased pressure from investors and regulators to finance a more sustainable future (Figure 1).
In 2022, sustainable debt as a proportion of overall supply continued to increase. Last year, nearly one-third of euro-denominated investment-grade corporate new issuance was in sustainable debt format, up from 25% in 2021.2 We expect this trend to continue against a backdrop of improving bond structures as well as supportive sustainability policy and commitments from governments and corporates.
Green bonds, which finance projects related to broad environmental objectives, remain the most popular product within the labelled-bond universe and accounted for 59% of total sustainable debt supply in 2022, up from 52% in 2021.1
We explore the importance of establishing a robust framework to assess the suitability of labelled issuance for our fixed income impact portfolios and highlight how we can use our engagement edge to combat greenwashing.
With their key performance indicators (KPIs) and use of proceeds (UoP) outlined at issuance, green, social and sustainability bonds allow investors to target social and environmental objectives through their fixed income allocations, complementing traditional fixed income securities within an impact portfolio.
We have also identified some secondary benefits that we believe further enhance the potential appeal of UoP bonds:
Sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) allow issuers to raise finance without ring-fencing the proceeds for a social or environmental project. Instead, they tie the future coupon payment to a sustainability performance target (SPT), which measures improvements in the borrower’s sustainability profile — for example, an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with products manufactured. Some issuers have faced criticism for SLBs that lack robustness or incentive to allocate the proceeds with sustainable objectives in mind.
Nevertheless, we see a place for robust SLBs within our fixed income impact portfolios. We have identified some secondary characteristics enhancing their potential appeal:
We recognise that labelled bonds are a useful part of the public debt market toolkit in the pursuit of generating impact. We have developed a labelled-bond framework that aims to ensure we stay true to our commitment to high-integrity fixed income impact investing and combatting greenwashing. Below, we outline our best practices.
1. Threshold for use of proceeds
Without standardisation in the labelled-bond market, the percentage of proceeds allocated to social or environmental projects varies. To maximise the materiality of our investments, we favour bonds where over 90% of the proceeds are to be allocated to eligible projects.
2. Lookback period
Some UoP bonds are issued to refinance an existing or historical project. While we accept some exposure to refinancing for long-term projects, we typically have a maximum lookback period of two years. This ensures our financing is tilted towards new projects.
3. Sustainability of operations
Some sectors are excluded from our investable universe, as we believe they are fundamentally misaligned with our impact objectives; we will not invest in UoP issuance from issuers in these sectors. Where an issuer’s business model does not qualify for impact, but we approve at the security level, we consider the sustainability of their operations/business practices in our investment process.
Once we have determined whether a bond is eligible for our investment universe, fundamental analysis ensures that the bond is suitable according to the risk and return targets of our portfolios.
SLBs’ more flexible structure, combined with a lack of regulation, creates opportunities for greenwashing. We pay close attention to SLBs’ structure to ensure that the issuance aligns with our high-integrity approach:
1. Sustainability performance targets
We favour issuers with ambitious SPTs and meaningful financial penalties for missing future goals — for example, via a coupon step-up. We avoid issuers that set targets that are in line with what the issuers were planning to achieve through their ordinary business activities or have minimal penalties, such as a step-up that is small or implemented late in the coupon payment cycle.
2. Consistent KPIs
We favour issuers that use consistent KPIs to monitor progress towards an SPT. We feel issuers should report historical KPI levels, use consistent base rates and be held accountable through engagement and potentially divestment if their KPI reference changes.
3. Sustainability of operations
As with UoP bonds, we will not invest in SLBs from issuers in sectors that are misaligned with our impact objectives.
As with UoP bonds, it’s critical to assess financial characteristics to determine suitability according to portfolio risk and return targets.
Our labelled-bonds framework is complemented by Wellington’s Fixed Income Syndicate Trading desk, which benefits from its relationships with the sell side. Through our engagement, we highlight structural deficiencies in labelled-bond offerings to be communicated to the issuers through their advisers. We also meet each issuer during the pre-marketing phase of a future deal and advise how to robustly structure a sustainable bond. Engaging in dynamic discussions both on the structure of sustainable debt issuance and on specific ESG-related questions allows us to develop a fuller understanding of the issuer’s approach to sustainability and identify whether it is serious about working towards its sustainability goals.
Below, we highlight three examples of our engagement:
We expect the labelled-bond market to keep growing, given the continuing establishment of carbon-reduction commitments by corporations and governments and increased demand from investors. This evolution will pose challenges for investors using an ESG or impact lens.
While robust regulation in the relatively new labelled-bond market remains lacking, the EU’s European Green Bond Standard — a voluntary, high-quality standard for green bonds due to be implemented in 2024 or 2025 — should increase the transparency and robustness of green issues. The same principles could also be used to develop a social and sustainability bond standard, leading to greater uniformity across sustainable debt issuance. Conversely, the European Green Bond Standard could reduce the appeal of existing green bonds that don’t meet the standard. This could create a “haves versus have-nots” pricing dynamic, incentivise stronger, more ambitious terms and support the transition to a sustainable future.
Irrespective of regulation, we believe that it is essential for responsible asset owners to have a robust framework for analysing labelled issuance and that this will ultimately help to establish higher ESG standards in the market and increase the likelihood of generating real-world impact.
1Bloomberg NEF, Bloomberg LP. Includes green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds as determined by Bloomberg. Excludes municipal bonds and asset-backed securities. | 2Barclays Research.