responsible investing in private equity - apax · pdf fileresponsible investing in private...

Responsible Investing in Private Equity2013 ESG ENGAGEMENT REPORT

RobecoSAMGovernance & Active Ownership

06/2014

www.robeco.com

www.robecosam.com

Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 1

Table of contents

Executive summary 2

1. Introduction 3

2. Eight years of fund engagement in perspective 4

3. ESG performance in 2013 6

3.1 Overall ESG results 6

3.2 Newly added funds 7

3.3 ESG sub-scores 7

3.4 ESG leaders, laggards and followers 7

3.5 ESG performance across different fund programs 9

4. Factors influencing ESG performance 10

4.1 Fund size 10

4.2 Fund vintage year 10

4.3 Investment region 11

4.4 PE investment strategy 12

4.5 UN PRI subscription 12

5. Examples of good ESG practices 14

5.1 Good ESG practices by clean tech funds 14

5.1.1 Angeleno Group 14

5.1.2 Munich Venture Partners 15

5.1.3 Pegasus Capital Advisors 16

5.2 Other examples of good ESG practices 16

6. Concluding remarks 18

APPENDIX 19

ESG Scores and sub-scores, 2010 - 2013 19

2 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity

Executive summary

This 2013 edition of the Responsible Entrepreneurship Report marks eight years

of RobecoSAM Private Equity’s engagement with private equity (PE) funds on

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) integration. Thanks to a substantial

increase in investments and new programs since 2006, this has been our largest

annual ESG assessment to date.

The intention of this report is to inform our investors of this

year’s results, and to stimulate further integration of ESG

analysis in the investment process of the participating PE

funds. Results are based on a participating fund’s responses

to the annual RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible

Entrepreneurship Questionnaire, and these responses are

summarized here across different programs. We shed light

on general ESG trends and market developments, and

highlight three distinct case studies, which makes this report

particularly relevant reading for the less performing funds.

The most important results of the 2013 assessment can be

summarized as follows:

• The average ESG score increased to 64.7% in 2013:

all sub-scores for strategy & policy, as well as

environmental, social and governance performance

have improved.

• One third of the assessed PE funds can be categorized as

ESG leaders in 2013.

• On average, the more mature PE fund programs

demonstrate better ESG performance than recently

introduced programs and funds of older vintage have

higher ESG scores.

• Large buyout funds show the best ESG performance

among the four fund segments.

• The highest scores are not exclusively attained by the

largest funds. Small funds can also become top ESG

performers.

• European funds attained the highest total ESG score and

sub-scores in 2013.

• United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment

(UN PRI) signatories perform better than non-signatories.

By assessing the funds across different programs, and

analyzing the relationship between ESG performance and the

different characteristics of PE funds, examples of interesting

and distinguishing ESG practices come to light. Generally, PE

funds in our assessment universe show many exemplary ESG

practices: of particular note in this report are the case studies

of clean tech funds, which demonstrate that it is also possible

to implement a successful ESG strategy when investing in

smaller, less mature companies.

Despite the in-depth insights we can already glean from a

study of this nature, we are constantly evaluating different

options in order to make our approach more efficient,

fund-friendly and valuable to the PE funds we engage with.

As the diversity of ESG issues continues to expand, this kind

of knowledge sharing will prove ever more vital, especially

given that the proportion of assets managed with reference

to ESG considerations worldwide is expected to grow.


In general, it is expected that the proportion of assets

managed with reference to ESG considerations worldwide

will continue to rise as more and more investors realize the

importance of ESG management for long-term performance,

and as the diversity of ESG issues continues to expand2.

Furthermore, investors are realizing that there is opportunity

for value protection and value creation through ESG

management for the private equity industry3.

These trends are reflected in the number of PE fund programs

with an ESG engagement overlay that RobecoSAM Private

Equity is managing. From one fund in 2004 to ten funds

in 2014, RobecoSAM Private Equity now manages the

following fund programs4: Robeco Sustainable Private Equity

(RSPE), Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), The

Environment Agency Active Fund (EAA 17), RobecoSAM

Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT), RobecoSAM Funds of Funds

lll (RSFoF III), RobecoSAM Secondary Fund lll (RSSec) and

MarbleHouse.

Every PE fund is evaluated and benchmarked on an annual

basis, and their performance is reported to RobecoSAM

Private Equity’s investors, as well as the participating funds

themselves.

This report summarizes the results across different programs,

and is created with the intention of stimulating further

integration of ESG analysis in the investment approach of

the participating PE funds. The report also serves to inform

RobecoSAM Private Equity’s investors about the results of its

own ESG efforts, which are carried out in cooperation with

Rabobank Sustainability. By summarizing the results across

different programs, and analyzing the relationship between

ESG performance and the different characteristics of PE funds,

examples of interesting and distinguishing ESG practices

come to light.

The report is structured as follows. In section 2 we look back

over the last eight years and comment on the developments

and ESG trends we have observed. Section 3 focuses on the

overall ESG performance of the assessed PE funds in 2013,

and provides the most relevant statistics. In section 4, we

investigate the relationship between the ESG performance

and selected characteristics of the funds. Section 5 reviews

different examples of successful ESG best practices, and

highlights three cases studies. Finally, section 6 concludes

with some thoughts on our future ESG plans.

1. Introduction

This eighth annual Responsible Entrepreneurship Report summarizes the results

of our largest annual Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) assessment to

date, and includes 66 responses1. The report also brings a discussion of the most

important trends that influence the ESG performance of these funds during the

course of 2013.

1 There were 66 questionnaires filled out in 2013. If a fund manager applies the same ESG approach to multiple PE funds, they submit just one questionnaire.

2 GSIA (2012), Global Sustainable Investment Review 2012.3 PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Putting a Price on Value, 2013.

4 In total, there are ten funds in seven fund programs with an ESG overlay. In this report we treat Robeco Sustainable Private Equity, The Environment Agency Active Fund and Robeco SAM Horeca Clean Tech each as one fund program. Formally, each consist of two funds from two distinct vintage years.


Over the years, RobecoSAM Private Equity’s responsible

investment strategy has been extended through additional

investments and new programs. Currently, there are seven

such programs in place. Whereas in 2006 the combined net

asset value of the 137 portfolio companies was only USD 123

million, this has increased to USD 596 million at the end

of 2013. Spread over 675 companies this has dramatically

increased the potential impact of the Responsible

Entrepreneurship Program (see Figure 1). Indeed, in the

latest assessment cycle a number of funds have reported

that they are entering the harvest phase, which makes this

an opportune moment to look back and see what has been

accomplished over the past eight years.

2. Eight years of fund engagement in perspectiveIt has been eight years and eight annual assessment cycles since 2006, which

is when the Rabobank Sustainability team first began collecting information on

responsible investment from the investee funds in the Robeco Responsible Private

Equity (RSPE) program5. Back in 2006, RSPE was the only private equity program

with an ESG engagement overlay, and the investment universe was restricted to

13 funds, most of them in the investing phase.

2006 2013

137 committed companiesUSD 213 million ofcommitted capital

675 committed companiesUSD 596 million of committed capital

Figure 1: Engagement reach of RobecoSAM Private Equity in 2006 and in 2013

Source: RobecoSAM Private Equity

5 The RSPE program itself was launched in 2004.

Initially, the Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaire

looked very different. The 2006 version consisted of ten

open questions on general fund characteristics (such as size),

monitoring and reporting, as well as questions about the

fund’s representation in the portfolio companies, and the

sustainability performance of the portfolio companies.

It was only in 2007 that the first quantitative ESG scores were

assigned to the participating funds, based on their responses

to the questionnaire. It took another two years before the

assessment methodology took its current form.

If we look back at the responses to the qualitative

questionnaire in the early assessment years, we can see how

PE funds have changed in their attitude towards responsible

investment and towards the incorporation of ESG factors in

their investment process. When funds were asked about how

responsible entrepreneurship was integrated into their overall

investment processes in 2006, almost all of them described

how they wanted to implement good corporate governance

in their portfolio companies. When asked about their

responsible entrepreneurship targets, almost all funds again

reverted to providing more transparency and implementing

the corporate governance codes and procedures. Only one

fund mentioned that it was monitoring some environmental

metrics, and one fund claimed to be looking into some small

environmental improvements.

By the end of 2013, the picture is very different: at least 33

PE funds in the ESG programs indicated that they monitor

some ESG metrics in their portfolio companies. These metrics

include social and governance key performance indicators

(KPIs) as well as environmental KPIs. Some funds have even

developed very sophisticated online platforms that help their

portfolio companies scan for ESG risks they might be exposed

to, given the sector and the region they invest in. Funds have


also improved on transparency regarding their ESG policies

and their ESG performance over the years. We expect these

positive trends to continue in the future, especially since

new tools and handbooks, such as the recently published

Integrating ESG In Private Equity: A Guide For General Partners

by UN PRI, make relevant knowledge and best practices easily

accessible. We contribute to this knowledge sharing through

our annual report, and the recommendations we make to the

participating PE funds directly.

Back in 2006 RobecoSAM Private Equity was probably one

of the few investors in PE that collected information on ESG

efforts of its investee funds. Eight years later, an average

fund in RobecoSAM’s Responsible Entrepreneurship Program

typically fills out a few ESG questionnaires per year. This

development is a result of different reporting initiatives

that were launched in the last few years, including the new

reporting framework of the United Nations Principles for

Responsible Investment (UN PRI), the Global Reporting

Initiative and the PE ESG Disclosure Initiative. The public

reports made available by the UN PRI are an important

milestone and to ease the reporting burden of the PRI

signatories in our ESG fund programs, we have introduced the

option for them to submit their PRI report instead of filling

out our questionnaire in 2013.

In the past PE funds primarily focused on corporate governance in their portfolio companies


We begin by describing recent changes in the assessed

portfolio before looking at how the environmental, social

and governance sub-scores have evolved since 2012, and

discussing the changes in the distribution of funds across

different performance categories, i.e. leaders, followers

and laggards. The section concludes with a note on the

performance of PE funds across different programs with an

ESG overlay.

3.1 Overall ESG resultsThe average ESG score of the PE funds in RobecoSAM Private

Equity’s assessment universe has increased from 62.1% in

2012 to 64.7% in 2013. This is in line with the positive trend

of the recent years (see Table 1). The improved score is a

result of several factors, such as new entrants to the ESG

program and the exceptional efforts of some incumbents.

The latter includes some of the last year’s ESG leaders

who have recently introduced on-line ESG platforms for

monitoring and reporting on ESG risks and opportunities

in their portfolio, and on most material ESG metrics. In

addition, a number of funds have formalized their ESG

investment approach and their engagement with the

portfolio companies by preparing company-specific ESG

action plans, hiring a full-time dedicated ESG manager at the

fund level, and integrating ESG information in their quarterly

and annual portfolio reviews for investors.

Given that investors in PE increasingly embrace ESG

integration and support various international initiatives in

this space, one would expect the most recently added PE

funds to complete the ESG assessment with higher scores

3. ESG performance in 2013

In this section we discuss the overall ESG performance of the PE funds included

in the Responsible Entrepreneurship Program at the end of 2013, and highlight

the trends we observe. Funds are evaluated on their ESG policy and strategy

(representing 40% of the total ESG score) and on their environmental, social and

governance performance (each representing 20% of the total score).

Source: Rabobank, Robeco Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013

Table 1: Total ESG scores of funds with ESG engagement overlay, 2010 - 2013

2013 2012 2011 2010

Average 64.7% 62.1% 60.5% 62.3%

Maximum 100.0% 98.9% 98.3% 91.0%

Minimum 13.7% 13.7% 16.1% 17.0%

The average ESG score increased to 64.7% in 2013.

than their peers did a few years ago. The minimum ESG score

does not support this premise, however, the maximum score

attained by a fund in 2013 did increase. For the first time in

our assessment history, we were able to award a perfect score

of 100%. In fact, a total of six PE funds are now ESG leaders

with 100% score.

3.2 Newly added fundsDuring 2013, five funds were added to the assessment

universe across five different fund programs. Two of the funds

were categorized as ESG followers, as they show at least

some integration of ESG into their investment process, both

on the strategy & policy side as well as with respect to their

ESG engagement with portfolio companies.

One of the new entrants has not made any investments

yet. This works as a disadvantage within our assessment

methodology as funds are being scored on their ESG strategy

& policy, as well as on environmental, social and governance

engagement efforts and good practices in their portfolio

companies. As a result, the funds with no investments

only get rewarded for their ESG strategy and policy, which

then results in a relatively low total score. Surprisingly, the

other four new entrants all have a small set of KPIs in place,

something we haven’t seen very often in the past. Overall,

33 out of the 66 funds we follow track ESG metrics at the


Table 2: ESG sub-scores of funds with ESG engagement overlay, 2010 - 2013

Strategy & Policy scores 2013 2012 2011 2010

Average 69.4% 67.8% 65.2% 65.8%

Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 95.7% 97.1%

Minimum 10.0% 10.0% 12.9% 20.7%

Environmental scores 2013 2012 2011 2010

Average 66.5% 63.0% 64.3% 65.5%

Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7%

Minimum 3.3% 10.0% 10.0% 6.7%

Social scores 2013 2012 2011 2010

Average 59.2% 55.2% 52.4% 56.3%

Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.3%

Minimum 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

Governance scores 2013 2012 2011 2010

Average 59.0% 57.0% 55.3% 57.9%

Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.3%

Minimum 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 1.7%

Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010 - 2013

portfolio company level. The fact that four of the new funds

perform below average relates to the fact that their ESG

strategy and policy is less advanced, thus they were less

able to demonstrate good ESG practices in their portfolio

companies compared to their peers.

We observe that the inclusion of new funds in the assessment

portfolio negatively affects the average overall ESG score.

Contrary to our expectations, we also see that the new

entrants do not (yet) perform significantly better than their

fellow funds did in the recent years. We will discuss this

phenomenon further in section 4.

3.3 ESG sub-scoresThe total ESG score is comprised of four sub-scores that reflect

the fund’s ESG strategy & policy, and its environmental,

social and governance performance. On average, PE funds

systematically perform the best on strategy & policy (see

Table 2). In addition, the difference between the highest

and the lowest scoring fund tends to be the smallest on

this sub-score. This is not surprising given that all funds

include some ESG aspects either in their mission statement,

corporate strategy, investment policy or process. At the same

time, a number of funds claim not to be able to demonstrate

any results of their environmental, social or governance

engagement with portfolio companies. They seem to have

particular difficulties with respect to social issues.

Over the last four years, average sub-scores have generally

improved. This is despite the fact that new funds were added

to the assessment portfolio each year and new entrants

contribute the zero scores on different sub-sections. It is

particularly surprising that some funds claim they cannot

provide any evidence on the corporate governance efforts of

their portfolio companies, and we believe that there may be

The average sub-score for strategy & policy, environmental, social and governance performance all improved in 2013.


some misinterpretation of our questionnaire in this section.

Typically, misunderstandings like this are resolved after the

first engagement round with the funds.

Another factor that contributes to the variability in sub-scores

is the requirement to provide examples of best ESG practices

in the portfolio companies each year. Sometimes funds

have a great one-off demonstration of good ESG practices

following the publication of extensive case studies or the

implementation of certain policies, but fail to demonstrate

such efforts on a continual basis.

3.4 ESG leaders, laggards and followersAccording to their total ESG score, we categorize the

assessed PE funds either as ESG leaders (total score > 80%),

ESG followers (total score between 50% and 80%) or ESG

laggards (total score < 50%). A description of their defining

characteristics can be found in Figure 2 below.

The number of laggards and followers in the assessment

universe of 2013 remained the same as in 2012 (see Table

3). However, the number of leaders increased by five, which

is a very positive development. Although the number of

followers and laggards stayed at the 2012 level, this does not

mean no transitions took place between these categories. In

other words, some of the 2012 laggards have moved to the

followers category, while new funds entered as laggards. It is

the laggards category that receives our increased attention

in terms of recommendations and ideas for the design and

implementation of ESG integration in the investment process.

If we look at the distribution of leaders across different fund

programs, we see a similar picture as presented by the overall

ESG performance of fund programs (see Figure 3 and Figure

4). The oldest programs (RSPE and EAA17) hold the largest

proportion of leaders in the portfolio. It does not come as a

surprise that the clean tech focused RSHTC-program contains

the lowest percentage of leaders. The result of the youngest

ESG LeadersESG Leaders recognize the value of ESG

integration in their investment process and

in the portfolio companies. These funds

are forward looking and often pioneer in

the measurement of ESG performance

and the monitoring of ESG metrics.

Leaders typically make use of external ESG

expertise and have a dedicated person or

committee for dealing with ESG issues.

While implementing the specific ESG policy

they continuously manage to show good

results on the performance of their portfolio

companies on environmental, social and

governance issues. Often, these results are

comprehensively disclosed to investors.

ESG FollowersESG followers generally have an ESG

strategy or policy in place at the fund level,

comparable to ESG leaders. The translation

of this policy into demonstrable results

at portfolio companies’ level is where

they lag behind on ESG leaders. Funds

categorized as ESG followers are often in

the implementation stage of their ESG

ambitions into the practices of portfolio

companies. Another type of ESG follower

is an ex-ESG leader that had difficulties in

showing ESG improvements in its portfolio

companies.

ESG LaggardsESG laggards are characterized by a weak

or absent ESG strategy or policy and low

environmental, social and governance

performance. ESG laggards often make

the claim that ESG is at the core of their

organization but they are not able to

show substantial improvements in their

portfolio companies. As stated earlier,

newly added funds typically tend to be

categorized as ESG laggards after the first

assessment. Often, this is due to the lack

of evidence the funds provide and the

misinterpretation of the questionnaire.

Funds in this category are reluctant to

implement our recommendations or they

have been acquired based on economic

merits as secondary fund stakes. These

fund managers are typically less strongly

committed to answering our questionnaire

than the primary investments since we could

could not ask upfront for their collaboration

on ESG. In some cases, funds are simply

not able to show any ESG results due to

that the fact that they have not made any

investments yet.

Figure 2: Characteristics of ESG leaders, followers and laggards

Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity

One third of the assessed PE funds can be categorized as ESG leaders in 2013.

RobecoSAM Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 9

program – MarbleHouse – is not really representative as it

only reflects the score of one fund, which happens to be an

ESG laggard.

As programs mature, more and more funds become ESG

leaders. The ultimate objective of our ESG engagement

efforts is that all funds will be ESG leaders when the

programs are terminated. As the current results indicate, we

still have a way to go but we seem to be moving in the right

direction.

3.5 ESG performance across different fund programs PE funds with an ESG engagement overlay can be divided

into seven different fund programs that correspond to the

mandates of different investor groups. The ESG program

Table 3: Number of ESG leaders, laggards and followers across portfolios, 2010-2012

2013 2012 2011 2010

Laggards 20 20 20 13

Followers 24 24 16 12

Leaders 22 17 14 11

Total 66 61 50 36

Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010 - 2013.

Figure 3: ESG performance categories across PE fund programs Figure 4: ESG performance of different PE fund programs in 2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Leaders Followers Laggards

RSPE2004

EAA 172005

RSFoFlll2010

RSSec2010

RRPE II2009

RSHCT2010

MarbleHouse2013

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

RSPE2004

EAA 172005

RSFoFlll2010

RSSec2010

RRPE II2009

RSHCT2010

MarbleHouse2013

Strategy & Policy Governance Social Environment

Abbreviations used in the graph: Robeco Sustainable Private Equity (RSPE & RSPE C.V.), Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), Robeco SAM Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT & RSHCT II), Robeco SAM Funds of Funds lll (RSFoF lll), Robeco SAM Secondary Fund lll (RSSec). The Environment Agency Active Fund (EAA 17 & EAA 17 II).

Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013

began with the Robeco Sustainable Private Equity (RSPE &

RSPE C.V.), and a commitment by the Environment Agency

Active Fund (EAA 17 & EAA 17 II) in 2004. Over the years,

the ESG overlay was extended to five other fund programs,

namely Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), Robeco

SAM Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT & RSHCT II), Robeco SAM

Funds of Funds lll (RSFoF lll), Robeco SAM Secondary Fund lll

(RSSec) and MarbleHouse. Figure 4 shows the average ESG

scores and sub-scores of different fund programs in 2013.

Figure 4 nicely illustrates the differences in average ESG

performance of different fund programs. These can largely

be explained by the age of the programs and/or the types

of funds they consist of. On the one side of the performance

spectrum are the RSPE and EAA 17 programs that constitute

the initial core of RobecoSAM Private Equity’s engagement

strategy. Amongst other factors, the eight engagement

rounds they’ve taken part in so far have probably had a

positive affect on their ESG performance. The MarbleHouse

program, on the other hand, was just introduced in 2013

and consisted of only one PE fund as of year-end. Next to it

is the RSHCT, the clean tech focused program, which consists

primarily of funds that invest in companies in the early

development stages. As a result, clean tech funds typically

show lower ESG scores than the mainstream, buyout funds.

This is also reflected in the performance of the secondary

program (RSSec), which consists only of clean tech funds.

The more mature PE fund programs have better ESG performance than the recently introduced ones.


Because the number of funds in our assessment universe is

relatively small, and the time series of ESG scores too short for

a meaningful econometric analysis, we simply use graphs and

descriptive statistics for the purpose of our analysis here.

4.1 Fund sizeSmaller PE funds in our assessment universe often quote

size as one of the obstacles to successful ESG integration.

Specifically, larger funds have potentially more human and

financial resources available to implement a comprehensive

ESG strategy, and to collect relevant ESG data and examples

of good practices in their portfolio. Figure 5 shows a scatter

plot of ESG scores depending on the fund size, measured as

assets under management in millions of USD. Fund size is

plotted on the horizontal axis, which has a logarithmic scale.

The plot illustrates how diverse our assessment universe is in

terms of fund size, ranging between 70 million USD and 15

billion USD.

There seems to be no clear relationship between the fund

size and the ESG score of the assessed PE funds. Figure 5

also suggests that the highest scores are not exclusively

reserved for the largest funds. Small funds can also be top

ESG performers. Crucially, even small funds can develop

a structured ESG approach that can be implemented in

portfolio companies still in their early development stage.

4.2 Fund vintage yearGiven the variety of ESG initiatives for private equity in the

recent years, and alongside eight years of our engagement

with the oldest funds in the ESG program, one would expect

the funds with the oldest vintage to perform better than the

most recent entrants to the program. To ‘test’ this hypothesis

we show the funds’ ESG scores for 2013 and their vintage

year in Figure 6. ESG scores are depicted on the y-axis while

the dots represent PE funds ordered by the year in which they

were added to one of the ESG fund programs.

4. Factors influencing ESG performanceIn this section we investigate the effect of a fund’s size, vintage year, investment

region, PE segment and PRI endorsement on the ESG performance of PE funds in

2013. This analysis can provide new insights for the fund managers that compare

their scores with their most relevant peers. The findings can also help us better

understand the differences in ESG scores of the participating PE funds so that we

can adjust our engagement efforts accordingly.

Figure 5: Fund size (horizontal, logarithmic axis in millions USD) and total ESG score (vertical axis) of PE funds in 2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$10 $100 $1.000 $10.000 $100.000


Figure 6: Vintage year and ESG scores (vertical axis) in 2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires, 2006-2013


Figure 7: Investment region and ESG scores of PE funds in 2013

TotalESG score

Strategy & Policy

Environment Social Governance

North America Global Europe Emerging Markets

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Figure 8: ESG performance and PE segment

Infrastructure Development Venture Capital Mid Market Buyouts Large Buyouts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TotalESG score

Strategy & Policy


Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires, 2013

As the participating funds become familiar with our ESG

approach and get used to our questions after a couple

of engagement rounds, they are better able to provide

the relevant information and typically improve their ESG

scores. In this context, Figure 6 also potentially illustrates

the positive effect of our engagement efforts over the

years. Our contribution to the ESG efforts of the funds has

been acknowledged by several participating funds in their

communication with us, and with other investors. However,

it remains no more than potential contribution while it is the

funds and their portfolio companies themselves that have

been investing in ESG integration.

4.3 Investment regionBased on the ESG assessments conducted over the last eight

years, we can observe differences in ESG performance of

PE funds that invest in different geographical regions. This

is illustrated in Figure 7, where we divide the funds that

participated in the 2013 assessment into four categories:

emerging markets (with 9 funds), Europe (21 funds), North

America (25 funds), and global (11 funds). For simplicity,

emerging markets here refers to all regions outside Europe

and North America. The global category includes funds that

invest across different regions.

Figure 7 depicts the average ESG scores and sub scores per

investment region in 2013. Not surprisingly, European PE

funds show the best ESG performance on average, followed

by the global funds, emerging markets funds and North

American funds. European funds are characterized by high

ESG awareness, which is partly driven by critical consumers

and EU legislation. The governance sub-scores suggest that

the North American funds direct their ESG efforts primarily

at corporate governance issues in their portfolio. For dealing

with the environmental and social issues they rely heavily on

the relevant standards and legislation. Relatively good ESG


performance of the funds investing in emerging markets can

largely be attributed to the high sustainability standards and

requirements of the multilateral banks such as IFC, who are

co-invested in many of the emerging market funds in our ESG

program. These funds exhibit particularly good monitoring

and reporting of their environmental and social impacts.

4.4 PE segmentIn past assessments we have seen a pronounced difference

in the ESG performance of mainstream and clean tech funds.

With the exception of the three infrastructure funds, most

clean tech funds invest in companies that are at an early

development stage. Next to infrastructure development,

we distinguish three additional categories that closely

correspond to the investment segment of the assessed PE

funds, namely large buyout (7 funds), mid-market buyout (33

funds), and early and later stage venture capital (23 funds).

Infrastructure development funds, of which we only have

three in our universe, are seen as a separate category as the

characteristics of their investments do not align well with the

other main categories.

Of the four categories, large buyout funds show the best

ESG performance (see Figure 8). This is not surprising if we

consider the fact that they invest in large, more mature and

more complex organizations. These organizations might have

more exposure to ESG risks and opportunities and face more

pressure from consumers, which could be why large buyout

Figure 9: PRI endorsement5 and ESG performance in 2013


PRI signatory

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

PRI non-signatory

TotalESG score

Strategy & Policy


funds engage their portfolio companies on ESG issues from

the moment they invest in them. Furthermore, large buyout

funds are also the largest funds in our universe in terms of

assets under management, so our remarks regarding the

fund size also apply here.

The social and governance performance of venture funds is

comparable to that of the infrastructure funds and also the

mid-market funds. Relatively high environmental score of

venture (clean tech) funds reflects their inherent focus on a

positive environmental impact. Given that they typically focus

on portfolio companies that generally have little means to

pursue an active ESG strategy, the social and governance sub

scores of venture funds are relatively low. Nevertheless, we

increasingly see venture funds finding their way in organizing

ESG management as shown in the next section of this report.

For the infrastructure funds, implementing ESG as an

ongoing concern is different from implementing ESG in a

one-off multi-year project, and it comes with different types

of strategies. It also puts a different weight on the necessary

due diligence that comes with infrastructure development.

Note that the last infrastructure fund was added to the ESG

program in 2013, while the other two funds are both ESG

leaders with nearly perfect scores on some of the sub-

sections.

4.5 UN PRI subscriptionThe difference in ESG scores between UN PRI signatories

and non-signatories appears to be much more pronounced

compared to other factors discussed in this section (see

Figure 9). Generally, the endorsement demonstrates a public

commitment to ESG integration, as well as active ownership

and reporting. However, PRI signatories aren’t required to

have an elaborate KPI metric system in place, nor are they

obliged to provide examples of good practice to PRI. The

PRI signatories in our assessment universe do, however,

score very well on each of the subsections of our assessment

methodology, indicating that they do track metrics and

are able to provide examples of good ESG practices on a

continuous basis.

Currently, 22 funds in our investment universe are managed

by PE managers that have endorsed PRI. This number has

grown steadily over time, which is in line with the global 5 Strategy & Policy scores are adjusted to correct for extra points assigned to the UN PRI signatories.


Figure 10: UN PRI PE signatories, 2006-2014

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

50

100

150

200

250

300

Source: UN PRI

trend for the PE managers demonstrated in Figure 10.6

Overall, more than 1,260 of the world’s largest investment

organizations have signed up to the PRI since its introduction

in 2006. In response to the increased recognition of

PRI globally we now accept the PRI private RI reports

of the participating funds as an alternative to our ESG

questionnaire.

As Figure 9 shows, PRI signatories perform substantially

better than non-signatories on all aspects we evaluate. The

average ESG score of a signatory in 2013 was 80.6% while

the non-signatories scored below 56.5%. In other words, an

average PRI signatory in our universe is an ESG leader.

Since the introduction of the PRI’s new mandatory reporting

framework and the assessment feedback that is being piloted

this year, PRI membership has become much more than a

simple tick-the-box exercise. At the same time, the various

tools that PRI and others have developed since 2006 have

been helping PRI signatories in the implementation of their

ESG approach as well.

6 The most recent data point in Figure 10 includes 150 specialized PE managers. The rest are Limited Partner (LP) members.

UN PRI signatories perform better than the non-signatories


We present the ESG approach of three clean tech investors,

namely the Angeleno Group, Munich Venture Partners and

Pegasus Capital Advisors, and conclude this section with

a brief summary of the interesting and distinguishing

practices that we have come across during our latest

assessment. In our opinion, these examples can serve

as inspiration for PE funds that are still developing their

approach to ESG integration.

5.1 Good ESG practices by clean tech funds

5.1.1 Angeleno GroupAngeleno Group specializes in clean energy and natural

resources growth equity investing. It has been in our

assessment universe since 2011 and became one of the

ESG leaders soon after. When they participated in the first

assessment cycle, they impressed us with the way they

executed pre-investment research on ESG issues. Since then

they have built a comprehensive method for post-investment

engagement with their portfolio companies. They collect ESG

information via questionnaires and data requests and set

up annual action plans for improvement. It is their policy to

engage with portfolio companies that have reached certain

milestones on revenue, EBITDA and headcount growth. Their

engagement is voluntary in nature, given that Angeleno

Group generally takes minority stakes in their companies.

Below we provide a summary of Angeleno’s pre- and post-

investment questionnaire.

Pre-investment questionnaireAngeleno’s pre-investment questionnaire is a five page

document covering environmental, social and governance

issues. In the introductory part, the companies indicate

whether any stakeholder group (customers, employees,

investors, regulators, media, communities/advocacy groups)

have asked questions on social responsibility or sustainability.

The fund managers choose three topics on which the

company is asked to describe its strengths. The topics

include the mitigation of environmental impacts, employee

treatment and governance structure versus the company’s

objectives, thereby touching upon each of the pillars of ESG.

The first part concludes with an inquiry on the extent to

which data is available, and whether the company complies

with any relevant ESG certifications or standards.

The environmental, social and governance aspects are

equally represented and the company is being asked to

indicate three to five material risks and opportunities.

Furthermore, companies are asked to indicate whether

they have policies in place that are related to a list of

environmental, social and governance issues, and what their

potential risks on these issues are.

Post-investment questionnaire Each portfolio company receives Angeleno’s annual ESG

questionnaire which is longer than the pre-investment

questionnaire and is streamlined to build on the information

from the previous assessment and on the portfolio

company’s action plan. It consists of the following elements:

• Stakeholder engagement: Each portfolio company is

asked to give an update on the stakeholder engagement

efforts, challenges or emerging topics of interests, and

the engagement opportunities for the upcoming year.

• Best practices review: For each of the pillars of

ESG, companies are asked to provide an update

on best practices, and whether any new policies or

accomplishments have been introduced. This is also

the information that Angeleno Group uses in its

communication with the investors (e.g. in its response

to the annual Robeco Responsible Entrepreneurship

Questionnaire).

5. Examples of good ESG practicesIn every annual report we highlight a few PE funds with good or exemplary ESG

practices. As we have seen, clean tech (venture) funds systematically underperform

the mainstream funds in terms of their average ESG score, so we have decided to

put a spotlight on the best ESG practices of a couple of clean tech funds. These funds

demonstrate how ESG factors and responsible investing can be integrated, even

when investing in smaller and less mature companies.


• Management approach for material ESG topics: Each

portfolio company is asked to provide an update on its

long-term goals, the actions it has taken with respect to

these goals in the past year, and the objectives it has for

the coming year.

• Performance and targets: portfolio companies are asked

to provide information on their performance relative

to the targets which were established in the previous

engagement cycle and to determine a target for the

coming year.

The questionnaire also provides room for feedback by the

portfolio company on the engagement cycle regarding

environment, labor practices, human rights and society,

products and services responsibility and economic and

governance performance. For each of these topics Angeleno

Group makes an assessment of the extent to which the topic

is important for the stakeholders of the portfolio company.

Figure 11 illustrates the structure of Angeleno’s annual

engagement process as described above. The annual

engagement cycle enables Angeleno Group to report on

KPIs and best practices, and shows the progress participating

portfolio companies are making. Given their minority

positions in the companies, and that funds investing in

clean tech companies demonstrate more difficulties in ESG

integration, our analysis confirms that Angeleno Group is a

top-quartile fund with a unique and best-in-class approach

towards the incorporation of ESG factors in its investment

process.

5.1.2 Munich Venture Partners Munich Venture Partners (MVP) is a clean tech venture

capital investor, which was added to our assessment universe

in 2011. While MVP focuses on high tech startups, it has

nevertheless set ambitious ESG plans for the near future,

including the development of company specific KPIs on

environmental, social and governance issues. They also

intend to engage their portfolio companies on their relative

ESG performance and have created a questionnaire in

accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and

the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN). In

our view, this questionnaire is an excellent example of how a

clean tech venture fund can gather relevant information from

its portfolio companies that not only includes environmental

aspects, but also social and governance issues.

The setup of MVP’s ESG questionnaire is broad and portfolio

companies only answer questions that are applicable to

them, and which they are able to answer. The questionnaire

is a tool to collect as much information as possible, and to be

able to identify in which ESG areas crucial information might

be missing.

The environmental part of the questionnaire includes

questions on:

• (recycled) materials used as inputs in the manufacturing

process.

• energy usage and energy intensity ratio: Portfolio

companies report the ratio in a way that suits their

business best.

• water usage and the respective source.

Social performance covers employee turnover, human rights

and discrimination incidents, and whether the company

sells products that are banned in certain markets or subject

to public debate. On governance, the CEOs of the respective

portfolio companies are required to declare that they have

signed up to certain governance principles and are operating

in accordance with them. Additional questions cover the

occurrence of corruption, monetary fines, compliance and

Figure 11: Angeleno Group’s engagement process

Completion of annual ESG

questionnaire by portfolio

company [January]

Angeleno Group

provides support during

questionnaire completion

Angeleno Group and

portfolio company meet and

discuss the questionnnaire

response and ESG action plan

opportunities [February]

Angeleno Group will follow

up with a recommended

ESG action plan for coming

year and issue requests

for subsequent data and

documentation

Portfolio company completes

data and documentation

requests [March]

Angeleno Group provides

support during completion

Portfolio company and

Angeleno Group agree on

action plan and monitor

progress througout the year

Portfolio company escalates

any ESG issues that

present significant risks or

opportunities


financial assistance from the government.

The broad nature of the questionnaire makes it very suitable

for small companies as they can choose which questions to

answer and how to answer them, depending on their type

of business. The unanswered questions can potentially shed

light on the issues that need to be engaged with in due

course.

5.1.3 Pegasus Capital Advisors Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA) is a private equity fund

manager that focuses on companies that benefit from the

business implications of global resource scarcity. PCA has

been part of the assessment universe since 2012 and has

shown steady improvement ever since. PCA has designed

an exemplary ESG approach that is built around its ESG

Leadership Plan and its implementation. We highlight it

here because it clearly spells out the fund’s intentions for the

future. The plan consists of the following seven elements:

1. Leading

PCA believes that a true commitment to ESG principles

requires an investment in dedicated in-house expertise,

not just external consultants, in order to firmly integrate

values and deliverables throughout the company, its

funds and portfolio companies. PCA has hosted several

Thought Leadership Summits including one on Zero

Waste and a second one on Healthy Body/Healthy

Planet.

2. Setting Standards & Values

With the help of internal expertise, PCA sets certain

standards and measurable goals with respect to ESG

principles (which may include in the future alignment

with standard-setting entities such as UNPRI).

3. Implementing

PCA’s staff and advisors understand and embrace the

ESG goals of their firm, their funds and their portfolio

companies.

4. Investing

PCA’s investment philosophy is based on the

fundamental principles of their ESG Leadership standards

and values.

5. Managing

Portfolio companies are encouraged to adopt and adapt

ESG standards and measurable goals.

6. Communicating

PCA and its portfolio companies communicate via the

Web, as well as in other forms of communication, on

their ESG values, goals and accomplishments to all

relevant stakeholders to help their industry set new

standards and to differentiate their portfolio companies

to maximize the benefits of their engagement.

7. Improving

Setting and implementing ESG principles requires

ongoing learning from successes and setbacks, so PCA

embraces adaptive management techniques to ensure

constant improvement.

For PCA, this leadership plan constitutes the starting point as

well as a roadmap for their future ESG endeavors. The plan

includes elements that are crucial for a well-functioning ESG

management system (ESG values, goals, accomplishment

communication, thought leadership summits). At the same

time it is also compact and straightforward.

5.2 Other examples of good ESG practices Given that one-third of the PE funds in our ESG engagement

program can be viewed as ESG leaders, our latest review was

able to highlight numerous examples of good and best ESG

practices. Within this, it is important to note that interesting

and distinguishing practices do not necessarily come from

ESG leaders alone. For example, a fund can have a relatively

low total ESG score but still require its investment officers to

complete training on ESG analysis. By combining the most

interesting practices, we’ve been able to design a composite

profile of an ESG leader fund. In Figure 12 we list the

examples of good ESG practices and plot them depending on

where in the investment process they most likely occur.


Due Diligence Pre-acquisition questionnaire

Extensive and detailed due diligence checklists

List of preferred ESG due diligence suppliers

Investment Decision & Agreement ESG acquisition report prepared

All portfolio companies required to endorse the Global Compact principles

Fund’s subscription to Carbon Disclosure Project

A 180 day post-completion action plan prepared for each portfolio company

Ownership Sustainability information integrated in the portfolio efficiency tracking reports

On-line proprietary KPI toolkit & ESG information platform in place

Guidance notes prepared for investment teams, covering key issues and sectors, with links to case studies,

international norms and standards and additional information on specific markets

The status of the Environmental & Social action plan included in the regular company report

ESG questionnaire sent to portfolio companies on an annual basis

Post-acqusition questionnaire for portfolio companies developed

Annual planning and ESG training workshop for portfolio companies organized by a fund

Workshops on business integrity organized

Annual forum organized for the CEOs of portfolio companies to discuss relevant ESG issues and share

experiences.

Standardized ESG policies for clean tech companies prepared by the fund

Supplier sustainability surveys conducted

Portfolio company scored on proprietary ESG maturity index along five categories and benchmarked against

the public companies

A fund cooperates with local governments and communities to achieve cumulative improvements and foster

positive relationships

A fund actively participates in industry engagement with peer groups, panel discussions and conferences to

strengthen and share ESG expertise

Regular ESG visits of investors to portfolio companies

Reporting ESG incidents integrated in the quarterly portfolio reports

Portfolio company publishes annual ESG report

A Fund level ESG Report

Reporting both in terms of financial and non-financial disclosure of information

Portfolio companies provide monthly ESG updates

A fund mesures indirect environmental benefits and footprint equivalents of its portfolio

A fund publishes a portfolio report including the status, the problem areas in specific companies, the actions to

be taken, objectives and the progress so far

Exit Pre-exit environmental screening of portfolio companies conducted

ESG issues included in pre-exit information

Figure 12: Examples of good ESG practices of PE funds in the ESG program

Figure 7: Investment region and ESG scores of PE funds in 2013


Over the years, we have added fund profiles,

recommendations and feedback calls, with the purpose

of contributing to the promotion of responsible investing

and ESG integration in private equity. We have actively

participated in different industry initiatives, such as the ESG

disclosure framework and the PRI’s Guide for general partners

on ESG integration in private equity.

We are on the ESG journey, together with the private equity

funds, LPs, industry associations and international initiatives

such as UN PRI with its reporting framework. They have all

contributed to the broader acceptance of ESG integration in

the investment industry in different ways.

6. Concluding remarks

This is the eighth annual ESG assessment and report prepared for RobecoSAM

Private Equity’s fund programs with an ESG engagement overlay. Over the years, we

have improved our questionnaire, the scoring methodology and reporting template.

We began with a short qualitative questionnaire that was sent to 13 funds, and have

just completed a round with 66 assessments.

As the industry moves forward we constantly reevaluate

our approach and the tools that we use as part of our

engagement process. We are currently considering different

options for improving the IT infrastructure of our process, the

standardization of the questionnaire, and the monitoring

of ESG incidents. We are carefully evaluating each option in

order to make our approach more efficient, fund-friendly and

valuable to the private equity funds we engage with.

It remains a challenging journey.


Appendix

ESG Scores and sub-scores. 2010 - 2013

2013 Total ESG score

E

S

G

S&P

Total

ESG score

2012

2011

2010

1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 96.15% 88.52%

2 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 81.57% 62.33%

3 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 98.29% 90.95%

4 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 86.95% 77.95%

5 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.14% 93.14% 82.90%

6 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.05% 94.68% 89.15%

7 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.14% 98.86% 96.86% 90.00% 84.48%

8 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 96.00% 96.00% 92.00% 79.76%

9 93.33% 96.67% 86.67% 100.00% 95.33% 92.00% 93.43% 83.00%

10 100.00% 93.33% 86.67% 93.57% 93.43% 89.71% 87.05% 83.33%

11 90.00% 83.33% 93.33% 97.14% 92.19% 78.24% 76.90%

12 96.67% 83.33% 80.00% 98.57% 91.43% 91.43% 88.48% 86.67%

13 95.00% 95.00% 91.67% 83.57% 89.76% 87.86% 61.43%

14 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 72.86% 89.14% 88.43% 83.95% 74.14%

15 88.33% 96.67% 70.00% 94.29% 88.71% 88.05% 91.29% 90.52%

16 100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 75.00% 88.67% 62.86% 83.24% 82.57%

17 90.00% 86.67% 66.67% 100.00% 88.67% 74.10% 68.43% 65.00%

18 83.33% 90.00% 86.67% 87.86% 87.14% 81.48% 78.43% 75.95%

19 95.00% 91.67% 93.33% 75.00% 86.00% 81.67%

20 93.33% 93.33% 53.33% 85.71% 82.29% 52.33% 39.86%

21 93.33% 73.33% 70.00% 82.86% 80.48% 81.24% 51.68% 82.85%

22 55.00% 60.00% 90.00% 98.57% 80.43% 76.76% 47.86% 35.57%

23 90.00% 80.00% 60.00% 79.29% 77.71% 73.81% 70.86% 65.48%

24 96.67% 67.33% 55.00% 77.14% 74.66% 64.94% 55.10% 54.95%

25 95.00% 50.00% 60.00% 80.00% 73.00% 75.19% 36.33%

26 40.00% 68.33% 73.33% 84.29% 70.05% 67.57%

27 73.33% 76.67% 60.00% 69.29% 69.71% 62.43% 47.43% 44.38%

28 51.67% 50.00% 58.33% 83.57% 65.43% 28.62% 39.48%

29 71.67% 48.33% 48.33% 76.43% 64.24% 61.90% 44.95% 41.62%

30 55.00% 30.00% 35.00% 97.14% 62.86% 62.86% 72.57% 72.57%

31 66.67% 43.33% 43.33% 80.00% 62.67% 64.38%

32 58.33% 51.67% 51.67% 74.29% 62.05% 76.24% 78.43% 71.90%

33 64.00% 61.67% 47.33% 68.57% 62.03% 72.64% 67.69% 62.22%

34 56.67% 83.33% 85.00% 41.43% 61.57% 57.80% 33.52% 31.19%

35 65.00% 70.00% 85.00% 43.57% 61.43% 60.39% 55.05% 52.24%



ESG Scores and sub-scores. 2010 - 2013

2013 Total ESG score

E

S

G

S&P

Total

ESG score

2012

2011

2010

36 21.67% 31.67% 86.67% 82.86% 61.14% 59.29% 58.71%

37 93.33% 53.33% 25.00% 63.57% 59.76% 52.71% 40.90%

38 63.33% 61.67% 66.67% 53.57% 59.76%

39 80.00% 33.33% 56.67% 55.71% 56.29%

40 28.33% 60.00% 46.67% 69.29% 54.71% 47.33% 36.05%

41 71.67% 37.33% 39.00% 61.43% 54.17% 52.56% 32.95%

42 33.33% 71.67% 63.33% 45.71% 51.95% 51.95% 29.43% 16.95%

43 30.00% 48.33% 43.33% 67.86% 51.48% 58.05% 45.00%

44 82.33% 65.67% 46.00% 30.71% 51.09% 43.16% 27.07% 38.76%

45 70.00% 18.33% 28.33% 69.29% 51.05% 28.95%

46 56.67% 28.33% 25.00% 70.00% 50.00% 47.14% 36.48% 26.76%

47 83.33% 50.00% 46.67% 32.86% 49.14% 25.81%

48 70.00% 30.00% 45.00% 48.57% 48.43% 40.80% 43.37% 41.04%

49 48.33% 58.33% 16.67% 56.43% 47.24% 40.95%

50 37.33% 40.67% 45.67% 55.71% 47.02% 42.75%

51 48.33% 28.33% 40.00% 57.86% 46.48% 46.48% 57.52%

52 50.00% 43.33% 36.67% 49.29% 45.71% 34.00% 30.57%

53 20.00% 46.67% 53.33% 47.86% 43.14% 42.19% 44.19% 39.81%

54 48.33% 56.67% 53.33% 28.57% 43.10%

55 50.00% 38.33% 40.67% 42.14% 42.66% 48.94% 52.18% 43.10%

56 53.33% 13.33% 11.67% 66.43% 42.24% 52.14%

57 43.33% 28.33% 55.00% 41.43% 41.90% 33.29%

58 25.00% 58.33% 33.33% 42.14% 40.19% 55.05% 51.24% 49.57%

59 43.33% 25.00% 45.00% 39.29% 38.38% 38.38% 47.43% 35.81%

60 8.33% 3.33% 6.67% 78.57% 35.10% 26.29%

61 13.33% 13.33% 3.33% 67.14% 32.86% 26.86%

62 50.00% 20.00% 6.67% 42.86% 32.48%

63 6.67% 6.67% 56.67% 40.00% 30.00%

64 65.00% 13.33% 0.00% 32.86% 28.81% 22.14%

65 3.33% 3.33% 26.67% 40.71% 22.95% 22.86% 37.14% 37.14%

66 33.33% 3.33% 11.67% 10.00% 13.67% 13.67% 16.14%


Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010-2013


AuthorsSilva Deželan, Arend Lakke and Melinda Wouters, Rabobank Sustainability Department

Input byJesse de Klerk, Roland Pfeuti and Gert Wrigge

This report is a joint initiative of RobecoSAM PE and Rabobank Sustainability Department.

RobecoSAM Private EquityRobecoSAM Private Equity has its origins at Robeco in 2000. Today, RobecoSAM Private Equity is based out of both RobecoSAM, the investment specialist

focused exclusively on Sustainability Investing, in Zurich and Robeco, in Rotterdam. RobecoSAM Private Equity offers core and satellite investment

capabilities with a focus on mainstream and resource efficiency to institutional investors. Mainstream strategies target high-quality investments in the

mid market segment with a focus on Europe. Resource efficiency strategies benefit from the research and investment expertise of RobecoSAM, a company

with almost 20 years of experience managing thematic strategies and a focus on identifying opportunities that stem from the growing demand for finite

resources. Through RobecoSAM Private Equity’s diverse offerings, institutional clients can gain exposure to primary private equity funds, secondary private

equity funds, and co-investments in selected private companies. Being one of the first in the industry to launch fund of funds applying an ESG engagement

policy with the launch of RSPE C.V. and Robeco Sustainable Private Equity Fund, L.P in 2004, RobecoSAM Private Equity is a leader in ESG integration and

continues to benefit from RobecoSAM’s long-standing expertise in analyzing and identifying solution driven companies. The first private equity programs

were established in 2001 with Robeco Global Private Equity C.V. and Robeco European Private Equity C.V. RobecoSAM Private Equity has since launched

multiple generations of funds and customized mandates across various strategies and vintage years.

RabobankRabobank is an international financial services provider operating on the basis of cooperative principles. It offers retail banking, wholesale banking, asset

management, leasing, and real estate services. Rabobank Group is comprised of 129 independent local banks plus Rabobank Nederland, their central

organization, and a number of subsidiaries. Overall, Rabobank Group has an employee base of 56,870 employees (in full time equivalents), who serve

about 10 million clients in 41 countries. As of December 31, 2013, total assets were valued at EUR 674.2 billion. Rabobank began as a farmer’s co-operative

bank in 1898, and green issues have been ingrained in the culture from the start. Sustainability remains one of Rabobank’s core values today and the bank

has won many accolades for its sustainability management and reporting. Rabobank aligns its sustainability ambitions with those of its customers, striving

for a healthy balance between wealth and well-being as it spearheads the themes of sustainable agriculture and food production, and vital communities.

“RobecoSAM” is a registered trade mark and trade name of Robeco Groep N.V. (The Netherlands) and hereinafter referred to as the

“RobecoSAM-Brand”. The RobecoSAM-Brand is allowedly being used by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (The Netherlands) as well

as by RobecoSAM AG (Switzerland). Both legal entities are responsible for their own activities or publications related to the RobecoSAM-Brand.

For the sake of clarity we would like to state that the team members of RobecoSAM AG’s “Governance & Active Ownership” department are

based in the Netherlands and employed directly by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.

This brochure has been carefully prepared by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco). It is intended to provide the reader with

information on Robeco’s specific capabilities, but does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell certain securities or investment products.

The content of this document is based upon sources of information believed to be reliable, but no warranty or declaration, either explicit or

implicit, is given as to their accuracy or completeness. This document is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any

jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation. All copyrights, patents and other property

in the information contained in this document are held by Robeco. No rights whatsoever are licensed or assigned or shall otherwise pass to

persons accessing this information. The information contained in this publication is not intended for users from other countries, such as US

citizens and residents, where the offering of foreign financial services is not permitted, or where Robeco’s services are not available.

Important legal information: The details given on these pages do not constitute an offer. They are given for information purposes only. No

liability is assumed for the correctness and accuracy of the details given. Copyright © 2013 Robeco – all rights reserved. Robeco Institutional

Asset Management B.V. (trade register number: 24123167) has a license of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) in

Amsterdam. Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco) · Coolsingel 120 · 3011 AG, Rotterdam · The Netherlands · www.robecosam.

com · [email protected]

DISCLAIMER

Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.Coolsingel 1203011 AG RotterdamThe Netherlands

responsible investing in private equity - apax · pdf fileresponsible investing in private...

Documents