scandinavian trio tops overall sustainability ranking · 2016-11-11 · country sustainability...

Country Sustainability Ranking Update – November 2016

Scandinavian trio tops overall sustainability ranking

• Scandinavian trio slightly ahead of Switzerland

• Turkey on a deviating path

• Singapore tops the ranking in emerging markets

• Trump triumph arousing fears

This report provides a succinct summary and analysis of various countries’ Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

profiles around the globe. It builds on the results of RobecoSAM’s country sustainability assessment which evaluates 62

countries – 22 developed and 40 emerging market economies – via a structured and comprehensive framework covering a

broad range of Environmental, Social and Governance factors that we consider to be particularly relevant for investors from a

risk-return perspective. The resulting scores offer insights into the investment risks and opportunities associated with each

country and provide investors with a better frame of reference for making comparisons among countries and regions. The

summary found here complements findings gained from the more traditional country risk assessment and is particularly

focused on integrating long-term perspectives. For a more detailed outline of the methodology used, please refer to our

brochure “Measuring Country Intangibles” 1.

A notable change within this update is the inclusion of newly accessible data sources and enhanced data disclosures for a

portion of the 17 main indicators. These inclusions are important as the country sustainability ranking (CSR) tool is designed to

be structurally robust enough to make meaningful assessments regarding key sustainability factors driving a country’s

development, but dynamic and adaptive enough to incorporate new data and trends from an ever-changing and increasingly

volatile geopolitical landscape. Moreover, ongoing maintenance of the model ensures it retains its high standards for rigor

and relevance while at the same time complying with best practice. Country ESG scores in the current rankings report have

been impacted in two ways: 1) by changes in their sustainability performance and 2) through enhanced data disclosures.

Major changes in country sustainability scores compared to April 2016 are shown in Figure 2. Please refer to the Appendix for

more details on the new datasets.

Today’s global risk landscape is heavily shaped by ESG factors and their interlinkages with macroeconomic and fiscal

developments. Moreover, many countries’ sustainability performance remains under continued strain due to a backlash of

persisting economic weakness, sustained fiscal pressures, and heightened political risks. The latter have also been highlighted

as the biggest threat to the global economy in the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook. As already presumed in the April

2016 update, such an environment has, of course, not remained without ramifications for country risks in a broader sense as

confirmed by sovereign credit rating actions in recent months. Between the end of March 2016 and mid-October 2016,

sovereign risk rating downgrades by the three major credit rating agencies greatly exceeded upgrades by a ratio of more than

three to one (45 to 14), indicating the ongoing pressure on sovereign creditworthiness.

1 “Measuring Country Intangibles”, June 2015, available on the RobecoSAM website: http://www.robecosam.com/en/sustainability-insights/about-sustainability/country-sustainability-ranking.jsp

Country Sustainability Ranking Update – November 2016 • RobecoSAM • 2

Figure 1: Country sustainability ranking – October 2016

Dimension & Total Sustainability Scores

Source: RobecoSAM


Norway—the new standard in sustainability

The new ranking puts Norway at the top, with Sweden and Finland completing the podium and Switzerland running a close

4th. Differences in scores within this lead group were small, with all frontrunners exhibiting very solid and balanced overall

sustainability profiles. Norway was the best performer among social factors within the group of high-income, advanced

economies and ranks in the top 10% of this peer group in 5 out of the 17 main indicators that form the building blocks of the

model. Norway enjoys a very high living standard, thanks to its rich natural resources, which creates the right conditions for

robust governance, sound policy-making, as well as distinct societal values that favor inclusiveness and egalitarianism. These

features are, by and large, also shared by the other Scandinavian counterparts. Second-place went to Sweden with 6 (of 17)

indicators. Norway’s performance is mirrored by its neighbor Finland’s strong showing within the environmental and social

areas, with a top 10% score for 8 (of 17) indicators. Please see Figure 1 for the complete list of country rankings as well as

Figure 3 for the top 10 performers.

Figure 2: Major changes in country ESG scores – Oct 2016 vs Apr 2016

Source: RobecoSAM

Switzerland was only able to garner a top 10% finish in 3 of the 17 indicators, among them political risk and competitiveness.

In the global competitiveness index of the World Economic Forum2, it tops the ranking for the eight consecutive year, ahead

of Singapore and the United States. Other traditional strengths in the country’s ESG profile include education, health,

infrastructure and environmental quality. On September 25, Switzerland was the first country to vote on whether to

implement a green economy. The referendum failed, but is still strong proof of its environmental stewardship. In the area of

energy, it is ranked second just behind Denmark in the World Energy Council’s recently published 2016 Energy Trilemma

Index, reflecting its forward-looking energy policies, which includes the decision to refrain from building new nuclear power

plants.

In addition, on November 27, the Swiss will vote on a Green Party initiative aimed at limiting the use of existing nuclear power

stations to 45 years. Among its weaker ESG scores is welfare spending which is rising continuously as a result of an aging

population and a well-developed but costly health-care system. Health care spending per capita is now already amongst the

highest within the OECD. The growing public awareness of the need to safeguard the long-term viability of the social security


system is indicative in a recent public vote to increase state pensions. The proposal was rejected by the public— in line with

the position held by the federal council and parliament.

Figure 3: Top 10 country ESG scores

Source: RobecoSAM

Moving down the list, The Netherlands, new to the top 10, has benefited greatly from the inclusion of pension funds in the

aging indicator, as it enjoys the highest pension funds-to-GDP ratio (~160%) worldwide according to OECD figures3. Moreover,

the improved score for the environmental dimension has contributed to the country’s advance in the rankings.

Not surprisingly, the United Kingdom had a major shift in rank and was relegated from the 4th place to 12th. Apart from a

marked depreciation of the British pound, the economic impact of the vote to exit the European Union has remained fairly

modest so far. However, it would be premature to call this a “non-event” as Brexit is not a singular event but a continuously

unfolding series of events and decisions--the real effects of which will only be seen once the nature of the new relationships

with the EU are known. The UK will most likely be forced to adapt its growth model, but can at least count on a robust and

balanced sustainability profile which should facilitate this task. Its governance performance surpasses many of its European

counterparts and the country traditionally ranks in the top echelons in terms of Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality,

Rule of Law and Control of Corruption in the World Governance Indicator tables.

On the other hand, income inequality is relatively high and may have contributed to widespread frustration and the success of

the Brexit campaign. The Brexit vote has left a highly divided country and could well lead to political and social tensions going

forward. Even though the political risk score has already declined to 83.5 in October from 85.5 a year ago, these recent

developments have yet to be captured in the data and may result in additional declines. Please see Figure 5 for a more

complete comparison between countries.

Finland takes the lead in the euro area

Finland’s advance in the ESG rankings has allowed it to move to the top within the European Monetary Union (EMU) member

states. The country stands out for its high living standard, excellent education system, low income inequality, valuable health

conditions and the environmental quality. The Finnish government is keen to pursue policies that encourage low-emission

energy sources and that support clean technologies. Finland is the best performer in the environmental and social areas, but

2 WEF, The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17, p.11; World Economic Forum, Switzerland; https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1/ 3 OECD, Pension Markets in Focus, 2015, p.9


also enjoys top ranking with regard to the Environmental Performance and the Social Progress Indexes, both of which are

now incorporated in our CSR tool. However, persistent economic weakness and an aging population could threaten this

favorable economic and social model, requiring the country to implement further structural reforms to strengthen

competitiveness and increase productivity. Please see Figure 4 for ESG rankings among EMU countries.

Figure 4: ESG scores for EMU countries

Source: RobecoSAM

Ireland’s ESG performance is still above average, even though it had to cede its top position within the EMU peer ranking, with

a drop to position 4. The country benefits from a robust governance framework and enjoys a favorable political and social

climate, which is reflected in leading positions within the Political Risk, Fragile States, and Social Progress Indexes, all

components of our ranking tool. Ireland also enjoys a well-developed welfare system that has not only helped to maintain

social cohesion, but also its readiness to accept painful and needed structural reforms. This, in turn, has contributed to

Ireland’s remarkable recovery from the financial crisis and its status as the euro area’s growth leader during recent years.

As for the southern European peripherals, both Greece and Italy rank within the bottom 10% of high-income, advanced

economies across all 17 main indicators. The Iberian Peninsula had a similar performance across 14 of the 17 indicators. These

countries are still struggling from the aftermath of the financial crisis and progress in various ESG features has slackened in the

more recent past. Greece and Italy have suffered from declines in their political risk and political stability scores since the last

update in Spring this year. Italy will face a crucial constitutional referendum on prime minister Matteo Renzi’s political reforms

on December 4, which could spark further instability and early elections if voters should reject the bill.

In Greece, the social cost of the crisis has been severe and the country’s social unrest indicator has deteriorated continuously

over recent years, pointing to a continued risk of renewed political and social turbulence. Political prospects look a bit brighter

in Spain, which finally has a new government after nearly a year of political limbo. This was made possible after the socialist

party’s recent vote to lift a longstanding veto that blocked the conservative Popular party and acting prime minister Mariano

Rajoy from forming a government. However, political uncertainty will not disappear, as Rajoy will face a multitude of

challenges and will need to find the right balance when dealing with the diverse expectations and demands of Spanish voters,

the European Union, and the separatist’s Catalonian regional government.

Germany – in 13th place overall and 5th in the EMU – displays a well-balanced and solid ESG performance. As with other

mature economies, demographic aging poses an important challenge, as projected employment and population will shrink

over time, pointing to a rising dependency ratio and increasing age-related costs. This could (partly) be offset by improving

employment opportunities for women and the elderly, but a large gender pay gap remains a hindrance. Immigration


(including refugees) is also increasing the labor pool, but poses considerable integration challenges. It is currently one of the

major political problems facing the nation as it is giving rise to anti-immigration sentiments and further fueling the populist

right-wing AfD party which could result in undesired consequences in the 2017 election.

Figure 5: Country sustainability profiles in comparison

Source: RobecoSAM

High-income advanced economies*

Norway United Kingdom

Sweden Germany

Finland Austria

Switzerland United States

New Zealand Japan

Netherlands Belgium

Canada France

Denmark Portugal

Australia Spain

Luxembourg Italy

Ireland Greece

High-income emerging markets*

Singapore Chile

Czech Republic Israel

Taiwan Hungary

Slovenia Croatia

Hong Kong UAE

Poland Qatar

Korea, South Saudi Arabia

Slovak Republic Kuwait

Upper middle-income emerging markets*

Romania Dominican Rep.

Malaysia Mexico

Jamaica Peru

Argentina Colombia

Brazil China

Kazakhstan Venezuela

Russia

Lower middle-income emerging markets*

South Africa Indonesia

Philippines El Salvador

Ukraine India

Morocco Egypt

Thailand Nigeria

Turkey

Performance in the top 10% of peers Performance below peer average

Performance above peer average Performance in the bottom 10% of peers

* Country classification according to World Bank. For the 2017 fiscal year, the World Bank defines low-income economies as

those with a GNI per capita of USD 1,025 or less in 2015; lower middle-income economies as those with a GNI per capita between

USD 1,026 and USD 4,035; upper middle-income economies as those with a GNI per capita between USD 4,036 and USD 12,475, and high-

income economies as those with a GNI per capita of USD 12,476 or above.

Enviro

nm

ent

Social

Gove

rnance

Tota

l Sco

re

Envi

ronm

ent

Social

Gove

rnance

Tota

l Sco

re

https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1/


Singapore dominates the ESG ranking among emerging markets

Singapore demonstrates clear leadership in sustainability in the emerging markets (EM) universe as well as in the sub-group

of high-income emerging economies. With a score of 6.85 it has outpaced several advanced economies in terms of

sustainability performance and is ranked 17th overall. The country displays a top 10% score for the governance area as well as

for 12 out of the 17 main indicators, but shows a below-average score compared to its peer group with respect to energy,

social indicators, liberty & inequality, accountability and aging. By a considerable margin (more than 0.5 points) the Czech

Republic and Taiwan follow with ranks of #20 and #21 (overall). Taiwan is one of the main beneficiaries of the incorporation

of new data (see Appendix for a brief explanation), but still scores below average for its environmental performance; the

same applies to its East Asian neighbors South Korea and Hong Kong.

Korea scored rather poorly relative to peers in the Environmental Performance Index and thus “greening” growth will be

required to reverse the environmental degradation that came with rapid industrialization and to improve the quality of life.

The country also faces water shortages; the amount of water taken from ground or surface water sources as a share of

renewable resources is among the highest in the OECD. Air pollution too remains high and should be reduced. The launch of a

nationwide emissions trading system in 2015 is a key step in fulfilling Korea’s commitment to COP 21 which aims to reduce

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 37% by 2030 relative to a “business as usual” scenario. Please see Figure 6 for the top 10

performers among EM countries.

Figure 6: Top 10 emerging markets country ESG scores

Source: RobecoSAM

Slovenia, ranked 4th place within the EM universe, scoring best in the environmental and social dimensions, but scoring worse

relative to most of its high-income EM peers in the indicators aging, competitiveness, institutions and political risk. What is

striking is that none of the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries that belong to the high-income emerging markets

group have made it into the top 10 of the sustainability rankings within the EM universe.

A look at Figure 5 reveals that, in fact, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - all occupying a place in the bottom part of

the ranking - are the worst sustainability performers in their peer group. Kuwait scored worst for its environmental and

governance performance and displayed a below-average score for 15 of the 17 main indicators. Saudi Arabia earned the worst

score for its social performance and scored below-average in 14 main indicators. This underscores the need for reform in GCC

countries, even more so as they have been severely hit by the slump in oil prices. GCC nations need to intensify efforts and

focus their public spending on investments related to (“soft” & physical) infrastructure, education and health care in order to

create the basis for a more sustainable and inclusive growth model. Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030” is certainly a good example


of such an intention that is headed in the right direction, but lasting progress will depend upon the real implementation of

such plans.

As mentioned in the introduction, new data sources were used in the calculation of this year’s ranking and much of it was

pertinent to the lowest performing countries (See Figure 2). However, with the exception of Russia, the additional data did

nothing to change the overall composition of the bottom 10. Despite Russia’s upward jump by 10 positions to #46 overall, it

still displays a fairly average overall ESG profile when compared with its income peer group (this year Russia was re-classified

from a high-income country to an upper-middle income country by the World Bank). The country enjoys a top score in the

environmental area and an above-average score in the social dimension, but suffers from weak performance in the

governance area, as is visible from Figure 5. Russia was replaced by Turkey among low ESG performers. The rankings of the

lowest 10 ESG performers, most of whom, with the exception of China and Venezuela, belong to the lower-middle income

emerging market economies, have remained relatively stable. Please see Figure 7 for a complete list of the bottom 10

performers.

Figure 7: Bottom 10 country ESG scores

Source: RobecoSAM

As for China and Venezuela, a comparison with their peers in the upper-middle income segment reveals that their

sustainability performance is clearly inferior. China displays the worst performance in the environmental area and a sub-

average score in the social and governance dimensions; Venezuela (which had its income classification changed in 2016 from

the high-income to the upper-middle income category) exhibited the worst score in governance and a below-average

performance in the social area. Latin America’s black sheep appears to be caught in a never-ending downward spiral and is

bracing for a new round of turbulence after the National Election Assembly suspended the preparations of a referendum on

removing President Nicolas Maduro in late October—a move opposition leaders are calling a coup. New talks between the

opposition and the government should now end the political crisis while President Maduro seeks to fend off a campaign

seeking his removal. However, the talks are mired in distrust and the outcome is very uncertain.

Turkey on a deviating path

Turkey’s overall ESG score has fallen by 0.25 points to 3.81, relegating it to rank #55, from a previous #50. The country’s

sustainability profile is clearly being shaped by the disruptive politics of recent years that have also led to a steady decline in its

governance performance as measured by the six World Governance Indicators (see Figure 8). Political risk and social unrest

indicators have deteriorated as well; divisions between different groups in the country are deep and the potential for political

and social unrest is rising further. The after-effects of the failed coup in July are aggravating an already delicate political

situation. President Erdogan has responded to the failed coup by intensifying his long-running purges of the army, education


system, judiciary, media, police force and state administration. The crackdown will further weaken the country’s institutions

and is already visible in the country’s declined score for the institutions indicator. The AKP (Justice and Development Party)

has renewed its push for a presidential system that would involve a transfer from executive powers to the president. President

Erdogan has also has also confirmed that he will ask the parliament to consider reintroducing the death penalty as

punishment for the plotters behind the failed coup. Considering recent political developments – not yet reflected in most data

– there is no indication of a turn for the better and increasingly the unfavorable political situation risks disrupting the

economy in a more severe way.

Figure 8: Turkey: Gradual erosion of public governance, 2011-15

Source: RobecoSAM, World Bank – World Governance Indicators

India’s ESG profile—Progress slow but visible and steady

India’s demotion to position #59 is largely the result of gains in scores by other countries in this group and does not reflect an

absolute deterioration of the country’s ESG performance. Two years after PM Narendra Modi took over, he is on track in terms

of his ambitious reform program; progress is being made, albeit in slow and gradual steps. This is visible from the

improvement in World Governance Indicators and in India’s ranking with regard to other selected sustainability criteria (see

Figure 9). More recently, the Modi government eventually managed to pass the crucial unified VAT bill, which is another

promising sign and a keystone of his reform agenda. A particularly weak spot in India’s ESG profile is the environment. Large

population growth, poor resource management, and widespread poverty contributed to severe environmental issues such as

air & water pollution, growing water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, forest preservation and land degradation. These factors

were also reflected in its poor showing in Yale University’s Environmental Protection Index (EPI), where it ranked #141 out of

180 countries.

Closely related to these results are the poor health conditions of the vast majority of the population, which lacks access to

clean water, sanitation, and sufficient nutrition. A 2014 World Bank report estimates that the ecosystem degradation in India

costs the country $80 billion annually, i.e. 5.7% of GDP4, indicating the need to embrace clean technology and sustainable

policies. Moreover, the new government has announced its intention to promote clean technology and a significant

investment in clean energy is visible. Another area where the country performs poorly is the significant gender gap. In the

Gender Inequality Index ranking, India occupies the penultimate place within our ranking universe, only ahead of Nigeria.

4 World Bank, India – Green Growth Overcoming Environment Challenges & Promote Development, March 6, 2014


Increasing female economic participation has high growth potential as stated in a 2015 McKinsey study. According to this

analysis, India has the most to gain from improving the gender balance and could add 16% (or $0.7 trillion) to incremental

GDP by 2025 in a “best-of-region scenario” as compared to the “business as usual scenario”5. This is yet another indication of

India’s remaining shortcomings but also huge proof of its enormous potential in the area of sustainability. Please see Figure 9

for more specific factors influencing India’s ESG ranking.

Figure 9: Changes in India’s ESG rankings across select ESG indexes, 2014-16

Source: RobecoSAM, World Bank, Fund for Peace, PRS Group, UN, Social Progress Imperative, Yale, World Energy Council

Trump’s election victory adding to global political uncertainty

As has already been highlighted in the last update in May 2016, political risks around the globe have continued to increase

and have not only emerged as the biggest threat to world economic growth, but also to overall ESG performance. U.S.

presidential election outcome, Britain’s exit from the European Union, the refugee crisis in Europe, political discord and

geopolitical tensions in a number of countries all represent potential shocks that have been present for quite some time

and/or have become even more pronounced in recent months. Persistently sluggish recovery, widespread public discontent

with economic policies and “the establishment” in advanced economies are giving rise to anti-trade sentiment, protectionist

policies and populist tendencies, with potentially broader economic and political ramifications, as displayed in Figure 10.

Widening domestic strife is already visible in various countries, not only hampering reform efforts and policy effectiveness, but

are also feeding concerns about possible policy shifts.

From this point of view, the surprising outcome of the U.S. presidential election is just the latest step in a longstanding global

trend of increasing political uncertainty and growing populism. Trump’s election victory displayed a deep and widespread anti-

establishment sentiment among American voters and comes as a backlash to those increasingly beset by rising income

inequality, economic globalization, financial liberalization, technological innovation and societal shifts, including migration.

These trends are in no way limited to the U.S. but are also visible in other European countries and has been identified as one

of the major driving forces behind Brexit. They are also likely to influence upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France and

Germany where right-wing parties are gaining traction.

5 McKinsey Global Institute, The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality can add $12 trillion to global growth, September 2015, p.5

World Governance Data (WGI) data is for 2015; Gender Inequality Index for 2014


Even though it is too early at this stage to gauge the full extent of the consequences, the dirty election campaign and Trump’s

victory has left a deeply divided country with a significantly changed economic and political landscape. However, Trump’s

policy platform – while still lacking details – contains quite some controversial plans and pledges that could have costly

economic impacts, fuel political volatility and adversely affect America’s sustainability profile with global repercussions. His

economic plans are sometimes contradictory, for example, when promising a wave of tax cuts while, at the same time,

providing for large spending increases on infrastructure and defense. Mr. Trump’s skepticism of international free trade could

initiate a new era of protectionism and negatively impact some key trading partners, above all China and Mexico. Adverse

social and environmental effects could result from Trump’s pledges to restrict immigration, deport illegal immigrants, repeal

Obamacare, ease environmental regulations and cancel the Paris climate deal, all of which would sooner or later affect the

U.S.’ ESG scores. True, it remains to be seen to what extent Trump will stick to his radical campaign rhetoric and whether

Congress will agree to all such plans, although the secured Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the

Senate could leave the new president with somewhat weaker checks and balances. Even more potentially damaging are the

risks in the foreign policy area where Mr. Trump has more power to make unilateral moves. His intention to reduce

international engagement and his lukewarm stance on NATO could adversely affect the international security architecture and

result in growing geo-political tensions with various possible spillover effects as outlined in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Political risks still on an upward trend

Source: RobecoSAM

However, political problems are not limited to advanced economies but extend around the globe. In addition to the

potentially severe consequences resulting from the U.S. election outcome, emerging markets are already faced with a

number of political problems. Examples from Asia include: the recent escalation of the long-standing conflict between India

and Pakistan over Kashmir, North Korea’s fifth underground nuclear test despite threats of heavier US and UN sanctions, and

ongoing tensions related to China’s maritime disputes in the South China Sea. These are all critical reminders of potential

threats to regional security and stability. China, apart from being involved in territorial confrontations with several of its

neighbors, is also in the midst of a delicate economic transition process and is facing a major leadership re-shuffle beginning

next year, involving the replacement of five of the seven current members of the Politburo’s Standing Committee. What

implications these changes will have for the pace of reforms remains uncertain. In Thailand, the recent death of King


Bhumibol is likely to further weaken the country’s institutions and augurs further complications in an already turbulent

political situation.

In Latin America, apart from Venezuela, politics remain in flux—most notably in Brazil and Colombia. Somewhat surprising,

on October 2, Colombian voters rejected a peace deal with the FARC rebels, which could hurt the country’s development even

though both sides have stated intentions to restart negotiations. In Brazil, the impeachment of President Rousseff and the

installation of a new administration under interim President Michel Temer has allowed the country to refocus on economic

and fiscal policies, which could help to engineer a much needed economic stabilization. But, given widespread dissatisfaction

with the impeachment process and Temer’s low approval rates, unpopular policies will not be easy to implement.

Last but not least, in the Middle East and North African region, the political environment remains characterized by ongoing

(geopolitical) conflicts, civil war, widespread social unrest, recurrent terrorist attacks, and a precarious security situation with

severe repercussions far beyond the region’s borders. Stark examples of these spillover effects are the fueling of the refugee

crisis and terrorist activities as outlined in Figure 10.

Most of these countries enjoy favorable demographics with stronger population growth and a much younger population,

which benefits their scores for aging. On the other hand, they are faced with the huge challenge of creating enough

employment opportunities in order to promote prosperity and prevent the spread of frustration and lack of perspective

among youth that contributed to the breakout of the Arab Spring. As one would expect, these factors are also reflected in the

low scores among indicators such as social unrest, political risk and stability for the countries in this region. Considering

current prospects for continued, widespread and heightened political and social instability, hopes for an improvement in ESG

profiles in the region remain feeble.

“A proper country sustainability assessment provides additional information and valuable insights into a country’s underlying risk drivers that we believe are critical to making balanced investment decisions”.

Max Schieler

Senior Country Risk Specialist


Appendix

Ongoing reviews of the underlying data and maintenance of the methodology used to construct any model is an integral part

of ensuring its completeness and ongoing predictive power. This no different with the RobecoSAM country sustainability

ranking. In this case, the incorporation of newly accessible data sources and enhanced data disclosure for a portion of the 17

main ESG indicators used in our approach is aimed at capturing several new relevant ESG features and thus providing an even

more comprehensive appraisal of a country’s underlying sustainability profile. The enhanced data disclosure involves the

following main indicators: environmental status, energy, environmental risk, social indicators, liberty & inequality (now

political rights & civil liberties), aging and institutions. A description of new data is provided in the box below.

Energy Trilemma Index (ETI)

The World Energy Council’s Energy Trilemma Index ranks 125 countries with regard to their energy sustainability and is based on three

dimensions: energy security, energy equity and environmental sustainability. The results reflect a country’s ability to balance the trade-

offs between the three trilemma dimensions and include 12 indicators such as Primary Energy & CO2 Intensity, Ratio of Energy

Production to Consumption, Diversity of Electricity Generation, Net Fuel Imports, and Exports respective to GDP.

Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index is used for the assessment of a country’s “Environmental Status”. The EPI

demonstrates a country’s performance across nine environmental issue areas on the basis of more than 20 indicators and, in

particular, with respect to the protection of ecosystems and human health. The issue areas cover aspects such as Air Quality, Water &

Sanitation, Water Resources, Forests, Biodiversity or Climate & Energy.

Social Progress Index (SPI)

The Social Progress Index compiled by the Social Progress Imperative provides a framework to translate economic gains into better

social and environmental performance in order to promote economic development and ensure social progress. The SPI covers three

main pillars – Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and Opportunity. Within each of these are four components comprising

three to five specific indicators. The twelve components include criteria such as Nutrition & Medical Care, Shelter, Access to Basic

Knowledge, Health & Wellness, Personal Rights, and Tolerance & Inclusion. Together with the Gender Inequality Index, Child Labor

data and the GINI Index, the SPI is merged into the model’s “Social Indicators”.

Freedom in the World

Freedom in the World assesses the real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals in a country. Along a series of 25 indicators,

Freedom House determines a country’s Political Rights (PR) and Civil Liberties (CL) status, with the latter two used for our “Liberty &

Inequality” indicator. The checklist of questions on which the PR & CL assessment is based includes aspects like Electoral Process,

Electoral Laws, Political Pluralism & Participation, Freedom of Expression, Organizational Rights, and Personal

Autonomy.

Rankings affected by the switch to new data sources

As indicated in the introductory remarks, country ESG rankings in the current rankings report have been impacted in two ways: 1) by

changes in their sustainability performance and 2) through enhanced data disclosures. Taiwan score was the most impacted by

improved data disclosure and thus provides the best illustrative example for an explanation of changes. Given the country’s ongoing

dispute with mainland China over its sovereign status, Taiwan is excluded from membership in various international organizations like

the UN bodies and the World Bank. Thus, it is not covered in these institutions’ country statistics. Moreover, data for Taiwan is quite

often missing in the databases of other data providers, which has contributed to its relatively poor performance across comparative

indicators and its low country ESG score overall. The use of a broader set of sub-indicators for the Environmental Status and Social

Indicators has now resulted in a much improved in these respective areas, and therefore a more accurate assessment of the country’s

real ESG profile when compared to peers. See Figure 11 below.

With regard to the impact by indicator, shifts in total scores result primarily from the governance area, with much of the changes

stemming from Aging. As for the latter, for example, the first-time inclusion of relatively new available data from the IMF about age-

related expenditures and from the OECD on the size of pension assets has allowed to gain a more balanced picture about a nation’s

aging feature. This has led to higher scores for most advanced economies, above all for Finland, Canada and the Netherlands. On the

other hand, the majority of emerging markets – with Nigeria and Russia as notable exceptions – scored lower for the Aging indicator

as the inclusion of this data did partly compensate for their usually more favorable demographics.


Figure 11: RobecoSAM country sustainability ranking tool

Source: RobecoSAM


Data sources

Environmental Status Yale; Environmental Performance Index

http://epi.yale.edu/

Energy World Energy Council; Energy Trilemma Index

https://trilemma.worldenergy.org/

United Nations; Energy Statistics

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm

Environmental Risk Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft; World Risk Report

http://www.entwicklung-hilft.de/home.html

Germanwatch; Global Climate Risk Index

https://germanwatch.org/en/cri

Social Indicators Social Progress Imperative; Social Progress Index

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/

UNDP; Gender Inequality Index

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

UNICEF; Child Labour

https://data.unicef.org/

World Bank; World Development Indicators – GINI Index

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/

Human Development UNDP; Human Development Report

http://hdr.undp.org/en

Social Unrest Fund for Peace; Fragile States Index

http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/

Liberty & Inequality Freedom House; Political Rights & Civil Liberties

https://freedomhouse.org/reports

Competitiveness World Economic Forum; The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017, WEF, Switzerland, 2016


Political Risk PRS Group; Political Risk Services (PRS)

http://www.prsgroup.com/

Accountability World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home

Stability World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators


Effectiveness World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators


Regulatory Quality World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators


Rule of Law World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators


Corruption World Bank; Worldwide Governance Indicators


Aging IMF - Fiscal Monitor; NPV of Pension & Health Care Spending Change 2015-50

http://www.imf.org/external/

UN – Population Division; Old Dependency Ratio & Old Dependency Ratio 2050

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

World Bank – Women, Business and the Law; Retirement Age

http://wbl.worldbank.org/

Institutions World Economic Forum; The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017, WEF, Switzerland, 2016


http://www.entwicklung-hilft.de/home.html

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org//

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

https://data.unicef.org/

http://hdr.undp.org/en

http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/

http://www.prsgroup.com/








About RobecoSAM

Founded in 1995, RobecoSAM is an investment specialist focused exclusively on Sustainability Investing. It offers asset management, indices, impact analysis and investing, sustainability assessments, and benchmarking services. Asset management capabilities cater to institutional asset owners and financial intermediaries and cover a range of ESG-integrated investments (in public and private equity), featuring a strong track record in resource efficiency themed strategies. Together with S&P Dow Jones Indices, RobecoSAM publishes the globally recognized Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI). Based on its Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), an annual ESG analysis of over 3,800 listed companies, RobecoSAM has compiled one of the world’s most comprehensive databases of financially material sustainability information. The data of the CSA is also included in USD 87.3 billion of assets under management by the subsidiaries of the Robeco Group.

RobecoSAM is a sister company of Robeco, the Dutch investment management firm founded in 1929. Both entities are subsidiaries of the Robeco Group, whose shareholder is ORIX Corporation. As a reflection of its own commitment to advocating sustainable investment practices, RobecoSAM is a signatory of the UNPRI and a member of Eurosif, ASrIA and Ceres. Approximately 130 professionals work for RobecoSAM, which is headquartered in Zurich. As of June 30, 2016, RobecoSAM had assets under management, advice and/or license in listed and private equity* of approximately USD 10.8 billion.

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. The securities identified and described may or may not be purchased, sold or recommended for advisory clients. It should not be assumed that an investment in these securities was or will be profitable. *RobecoSAM Private Equity is the marketing name of the combined private equity divisions of Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (“Robeco”) and RobecoSAM. Any funds or services offered by RobecoSAM Private Equity are managed and offered by Robeco, who may have delegated certain investment advisory functions to RobecoSAM. Copyright© 2016 RobecoSAM – all rights reserved.

Disclaimer

No warranty: This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither its accuracy nor completeness is

guaranteed. The material and information in this publication are provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or

implied. RobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not

limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any opinions and views in this publication reflect the

current judgment of the authors and may change without notice. It is each reader’s responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness

and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this publication.

Limitation of liability: All information contained in this publication is distributed with the understanding that the authors, publishers and

distributors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and accordingly assume

no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. In no event shall RobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies be

liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of any opinion or information expressly or

implicitly contained in this publication.

Copyright: Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout of this publication are the exclusive property of RobecoSAM AG and/or its

related, affiliated and subsidiary companies and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent

of RobecoSAM AG or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies.

No Offer: The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer

to buy or sell investment instruments or other services, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. The information described in this

publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction where the provision of such information would run counter to local laws and

regulation.

Copyright © 2016 RobecoSAM AG

RobecoSAM | Josefstrasse 218 | 8005 Zurich | Switzerland | T +41 44 653 10 10 | F + 41 44 653 10 80 | www.robecosam.com |

[email protected]

http://www.robecosam.com/

mailto:[email protected]

scandinavian trio tops overall sustainability ranking · 2016-11-11 · country sustainability...

Documents