The financial markets are constantly evolving to provide varied and sophisticated instruments as a way to make sustainability a key part of doing business. The mechanisms that have recently gained the most attention are sustainability-linked bonds and loans, which can be used to raise general corporate funds with an aim to achieving certain sustainability goals. The financial characteristics of these instruments (i.e., bond coupon rate or loan terms) are tied to meeting predetermined targets. These instruments facilitate funding without ties to specific green or social projects in exchange for a commitment to reach sustainability objectives.
The overall sustainability outcomes of an issuance are measured by key performance indicators (KPIs) and sustainable performance targets (SPTs). To meet the general requirements − as stated in the International Capital Market Association’s (ICMA) Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles (SLBP)1and the Loan Syndications and Trading Association’s (LSTA) Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles (SLLP)2− KPIs are expected to be relevant and material to your core business and SPTs must be considered ambitious.
While it is up to you as the issuer to choose the most preferred and feasible KPIs and SPTs, it is up to an external reviewer to ultimately assess credibility. To select the best-suited KPIs and establish ambitious SPTs, here are several factors to consider.
Identifying the Strongest KPIs for Your Industry
The KPIs selected and their relevance to your industry will significantly impact the credibility of the sustainability-linked frameworks. A KPI must reflect material aspects of your company’s operations within the boundaries of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. For example, a transportation company with heavy use of fossil fuels in their operations might want to include carbon emissions as a KPI, while in the case of a company focused on healthcare, social topics such as affordability might be seen as more relevant.
To understand the full measure of a KPI’s performance, issuers are expected to identify a benchmark, preferably from an external source. This allows the issuer to compare the KPI against a specific reference, trajectory, or standard. Benchmarking can play an important role in improving the strength and credibility of your KPI.
What Makes an SPT Ambitious and Credible?
For an SPT to be considered ambitious, according to ICMA, the target should represent a material improvement in the respective KPIs and go beyond a “business as usual” trajectory. Where possible, SPTs should be compared to targets set by industry peers and should also allow for comparison with science-based trajectories or references. A peer review is recommended to evaluate what similar companies are targeting and how those targets compare to those of your company as the issuer. In cases where there is no comparable target, the SPT assessment could rely on your company’s previous performance.
Choosing the Right Methodology: It Matters How Your Data Is Measured
Methodology is the process through which research is conducted; that is, how the data is gathered and how it is interpreted. KPIs should be “measurable or quantifiable on a consistent methodological basis,” according to ICMA’s SLBP.3Issuers are encouraged to provide a clear definition of full scope and parameters of their KPIs. It is a second-party opinion provider’s role to assess how an issuer’s methodology follows a credible and consistent approach. On some topics, a standard methodological consensus has already been reached. For example, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol outlines the standard for how to calculate carbon emissions and how best to report your findings.
Carbon Emissions: Commonly Used KPIs
Carbon emissions have emerged as the most widely used KPI in sustainability-linked debt transactions, owing to the urgent need to tackle climate change on a global scale. However, your company should also consider if carbon emissions are in fact the most material for your organization. While curbing GHG emissions is central to living up to the Paris Agreement, not all industries are equally positioned to play a leading role in the net-zero transition.
Another factor to consider when including a carbon emissions KPI is the company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory − a comprehensive calculation of Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from company operations; Scope 2 includes emissions from energy produced on behalf of the company; Scope 3 includes emissions from the company’s value chain.
When designing a carbon emissions KPI, the portion of GHG inventory coverage is not expected to be 100% for a KPI to be credible. But it should be meaningful. For instance, a meat processing company may have low direct GHG emissions but will inherit significant emissions through its value chain because meat sourcing produces emissions related to livestock, land usage and transportation. This means that if the company only intends to tackle direct (i.e., Scope 1) emissions, the KPI might not be considered material enough.
Absolute Versus Intensity Emissions
Finally, a carbon emissions KPI can be measured in one of two ways: absolute emissions and intensity emissions. An absolute emissions KPI aims to measure a certain amount of emissions within a given period. For instance, a company intending to reduce emissions by 25% during a calendar year is using an absolute metric and targeting an absolute reduction. An absolute emissions KPI will allow comparability against the targets needed to reduce general emissions in the future to combat global warming.
By contrast, an intensity emissions KPI measures an amount of emissions against an economic or production output. For example, a cement company could measure its annual emissions by annual tons of cement produced. And it can target a reduction of its carbon intensity while increasing production. An intensity-based KPI might allow comparability against a benchmark as long as a specific decarbonization pathway has been identified for that industry and metric.
To learn more about sustainability-linked bonds and loans, visit www.sustainalytics.com.
Related Articles
- Financing a Sustainable Future: The Evolution of Sustainability-Linked Finance Instruments
- The Mining Industry: Challenges and Opportunities of Decarbonization
- Sustainability-Linked Financial Instruments and the Role of the Second-Party Opinion
As an expert in sustainable finance and financial markets, I bring a wealth of knowledge and experience in the constantly evolving landscape of financial instruments, particularly those focused on sustainability. My expertise is grounded in a deep understanding of the mechanisms that drive sustainable finance, including sustainability-linked bonds and loans.
The recent evolution of financial markets has given rise to innovative instruments such as sustainability-linked bonds and loans, which play a crucial role in incorporating sustainability into the core of business operations. These instruments tie financial characteristics, like bond coupon rates or loan terms, to predefined sustainability targets. This ensures that companies raising funds are committed to achieving specific sustainability objectives.
One of the key aspects of sustainability-linked instruments is the measurement of their overall sustainability outcomes. This is achieved through the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) and sustainable performance targets (SPTs). The International Capital Market Association’s (ICMA) Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles (SLBP) and the Loan Syndications and Trading Association’s (LSTA) Sustainability-Linked Loan Principles (SLLP) provide guidelines on the selection and evaluation of these KPIs and SPTs.
To enhance credibility, KPIs are expected to be relevant and material to the core business, and SPTs must be ambitious. External reviewers, according to the ICMA and LSTA principles, play a crucial role in assessing this credibility. The issuer's choice of KPIs and the establishment of ambitious SPTs involve careful consideration of various factors.
Selecting the strongest KPIs for a specific industry is vital for the credibility of sustainability-linked frameworks. These KPIs should reflect material aspects of a company's operations within the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework. Benchmarking against external sources is recommended to evaluate performance and strengthen credibility.
Ambitious SPTs, as defined by ICMA, go beyond a "business as usual" trajectory and represent a material improvement in KPIs. Comparisons with industry peers and science-based trajectories enhance the credibility of these targets. Peer reviews and assessments of the issuer's previous performance also contribute to the evaluation.
The methodology used to measure data is a critical consideration in sustainability-linked instruments. According to ICMA's SLBP, KPIs should be measurable on a consistent methodological basis. Standardized methodologies, such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for carbon emissions, contribute to the credibility of the data.
Carbon emissions, a commonly used KPI, are crucial in addressing global climate change. However, the materiality of carbon emissions varies across industries. The GHG inventory, covering Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, adds depth to the measurement. The choice between absolute and intensity emissions KPIs further refines the approach, considering the reduction targets against a set period or economic/production output.
In conclusion, sustainability-linked bonds and loans are powerful tools in financing sustainability goals. The selection of credible KPIs and ambitious SPTs, adherence to established methodologies, and the consideration of industry-specific factors are integral to the success of these instruments in driving meaningful change.
