© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
1 of 11
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY
MANAGER(S)
NotApplicable
Undisclosed
The overall fund rating provides a relative overview of the fund’s ESG performance on a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The overall score is based on a weighted ESG
Performance Score, which evaluates issuer performance across key ESG criteria on a range of 0 to 100. Funds with a lower weighted Performance Score compared to
peers demonstrate lower sustainability performance.
ISS ESG Fund Rating
ESG Performance 
Score
41
41
Fund Percentile
79th
Fund Rank (of 118)
25
Overall Weighted ESG Performance Score - Fund vs. Peers
Peer Distribution by Overall Weighted ESG Performance Score
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
ISS ESG Fund Rating - Prime Status
Not Prime
Fund “Prime” Status is awarded to funds that achieve a minimum weighted ESG Performance Score of 50 and do not exceed any
disqualifying criteria.
Norm-Based Research - Pass
SDG Assessment - Fail
Carbon Footprint - Pass
Controversial Weapons - Pass
Key Voting Analytics - Fail
0%
3%
29%
10%
28%
18%
11%
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
18%
48.1%
Relative Carbon Footprint
Net Performance of the
Fund to Peer Set
0%
29%
29%
Elect Director - 
Less than 90% 
Support: 29%
12%
12%
Remuneration - 
Less than 90% 
Support: 12%
Fund Overview
The fund invests at least 51% in equities. In the sustainability analysis of companies, sustainable economic factors as well as environmental, social and corporate ethical
criteria (ESG). The selection of the individual investments is at the discretion of the fund management. The Fund will focus on investing in stocks of mining companies
that promote and produce metals necessary for sustainable development.[More]
ISIN
DE000A2PMW29
ASSET TYPE
Equity
LIPPER ESG THEME
Ethical
PEER GROUP
Lipper Global Equity Theme - Natural Resources
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
Global
DOMICILE
DEU
1Y RETURN
-24%
3Y RETURN
20%
5Y RETURN
-
10Y RETURN
-
REPORT DATE
15 MAR 2023
HOLDINGS DATE
30 NOV 2022
ISS ESG Coverage
88.7%
88.7%
OVERVIEW
ISS ESG Fund Rating

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
2 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
The overall fund rating is based on a weighted ESG performance Score, which evaluates issuer performance across key ESG criteria. “Prime” status is awarded to issuers
who meet specific minimum requirements and achieve the best ESG scores among their peers.
Overall Weighted ESG Performance Score - Fund vs. Peers
Fund
1%
20%
61%
6%
11%
41/100
41/100
41/100
41/100
41/100
Peer Set
0%
15%
71%
10%
3%
37/100
37/100
37/100
37/100
37/100
Excellent Performance
(Scores from 75-100)
Good Performance
(Scores from 50-74.9)
Medium Performance
(Scores from 25-49.9)
Poor Performance
(Scores from 0-24.9)
Not Collected
Prime Status - Percent by Weight
Fund
21.3%
21.3%
Peer Set
15.7%
15.7%
Prime
Not Prime
Overall ESG Rating Grades by Percent of Aggregated Weight - Fund vs. Peers
ESG grades are based on a twelve-point scale from D- to A+ and identify performance across ESG pillars and categories.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.2
6.2
10.5
17.9
31.5
30.5
28.0
12.8
16.1
13.1 11.5
6.7
4.0
0.0
2.6
1.4
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Not
Collected
D-
D
D+
C-
C
C+
B-
B
B+
A-
A
A+
Fund
Peer Set
Weighted Rating Grade and Range by ESG Pillar
Environment
Social
Governance
D
C
B
A
Fund
Peer Set
Top Five Fund Holdings by Weight - Rating Scores and Prime Status
Issuer Name
Fund
Weight
ESG
Performance
Score
Performance
Category
Rating
Grade
Prime
Status
Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.
6.17%
28.48
Medium
C-
Not Prime
Fortuna Silver Mines Inc.
5.59%
42.73
Medium
C+
Not Prime
Boliden AB
5.48%
52.08
Good
B-
Prime
First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
5.35%
36.54
Medium
C
Not Prime
Anglo American plc
5.07%
63.9
Good
B
Prime
ISS ESG Rating Details

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
3 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
ISS Governance QualityScore is a data-driven scoring and screening solution designed to help investors monitor portfolio company governance. Scores of 1 (lower risk)
to 10 (higher risk) indicate relative governance quality at both an overall level and along topical classifications covering Board Structure, Compensation, Shareholder
Rights, and Audit & Risk Oversight.
Governance QualityScore Overview
Overall Weighted QualityScore
5/10
QualityScore by Category
7
Board Structure
1
Shareholder
Rights
6
Compensation
6
Audit & Risk
Oversight
Women on Board - Weighted Percent
Peer Set
Fund
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
31.6%
34.2%
68.4%
65.8%
Governance QualityScore Risk Level by Category - Percent of Holdings by Weight per Level
Board Structure
Fund
Peer Set
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
43.6%
22.6%
24.7%
9.1%
39.4%
43%
13.4%
4.2%
Shareholder Rights
Fund
Peer Set
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
50%
29.6%
11.2%
9.1%
44.6%
34.7%
16.5%
4.2%
Compensation
Fund
Peer Set
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
37.7%
39.2%
14%
9.1%
42.8%
27.4%
25.6%
4.2%
Audit and Risk Oversight
Fund
Peer Set
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
29.8%
39%
22.1%
9.1%
35.7%
36.3%
23.8%
4.2%
Low
Med
High
Not Collected
Top 5 Holdings with Poor Governance QualityScores
Issuer Name
Fund Weight
Overall
QualityScore
Board Score
Shareholder
Rights Score
Compensation
Score
Audit
Score
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
3.9%
10
8
1
10
4
Perseus Mining Limited
1.85%
9
10
7
2
5
Plug Power Inc.
0.9%
9
2
8
9
10
Fortuna Silver Mines Inc.
5.59%
8
5
4
10
9
Fresnillo plc
3.53%
8
9
9
8
6
Total for Top 5
15.77%
Key Governance QualityScore Factors - Fund Weight With Adverse Performance
Problematic Pay
91%
9%
0%
0%
Enforcement Action Taken
89%
2%
9%
2%
2%
2%
Adverse Auditor Opinion
91%
9%
0%
0%
Median Board Independence
Board Independence (Market)
81%
19%
81%
81%
1 For each chart the red segment signifies weight linked to adverse performance, green is weight without adverse performance, and grey is weight outside of coverage.
2 Median Board Independence of covered holdings for the Governance QualityScore factor, “Board Independence (ISS definition - Market)”
Governance QualityScore
1
2

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
4 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
ISS ESG Norm-Based Research identifies and evaluates allegations that issuers fail to abide by global norms as set out in relevant international initiatives and guidelines.
Issuers may face multiple controversies that are assigned individual scores and flags: 10 (red), 9-6 (amber) and 5-1 (green), based on the severity of the reported risk, or
impact on society or the environment, remedial measures taken by the company, and whether the allegations have been verified by an authoritative source. The issuer’s
overall score reflects its worst individual case score.
Fund Holdings - Worst Case Score
8
Overall Issuer Flags - Percent by Weight
90.4%
5.4%
4.2%
Fund
Fund
Fund
65%
17.8%
17.2%
Peer Set
Peer Set
Peer Set
Red and Amber Flagged Issuers - Fund vs. Peers
Flag
Count of
Holdings
Count
of Cases
Percent
of Holdings
Fund Weight
by Holdings
Peer Set Avg.
Weight by Holdings
10 (Red) Verified Failure
0
0
0.00%
-
18.1
9 (Amber) Imminent Failure
0
0
0.00%
-
0.0
8 (Amber) Alleged Failure
1
1
3.03%
5.4
18.2
7 (Amber) Verified Failure, Undergoing Remediation
0
0
0.00%
-
1.6
6 (Amber) Fragmentary Information
0
0
0.00%
-
0.3
Total
1
1
3.0%
5.4
38.2
Count of Red and Amber Cases by UN Global Compact Pillar
Human Rights
Labour Rights
Environment
Anti-Corruption
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Fund Red
Fund Amber
Peer Set Red
Peer Set Amber
Weight of Red and Amber Cases by UN GC Pillar - Fund vs. Peers
UN Global
Compact Pillar
Fund Weight
by Holdings
Peer Set Avg.
Weight by Holdings
Human Rights
0.0
18.1
Labour Rights
0.0
10.8
Environment
5.4
27.0
Anti-Corruption
0.0
1.1
Top 5 Fund Holdings with Poor Norm-Based Research Scores
Issuer Name
Fund Weight
Overall
Issuer Flag
Overall
Issuer Score
No. of
Red Cases
No. of
Amber Cases
First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
5.35%
AMBER
8
0
1
Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.
6.17%
GREEN
5
0
0
Fortuna Silver Mines Inc.
5.59%
GREEN
5
0
0
Anglo American plc
5.07%
GREEN
5
0
0
Capstone Copper Corp.
4.31%
GREEN
5
0
0
Total for Top 5
26.49%
0
1
Norm-Based Research

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
5 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
ISS ESG Controversial Weapons Research identifies companies directly or indirectly involved in weapons that are illegal or deemed particularly controversial because of
their indiscriminate effects and the disproportionate harm they cause. The fund holds 1 issuers that are identified as involved in selected controversial weapons
categories. The holdings represent 3% of the fund by count and 1.5% of the fund by weight.
Issuer Flags - Weight of Holdings
94.3%
1.5%
4.2%
Fund Holdings - Selected Issue Involvement
Involvement
Issuer Involvement
% By
Count
% By
weight
Anti-Personnel Mines
No
No Involvement
0
0
Biological Weapons
No
No Involvement
0
0
Chemical Weapons
No
No Involvement
0
0
Cluster Munitions
No
No Involvement
0
0
Nuclear Weapons Inside NPT
Yes
Red(0), Amber(1)
3
1.5
Nuclear Weapons Outside NPT
No
No Involvement
0
0
Any Tie
1 Total
3
1.5
The fund holds 2 issuers that are identified as involved in Alcohol, Gambling, Pornography, Tobacco, or Military Equipment & Services. The holdings represent 6.1% of the
fund by count and 6% of the fund by weight.
Issuer Tie - Weight of Holdings
6%
89.8%
4.2%
6%
6%
6%
Fund Holdings - Selected Issue Involvement
Involvement
Issuer Involvement
% By
Count
% By
weight
Alcohol
Yes
Prod.(1), Dist.(0), Serv.(0)
3
5.1
Gambling
No
No Involvement
0
0
Pornography
No
No Involvement
0
0
Tobacco
No
No Involvement
0
0
Military Equipment & Services
Yes
Prod.(1), Dist.(0), Serv.(0)
3
0.9
Any Tie
2 Total
6.1
6
The fund holds 5 issuers that are indentified as involved in selected Energy and Extractives categories. The holdings represent 15.2% of the fund by count and 11.4% of
the fund by weight.
Issuer Tie - Weight of Holdings
11.4%
84.4%
4.2%
11.4%
11.4%
11.4%
Fund Holdings - Selected Issue Involvement
Involvement
Issuer Involvement
% By
Count
% By
weight
Fossil Fuel Involvement
Yes
Prod.(4), Dist.(3), Serv.(0)
15.2
11.4
Unconventional Extraction
No
No Involvement
0
0
Thermal Coal Mining
No
No Involvement
0
0
Coal Power
Yes
Coal Power(1)
3
1.4
Nuclear Power
No
No Involvement
0
0
Any Tie
5 Total
15.2
11.4
Fund Screening - Controversial Weapons
Sector-Based Screening
Energy and Extractives

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
6 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
The SDG Impact Rating evaluates impact on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through analysis of three pillars: products and services, operational
management, and involvement in and responsiveness to controversies. Scores range from -10 (significant negative impact) to +10 (significant positive impact).
Overall Average SDG Impact Rating and Segment Percent by Weight
Fund
3%
29%
10%
28%
18%
11%
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Peer Set
3%
15%
2%
44%
34%
3%
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
Significant Positive Impact (5.1 to 10)
Limited (Net) Positive Impact (0.2 to 5.0)
No (Net) Impact (-0.1 to 0.1)
Limited (Net) Negative Impact (-5.0 to -0.2)
Significant Negative Impact (-10 to -5.0)
Not Collected
Positive SDG Impact – Pct. by Weight
32%
32%
SDG Impact Rating Median and Range by Goal
-10
-7.5
-5.0
-2.5
0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10
Median
Score
No Poverty
0
Zero Hunger
0
Good Health & Well-Being
-0.8
Quality Education
0
Gender Equality
-0.2
Clean Water & Sanitation
0.5
Affordable & Clean Energy
-0.4
Decent Work & Economic Growth
0.2
Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure
2.3
Reduced Inequalities
2.4
Sustainable Cities & Communities
0
Consumption & Production
-0.1
Climate Action
0
Life Below Water
0
Life on Land
-0.9
Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions
1.2
Partnerships for the Goals
2.5
SDG Solutions Assessment - Selected Social and Environmental Objectives per 1M USD Invested - Top 6 by Attributable Revenue
Fund - Attributable Revenues
Peer Set - Attributable Revenues
Sustainability Objectives
Significant
Contribution
Limited
Contribution
Limited
Obstruction
Significant
Obstruction
Significant
Contribution
Limited
Contribution
Limited
Obstruction
Significant
Obstruction
Preserving Terrestrial Ecosyste…
0
0
0
60,618
5
7,975
3,685
39,724
Mitigating Climate Change
20,854
4,570
0
1,918
8,888
16,496
115,401
328,753
Contributing to Sustainable Ene…
20,854
4,570
0
577
8,794
14,002
107,348
325,572
Providing Basic Services
0
116
0
0
53
5,250
0
0
Achieving Sustainable Agricult…
0
0
0
0
162
8,396
17,188
0
Conserving Water
0
0
0
0
2,315
0
105,502
1,669
SDG Impact Rating

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
7 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
Fund Emission Pathway vs. Climate Scenarios
The scenario analysis compares current and future fund greenhouse gas emissions with the carbon budgets for the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), Stated
Policies Scenario (STEPS), and the Current Policies Scenario (CPS). Performance is shown as the percentage of assigned budget used by the fund. The fund in its current
state is MISALIGNED with a SDS scenario by 2021. The fund has a potential temperature increase of 3.09°C.
2021
The fund exceeds its SDS
budget in 2021.
3.09°C
The fund is associated
with a potential
temperature increase of
3.09°C by 2050.
50%
100%
150%
200%
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
SDS
STEPS
CPS
Fund
Carbon Metrics - Fund vs. Peers
Disclosure
Number/Weight
Emission Exposure
tCO₂e
Relative Emission Exposure
tCO₂e/Mio USD Revenue
Climate Performance
Weighted Avg
Share of Disclosing Holdings
Scope 1 & 2
Incl. Scope 3
Relative Carbon
Footprint
Carbon
Intensity
Weighted Avg
Carbon Intensity
Carbon Risk Rating
Fund
86.7% / 87.6%
6,752
34,130
116.96
317.15
370.32
43
Peer Set
87.4% / 92.8%
226,473
2,518,652
225.39
424.20
475.04
31
Net Performance
-0.01 p.p. / -0.05 p.p.
97%
98.6%
48.1%
25.2%
22%
-
Top Five Contributors to Fund Emissions
Issuer Name
Contribution to Fund
Emission Exposure (%)
Fund Weight (%)
Climate Reporting Quality
Carbon Risk Rating
Anglo American plc
10.06%
5.07%
Strong
Medium Performer
Copper Mountain Mining Corporation
9.11%
3.68%
Non-reporting
Laggard
First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
8.87%
5.35%
Moderate
Medium Performer
Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd.
7.74%
2.3%
Moderate
Medium Performer
Northam Platinum Holdings Ltd.
6.14%
2.48%
Strong
Medium Performer
Total for Top 5
41.92%
18.89%
Carbon Emissions and Climate Change
1

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
8 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
ISS Voting Analytics data provides voting results for the fund across selected management and shareholder proposals, including key ESG proposals. Vote results below
90% for selected management proposals connected to routine business and governance items are highlighted for further consideration.
Selected Key Management Proposals - Recent-Year Voted Proposals with Results
Proposal
Total
Voted
Proposals
Count of
Votes
Failed
Median
“For”
Vote
Count of
Votes
Below 90%
Fund Weight for
Votes Below
90%
Elect Director
140
0
98%
19
29.4
Accept Financial Statements and Statutory Reports
1
0
99.9%
0
0
Approve Dividends
0
0
-
0
0
Authorize Board to Fix Remuneration of External Auditor(s)
1
0
99.9%
0
0
Approve Remuneration Report
13
1
93.3%
4
12.1
Approve or Amend Employee Stock Purchase Plan
2
0
98.1%
0
0
Approve or Amend Equity Compensation Plan
16
0
94.7%
5
14.9
Approve Remuneration of Executive Directors and/or Non-Executive Directors
0
0
-
0
0
Selected Shareholder ESG Proposals - Recent-Year Voted Proposals with Results
Proposal
Total Voted
Proposals
Count of
Votes Passed
Lowest
“For” Vote
Median “For”
Vote
Highest “For”
Vote
Adopt or Amend Proxy Access Right
0
0
-
-
-
Provide Right to Act by Written Consent
0
0
-
-
-
Report on Sustainability
0
0
-
-
-
Board Diversity
0
0
-
-
-
Report on Climate Change
0
0
-
-
-
GHG Emissions
0
0
-
-
-
Political Lobbying Disclosure
0
0
-
-
-
Improve Human Rights Standards or Policies
0
0
-
-
-
1 Individual holdings may have more than one Elect Director proposal. All data is per Director proposal, except “Fund Weight for Votes Below 90%” which is based on any
holding with one or more Director proposal(s) below the 90% threshold.
Voting Analytics - Fund Holdings
1

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
9 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
Top Fund Holdings by Weight - Key Management, Shareholder, and ESG Votes
Issuer and Selected Proposals
Type
Base
Base For %
Pass/Fail
1 Key Proposals include up to two Management, two Shareholder, and two ESG proposals per issuer. Issuers may have additional proposals not displayed in this table.
2 The base refers to the method of counting votes to determine if the vote requirement for a proposal has been met. See methodology for additional details.
Voting Analytics - Fund Holdings Continued
1
2

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
10 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
ISS requires a minimum of 65% coverage of fund holdings by weight to receive an overall fund rating score and fund rating report. For the overall rating, coverage is based
on holdings with an active ISS ESG corporate rating and/or sovereign rating signal. Within each report section, coverage may vary depending on thematic and product
considerations. In the charts below, an indicator factor is used to determine coverage for each report section.
Fund Report Section
Coverage - Percent of Fund Holdings
Overall Fund Rating
ESG Rating
88.7
Sector-Based Screening
SBS Issue Areas and Medical Ethics
95.8
Military Equipment and Weapons
95.8
Controversial Weapons
95.8
Energy and Extractives
95.8
Other Report Sections
Norm-Based Research
95.8
SDG Solutions Score
88.7
Carbon and Climate
94.4
Corporate Governance
90.9
Voting Analytics
53.9
The ISS ESG Fund Ratings solution provides investors with the data and analysis needed to understand the environmental, social, and governance performance of funds,
as well as a fund’s performance relative to peers.
The ESG Fund Rating report is intended to provide an overview of fund performance across major ESG themes and is organized to align with key ISS ESG product
categories and analytics. The data factors that support this report – over 700, as well as additional fund data factors for other ESG topics, can be found on the DataDesk
platform.
All ISS ESG research solutions have extensive documentation and product guides. The following methodology notes provide brief details on important aspects of ESG
Fund Ratings coverage, criteria, and calculations specific to the report. Please refer to the ESG Fund Ratings guide and product-specific methodology documents for
further information on research processes, sources, analysis, and related details.
Fund and Holdings Data: Data on the fund, fund holdings, and fund peers, including weights, values, and identifiers is provided by Refinitiv Lipper. The Lipper Global
Classification (LGC) system is used to define the comparative peer set for relevant calculations.
Fund Inclusion Criteria: All funds must meet minimum criteria for inclusion in the ESG Fund Rating coverage to ensure ratings are meaningful and comparable. These
criteria include: a minimum of 65% of holdings by weight covered by ESG Ratings; a minimum of ten long holdings within the fund; a minimum of 30 rated peers in the
LGC set; a minimum of 0.1 deviation in ESG Performance score values among funds in the peer set; and a fund holdings update date within one year.
Position Inclusion Criteria: The ESG Fund Rating assessment includes net long fund holdings when calculating coverage, weight, and performance metrics.
Page and ESG Product Alignment: Individual report pages highlight primary signals from key ISS ESG research products. In sequence, cited research products include
ESG Ratings, Governance QualityScore, Norm-Based Research; Controversial Weapons Research; Sector-Based Screening; Energy and Extractives Research; SDG Impact
Rating; Climate Impact and Scenario Analysis; and Voting Analytics. In limited instances fund composition may result in the omission of individual pages where content is
not relevant; for example, the Governance QualityScore page focused on corporate governance would not generate for a fund composed entirely of sovereigns.
Relative Rating and Absolute Score: ESG Fund Rating includes both a relative 1 to 5 “Star” rating to easily compare fund performance to peers and an absolute 0 to 100
weighted average ESG Performance Score to quickly measure overall sustainability performance on an absolute basis. The ESG Performance Score value is used to
determine the relative rating, with the top 10% of funds in the LGC peer set receiving 5 stars; the next 20% receiving four stars; the middle 40% receiving three stars; the
next 20% receiving two stars; and the bottom 10% receiving 1 star. It is important to note that guardrails are applied to the relative scoring calculation to ensure alignment
with absolute ESG Performance Score values within peer sets where performance is concentrated in the leader or laggard categories. All funds with an ESG Performance
Score above 50 will receive 4- or 5-Star ratings and all funds with a score less than 25 will receive 1- or 2-Star ratings, with the remaining allocations adjusted
proportionally.
Appendix: Notes on Coverage
Appendix: Notes on Methodology and Related Items

© 2023 Institutional Shareholder Services
11 of 11
ESG Fund Rating Report
Earth Sustainable Resources Fund
Prime Status: The ISS ESG Fund Rating awards “Prime” status to funds that meet or exceed sustainability performance requirements to recognize sustainability leaders.
Prime status is awarded to funds that have a minimum weighted ESG Performance Score of 50 and do not exceed any thresholds for disqualifying criteria. Disqualifying
criteria include: any “Red”-flagged holding based on Norm-Based Research, which identifies issuers with a link to violations of international standards; weight at or above
10% of holdings with “Significant Negative Impact” based on SDG Impact performance; a relative carbon footprint that exceeds the peer average by 150% or more; any
holdings with involvement in Controversial Weapons; or weight at or above 10% of holdings demonstrating significant weakness (<90% “For” votes) on key Elect Director
and Approve Remuneration Report proposals.
Contact: For additional information on the content contained in this report or for access to ISS ESG Fund Rating data and documentation, please contact the ISS Help
Center at https://issgovernance.service-now.com/csp.
The funds that are the subject of this report and/or individual issuers that are held by the fund may have purchased self-assessment tools and publications from ISS
Corporate Solutions, Inc. ("ICS"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISS, or ICS may have provided advisory or analytical services to the fund and/or an issuer. No employee of
ICS played a role in the preparation of this report. If you are an ISS institutional client, you may inquire about any issuer's use of products and services from ICS by
emailing disclosure@issgovernance.com.
This report has not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any other regulatory body. While ISS
exercised due care in compiling this report, it makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information and
assumes no liability with respect to the consequences of relying on this information for investment or other purposes. In particular, the research and data provided are
not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation or advice to buy or sell securities nor are they intended to solicit votes or proxies.
In February 2021, Deutsche Börse AG (“DB”) completed a transaction pursuant to which it acquired an approximate 80% stake in ISS HoldCo Inc., the holding company
which owns ISS. The remainder of ISS HoldCo Inc. is held by a combination of Genstar Capital (“Genstar”) and ISS management. Policies on non-interference and
potential conflicts of interest related to DB and Genstar are available at https://www.issgovernance.com/compliance/due-diligence-materials. The issuer(s) that is the
subject of this report may be a client(s) of ISS or ICS, or the parent of, or affiliated with, a client(s) of ISS or ICS.
Appendix: Notes on Methodology and Related Items Continued
Disclaimer