SUSTAINABLE BY NATURE:
OUR BIODIVERSITY ROADMAP
Marketing Communication for Professional Investors - May 2021

The sustainable
investor for achanging world

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-2-CONTENTSINTRODUCTION

3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The importance of biodiversity to BNP Paribas Asset Management and our clients
What does this mean for a large financial institution like BNP Paribas Asset Management?
The intersection of climate change and biodiversity loss
What does this mean for risk management?

4
8
8
9
9

1. ESG integration - Research, ESG ratings, portfolio management
Taking stock of our own dependencies and impacts
Our water and forest footprints
Reporting on our water target
Water efficiency
Our exposure to deforestation
Strength of the forest policy, commitments and traceability

12
14
15
16
17
21
23

2. Stewardship
Public policy

26
28

3. Responsible business conduct

29

4. Focus on the future
Collaborating to improve the availability and usability of investment-relevant data

31
31

5. Directing capital towards solutions

33

6. ‘Walking the talk’34

Conclusion

36

Appendix 1: Our participation in biodiversity-focused initiatives

37

Appendix 2: Key performance indicators

38

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-3-INTRODUCTION
According to the world’s leading scientists, the natural world is in crisis. We are losing biodiversity – thevery fabric of life on Earth – at an alarming rate. What does this mean for us as a large financial institution?
According to the most comprehensive scientific assessment, ‘the diversity of nature maintains humanity’s
ability to choose alternatives in the face of an uncertain future’.1 We would be poor investors if we did not seek
to preserve our long-term ability to choose alternatives in the face of uncertainty. We still have opportunities
to build the future our clients want and need, but our options are dwindling: Biodiversity loss threatens theachievement of 80% of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals sub-targets related to poverty,
hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (IPBES, 2019).
In 2019, we published our roadmap for providing long-term sustainable returns – our Global Sustainability
Strategy (GSS). With this paper, we build on that framework with our position on the biodiversity crisis.
We communicate our positions on key issues in order to inform our clients and prospective clients, so that theyknow with whom they are entrusting their funds. We also aim to influence our peers and policymakers, because
we cannot solve this problem on our own.
This paper is not simply a statement of our awareness of this crisis; more importantly, it details our views on
the nature and urgency of the crisis and how we are actively responding to it.

“The story of the biodiversity crisis is a story of value destruction on an
unprecedented scale. We understand that this is about more than just money – life
is material to us too – but the financial estimates alone are staggering, in terms ofwhat we might lose and what we might gain if we change course now. We can, andwe must, secure a better future for our clients and for society.”
Jane Ambachtsheer, Gloabl Head of Sustainability, BNP Paribas Asset Management

1 IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S.,
H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K.
Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque,
B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn,
Germany. 56 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-4-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our mission at BNP Paribas Asset Management is to deliver long-term sustainable returns to our clients. By‘sustainable’, we mean both returns that can be sustained over the long term, and returns that are in balancewith society and the environment. These two meanings of sustainable are inseparable – we cannot deliver
long-term returns without helping to achieve the energy transition, environmental sustainability and a moreequal and inclusive financial system. To do so, we embrace our role as future makers: We have an importantrole to play to ensure a just and sustainable future for our clients.
Our strategy
We have developed a biodiversity roadmap based on the six pillars of our approach to sustainability.
1. Integration of environmental, social & governance (ESG) considerations•• We are expanding the incorporation of biodiversity into our approach to ESG integration•• We have used a variety of tools to understand our own dependencies and impacts, and conductedanalysis of our global assets under management (AUM) to understand our exposure to water anddeforestation risks. Some key findings:−− Both water stress exposure and direct water intensity data are available for 17% of our corporate
AUM. On average, these companies withdraw 6% of their water from water-stressed areas.
−− Out of the 432 companies in which we are invested that report to CDP Water on at least one facility
at risk from water stress, 20 declare having sites with water risks in the Yongding He river basin,
China, the most water-stressed in the world.
−− We have developed a rating system for corporate deforestation policies and traceability systems.
Through this, we have found that a large proportion of companies in relevant sectors do not satisfy
our criteria to earn a ‘strong’ rating. Most notably, more than 30% of our AUM in relevant sectors isinvested in companies with ‘weak’ or no policies.
−− Our deforestation analysis is limited to policies, not performance. Data that would allow us toevaluate the actual performance of our investments against deforestation goals is virtuallynonexistent.
2. Stewardship•• We are expanding the incorporation of biodiversity in our voting and corporate engagements and will
engage with the industries having the greatest adverse impacts on biodiversity, with a core focus on
deforestation and water issues.
•• Our expectations for corporations extend from board oversight of biodiversity impacts and dependencies
to proactive lobbying for nature-positive public policies.
•• We will continue to work to build a collaborative investor stewardship initiative to address biodiversity
loss.
•• Our proxy votes will continue to support shareholder proposals on climate, deforestation and othercritical environmental issues.
•• Our public policy advocacy will increasingly incorporate biodiversity considerations.
3. Responsible business conduct•• On an ongoing basis, we are enhancing the assessment of biodiversity issues in our approach toresponsible business conduct.
•• Our investment portfolios are built on a comprehensive set of sectoral policies that address a wide
range of environmental issues.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-5-

4. Forward-looking perspective•• We have undertaken a number of collaborative projects to enhance the quality and availability of
biodiversity data:−− In addition to working to improve corporate biodiversity footprints, we are funding a project to help
CDP develop common biodiversity metrics and participating in the development of a Taskforce for
Nature-related Financial Disclosures.
−− We helped to coordinate a successful search for a research provider to develop more effective
biodiversity metrics for investor use and issued an investor statement on the need for biodiversity
impact metrics.
•• We will continue to increase the understanding of biodiversity issues in the investment community.
5. Sustainable+ product line•• We will provide our clients with a range of solutions targeted at solving biodiversity related challenges−− We are offering a range of thematic funds focused on biodiversity themes, including our Blue
Economy ETF and Ecosystem Restoration funds.
6. ‘Walking the talk’ through corporate social responsibility (CSR)•• We manage the biodiversity impacts of our operations•• We will educate colleagues and the industry about key environmental challenges:−− We have a long-term goal to send zero waste to landfill, to eliminate single-use plastic in our offices
and reduce our consumption−− Many of our employee and community engagement efforts are directed towards encouraging
nature-positive behavioural changes beyond the office−− Since 2010, BNP Paribas has supported 27 research initiatives related to climate and biodiversity,with a total of EUR 18 million in fundingS U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-6-

The importance of biodiversity to BNP Paribas Asset Management and our clients
We are in the midst of Earth’s sixth mass extinction event. Approximately 25% of all species on Earth is at riskof extinction by 2050, representing roughly one million species of plants and animals. By the end of the century,
50% or more is at risk (IPBES (2019)). To place this crisis in context, it is on a par with only five other mass
extinction events, each of which destroyed 70%-95% of all species on Earth (Ceballos, et al. (2020))2.
The unique factor in this event is our participation. Like the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis is driven byhuman activity, meaning that we have both an opportunity and an obligation to act, for the benefit of our clients
and, ultimately, human civilization and life on Earth.

The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biodiversity as ‘the variability among livingorganisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems
and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.’
Scientists have identified the following direct drivers of biodiversity loss:••Land-use change••Climate change••Pollution••Natural resource use and exploitation••Invasive species

Source: IPBES Global Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers

The biodiversity crisis presents a unique threat to our economies, our investments and our way of life.
It demands that we examine the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide to finance, and our role inpreserving them.

2 G. Ceballos, P. Ehrlich, P. Raven, Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass
extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2020, 117 (24) 13596-13602; https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1922686117

OF BIODIVERSITY GUIDANCE TO ACCOMPANY THE NATURAL CAPITAL PROTOCOLARTEDS U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P

01

-7-

Step 01 Guidance: Get started

Healthy ecosystems provide humanity with a vast range of crucial services, many of which are irreplaceable.
These include provisioning services (food, fresh water, fuel, pharmaceuticals, etc.), regulating and maintenanceservices (climate regulation, erosion control, water purification, pest control, soil health, etc.) and cultural
services (recreation, tourism, scientific and intellectual development, spiritual enrichment, etc.). These socalled ‘ecosystem services’ underpin our global economy, generally off our balance sheets, unnoticed, until
they disappear.

1.2.1 Familiarize yourself with the basic concepts ofnatural capital [and biodiversity]

An extinction event does not fit easily into the types of crises investors are accustomed to managing. For
example, if we view this crisis as an asset management problem, extinction can be compared to a company
going out of business, in which case portfolio managers find a suitable substitute. When a species goes extinct,
however,a uniqueasset has been
destroyed
for whichtheretoisnatural
no replacement.
a. Whatis biodiversity
andhow does
it relatecapital?Further, as one study put it,‘extinctions
breed
extinctions’(Ceballos,etal.
(2020))
duetothedependencies
Natural capital is a concept used for describing our relationship withbetween
nature. species
The within an
ecosystem.
Andof,
prior
extinction, when
the numberof individuals
in a population
or aspecies
drops too low,presence
andtointeractions
between,naturalcapital stocks
generates
flow ofthatgoods
plant oranimalcan become‘ecologicalzombie’, create
no longer
ablethroughto make significant
contributions
toandservices.
These angoods
and services
value
the benefits
theyprovideto businessand society(NaturalCapital Coalition 2016).
ecosystemfunctionsor services.
(Ceballos,
et al. (2020))

The flows of benefits from ecosystems to people are often described as ecosystemservices (MA 2005). Ecosystem services result from ecosystem function, which“Eventhethoughonly
an estimated
2%throughof all ofecosystems
the species(IPBES
that everare alive
describes
flow ofenergyand materials2019),lived
and isthe process
by whichecosystems
theirintegritynow(MA than2005).
today, theabsolute
number maintainof species
is greater
ever before. It was intosuch aandbiologicallydiverse world
that
we humansand sucha world that
Businesses
financial institutions
often
already
evaluateevolved,
environmental
risk from
specificissuedestroying.”
perspectives (e.g., energy use, waste, pollution, climate change, natural
we areresource use, and biodiversity). Natural capital encompasses all of these (Ceballos,
environmentalry :et al. (2020)
issues and helps to describe how they are interrelated. The application of a naturalityability among
capital approach builds on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and risk
anisms from all
initiatives
alreadyuse,
providing
additional
benefits
such
as understandingashealthy
Biodiversity
is notsimplyinthe
varietyof life, but
how theseorganisms
interactwith each othertheseto form
ncluding, inter alia,
a set of interrelatedwithtrade-offs.
, marine, and otherecosystems.
Biodiversity isissues
nature’s
expressionof resilience. It not only protects ecosystems from external
cosystems and theshocks,it allows
thembiodiversity
to function properly.
Resilienceis, in itself,
pivotalecosystem
service. Its breakdown
So wheredoes
come in?
Biodiversity
playsaan
integralrole, underpinning
al complexes of which
exposes
us to physicalrisks, including
global pandemics.
Up to 75%of all emerging
including COVID-19,
the goods
and services
that natural
capital stocks
generate(figure diseases,
1.1).
part; this includes
are zoonotic, meaning that they jumped from wildlife to humans.3 Intact ecosystems, particularly forests,
within species,
Biodiversity
varietyof lifeand isthe livingand
component
whatarecanbespecies, and ofprovideus with a describes
buffer fromthe
thesediseases.
Habitat
destruction
the wildlifeoftrade
simultaneouslyms” (Art. 2, CBD 1992).
thoughtofasnaturalcapitalstocks.
It
plays
animportant
role
in
the
provisionoftheharacteristics of living driving biodiversity loss and exposing humans and our economies to severe risks.
services we receive from nature. Biodiversity can refer to the level of genetic variation,
re encompassed within
the variety of species present, or the variety of groups of species or ecosystems. In
biodiversity and it is
As the Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity aptly stated: “The human economy is embedded ino capture everything
general, more biodiversity equates to a higher quantity, quality, and resilience ofthe biosphere.” According to the World Economic Forum, half of global GDP is threatened by nature loss and,ngle definition.
ecosystems and the services they provide, which underpin the benefits to business andty includes, but is not for the first time in the WEF survey’s 10-year outlook, the top five global risks in terms of likelihood are allsociety. As such biodiversity can be an indicator of the condition and resilience of, functional, taxonomic, environmental, including major biodiversity loss (World Economic Forum: Global Risks Report 2020).
natural capital stocks. It also contributes benefits to business and society in its own
tic diversity, diversity
time, and populationright, for example through direct and intrinsic value of species, nature-based
Thesolutions,relationshipand
betweenbiodiversity
andbenefits
natural capitalstocks,flows, and values
phics, and endemic,
by enrichingothersuch asnature-based
recreation.

ADDITIONAL
BIODIVERSITYASPECTSapitalk of renewableenewable naturals (e.g., plants, animals,
soils, minerals) thatto yield a flow ofo people” (Naturaloalition 2016).

ORIGINAL
PROTOCOL
FIGURESd, and charismaticnd ecosystems.

STOCKSNatural capital

FLOWS
Ecosystem andabiotic services

VALUE
Benefits to businessand to societym services
Biodiversityof benefits toom ecosystems,
y divided into
ing categories:ng, regulating,nd supporting (MASource: Adapted from Figure 1.1 of the Biodiversity Guidance to Accompany the Natural Capital Protocol 2016.
amples of ecosystem
nclude providing
Figure 1.1
erials, and energy
Relationship between biodiversity and natural capital stocks, flows, and valuesning), preventing
on (regulating), and(adapted from figure 1.1 of the Natural Capital Protocol 2016)
g recreation (cultural).
s ecosystem services
re’s contributions” have very
Figure 1.1 expands on figure 1.1 in the Protocol to illustrate how biodiversity underpins
eanings. Nature’s
healthy natural capital stocks. The figure provides further examples of biodiverse
ons to people
ecosystem service flows and highlights how biodiversity underpins the value flowing to
3 https://environmentlive.unep.org/media/docs/assessments/UNEP_Frontiers_2016_report_emerging_issues_of_
defined as “all thebusiness and society using the examples of pollinators providing benefits to a coffee
ons, both positiveenvironmental_concern.pdf
tive, of living nature to
production business and mangroves/flamingos providing flood mitigation/wildlife
y of life for people,”viewing for society.
terminology useddiversity documents
Biodiversity is in unprecedented decline on a global scale. The rate of species
the IPBES Global
extinction is already tens to hundreds of times higher than in the past and is increasing.
ent (IPBES 2019) andof the post-2020
The majority of natural ecosystems are deteriorating or have been destroyed. For
odiversity framework
example, over 85% of wetland habitats present in 1700 had been lost by 2000 (IPBESS U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-8-What does this mean for a large financial institution like BNP Paribas Asset Management?
It may seem counterintuitive that something as formidable as the global financial system, or a financial
institution such as BNP Paribas Asset Management with nearly EUR 0.5 trillion of assets under management,
could be vulnerable to the loss of something as small as a bee.
Bees are an underappreciated, and undervalued, asset. More than just a provider of honey, they play a criticalrole in human nutrition and the health of the ecosystems they support. Remove them, and things begin to fallapart, with significant consequences for economies and human health. Consider the following statistics on theimportance of animal pollinators, which, in addition to bees, include a wide variety of insects, bats and birds:•• Close to 75% of the world’s crops producing fruits and seeds for human consumption depend, at leastin part, on pollinators for sustained production, yield and quality.4•• Bees are responsible for pollinating about one-third of the world’s food supply. In the US, honey bees
alone provide pollination services valued at between USD 15 billion and USD 20 billion annually.5•• Crops that are dependent upon pollinators (‘pollinator-mediated’ crops) account for about 40% of the
global nutrient supply for humans, representing more than 90% of vitamin C, 100% of lycopene, nearly
100% of certain antioxidants, the majority of lipids, more than 70% of vitamin A and 62% of fluoride.6•• Timber and biofuel production (canola oil) also depend, in part, on insect pollination.
In recent years, alarming declines in insect and bird populations have been recorded, including a study thatfound that approximately 75% of all flying insects in national parks in Germany disappeared in 25 years (cited
in WIA (2017)). Larger animals have not fared much better: approximately 70% of all individuals of vertebrate
species have disappeared over the 50 years since 1970 (Ceballos, et al. (2020)).
When bees and other insect pollinators disappear, the birds that eat them and the plants they pollinate
disappear. Thus begins a chain reaction, with severe implications for global food production, including soil
health, water purification, pest and disease regulation and a wide range of other ecosystem services that these
species provide to humanity, free of charge.
The loss of pollinators provides one telling example of how difficult it is to accurately measure the economic
impact of biodiversity loss. A recent study placed the economic value of insect pollination in the US at USD 34
billion, based on 2012 data.7 But the larger cost in terms of human sustenance and nutrition is substantiallygreater, potentially impacting all sectors of the economy that depend upon a healthy, well-nourished workforce.
One estimate places the cost of pollinator loss alone at more than USD 500 billion per year.8
We understand that these costs are likely to be significant underestimates for at least three reasons:•• The enormous complexity involved in valuing the accelerating destruction of complex, integrated
systems that provide so many services essential for life and economic activity•• Certain ecosystem services are irreplaceable•• Only a portion of the costs can be translated into financial terms. The intangibles, which include theknowledge lost when species disappear before they have even been discovered – are priceless.
The estimates that we have seen, however, are credible and large enough to threaten global financial stability
and thus our ability to continue to deliver sustainable returns to our clients. As fiduciaries, we have an obligationto act.

4 http://www.fao.org/3/i9527en/i9527en.pdf
5 https://insights.osu.edu/sustainability/bee-population
6 Pisa, L., Goulson, D., Yang, EC. et al. An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic insecticides. Part
2: impacts on organisms and ecosystems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 11749–11797 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356017-0341-3
7 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210203144555.htm (The economic value of insect pollinators was $34
billion in the U.S. in 2012, much higher than previously thought, according to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh
and Penn State University. The team also found that areas that are economically most reliant on insect pollinators are thesame areas where pollinator habitat and forage quality are poor.)
8 https://insights.osu.edu/sustainability/bee-population

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-9-The intersection of climate change and biodiversity loss
It is well understood that climate change is a significant driver of biodiversity loss. It is perhaps less wellunderstood, however, that biodiversity loss is also a significant driver of climate change. These twin crises are
inextricably linked – we cannot address one without considering the other.
As we explain in our Global Sustainability Strategy: “There are […] different ways to get to the 1.5°C target,
and the path we choose will have different implications for society and for biodiversity. If we achieve 1.5°C at
the expense of biodiversity, we will have redefined the term ‘Pyrrhic victory.’” Climate strategies that balancesignificant emissions today against the promise of carbon capture technology employed decades from now
may have devastating impacts on ecosystems. This is a particularly critical challenge for the developmentof biofuels, which require a careful lifecycle analysis that accounts for land-use changes, farming methods(including pesticide and fertilizer use), and indirect pressures on food crops. In addition, scientists are telling
us that we cannot limit global warming to 1.5°C without preserving biodiversity.9 We are therefore forced toconfront these twin crises together, in all of their complexity.

What does this mean for risk management?
Investors thrive on their ability to take calculated risks – risk and reward are viewed as two sides of thesame coin. Sophisticated investors are comfortable with risk. The biodiversity and climate crises, therefore,
demand new terminology. If a ‘risk’ is a negative event that may or may not occur sometime in the future,then the concept does not adequately capture what we are facing. Like climate change, biodiversity loss is an
ongoing process, not a potential event far off in the future. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding how
this process may play out, and how negative and far-reaching the outcomes will be, but it is quite clear that
continuing on a business-as-usual basis is driving us to disaster, and we must change course.
The Convention on Biological Diversity’s goal to ‘live in harmony with nature’ presents enormous opportunities
for investors, as society works to reorient consumption patterns and production methods. In parallel with theshift to a low carbon economy, this transition represents the most significant investment opportunity of ourlifetimes. According to the World Economic Forum, these ‘positive pathways’ are estimated to bring USD 10
trillion in business value and create 395 million jobs by 2030.10
The asset management industry will need new tools and new approaches to risk management to properly
address this threat, and seize this massive opportunity. For example, traditional risk modelling techniques tellus that the highest impact events are also the least likely to occur. These are often labelled ‘fat tail’ events,
referring to their position on the bell curve. However, ecosystem collapse cannot be modelled using the same
tools we use to predict random events. Ecosystem collapse is already happening, initiated and driven by humanactivity. It is proceeding according to biological processes and complex interactions between species, not by thelaws of economics or statistical analysis. Too much reliance on our old models may mask the true nature of thethreat we are facing and our role in driving it.
When we use the term ‘systemic risk’ in this context, we are not merely speaking about threats to financial
stability; we are speaking about the harm to society when critical life-support systems are damaged, or knocked
out of equilibrium. This kind of threat is particularly difficult to model, with potentially unlimited downside risk.
All sectors of the economy face various forms of systemic risk, as damaged and destabilised ecosystems resultin drought, famine, disease, and the inevitable mass migrations and conflict that accompany these unexpected,
but predictable, disasters. This category of risk is the most significant and most difficult to value.
The Stockholm Resilience Centre has defined a set of nine planetary boundaries, delineating ‘safe zones’ forhuman activity. As we cross these boundaries, we enter into uncharted areas of great uncertainty. To date, wehave crossed four boundaries – climate change, land-system change, biogeochemical flows and biosphere
integrity. According to the Centre, we are in ‘high risk’ territory for the latter two zones. Each of these boundaries
relates to biodiversity.

9

Dinerstein, E; Vynne, C., et al., A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Science Advances  19
Apr 2019: Vol. 5, no. 4, eaaw2869 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw286; https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaaw2869
10 Katri, A ; Waughray, D., A blueprint for business to transition to a nature-positive future (World Economic Forum, 15 Jul2020), at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/future-nature-business-action-agenda-blueprint-climate-changebiodiversity-loss/

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-10-Planetary boundaries
In 2009, Johan Rockström, who was, at the time, the director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, led agroup of 28 internationally renowned scientists to identify the nine processes that regulate the stability
and resilience of the Earth system. The scientists proposed quantitative planetary boundaries within
which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. Crossing these boundaries
increases the risk of generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes. Since then,the planetary boundaries framework has generated enormous interest within science, policy, andpractice.

P: Phosphorus
N: Nitrogen
BII: Biodiversity Intactness Index
E/MSY: Extinction/Million Species per year
The nine planetary boundaries
As investors, the planetary boundaries framework is a useful reminder that, alongside earnings before
interest, taxes, and amortisation (EBITDA), cash flow, debt, and the seemingly infinite range of factors
sophisticated investors use to manage investment portfolios, we must also consider the dynamics of theplanet. For all of human history, we have lived within limits. Now that we have crossed these lines, weneed a map to show us where they lie, and to help us find our way back to safety.
The planetary boundaries remind us that we should think about our investments in the Earth system.
Let us remember that if the Amazon rainforest becomes a savannah, it could lead to changes in ocean
circulation in the Atlantic and to temperature increases in Asia. Also, the planetary boundaries framework
implies there will always be investment trade-offs to make when you consider other dimensions thanjust carbon. Think about large scale hydro. It is a good way to produce low-carbon electricity, but what
about its impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity? Once outside the planetary boundaries, we canno longer afford these trade-offs.
There are also obvious links to the Science Based Targets Network’s ongoing work on water, land,
oceans and biodiversity. As the name suggests, science-based targets are based on science and notarbitrarily chosen reduction targets. They allow companies to align with the Earth’s ecological limits.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-11-The most significant risk of biodiversity loss is not the risk to companies when they lose access to certain
ecosystem services, the reputational risk to investors and financiers from financing harm to nature, or even therisk to financial stability when key ecosystem services begin to disappear. Though these are all critical and inurgent need of management, the paramount risk is the unravelling of nature itself, which is under way. This isan existential threat. It is difficult to overstate its magnitude.
Risk management focused solely on risks to individual issuers will not translate to a reduction of systemic risk.
To manage systemic risk, investors need to bring all of their influence to bear on the problem, including more
effective corporate engagement and public policy advocacy.
As investors in individual companies, we must also take a ‘bottom-up’ approach and consider how nature losstranslates into financial risk to companies. To do so, we first need to understand each company’s relationshipwith biodiversity and ecosystem services. There are essentially two dimensions to this relationship –dependencies and impacts – although these categories overlap considerably:•• Companies that are heavily dependent upon certain ecosystem services, such as food manufacturers,
face physical risk when those services are depleted or critically compromised•• Companies that are having a negative impact on ecosystems may face reputational or transition risk
when consumers and governments seek to reorient themselves to preserve nature, in the form ofchanging consumer preferences or new regulations•• Companies that are heavily dependent upon these services may also face transition risk as these
services begin to be priced, or when scarcity drives up the prices of natural commodities, such as honeyor timber.
Biodiversity loss poses a systemic threat as well as company-specific risks
Top down – Systemic threat
Address biodiversity loss as a major threat tothe global economy.

Bottom up – individual risk
Assess biodiversity risks as they impact
individual companies or countries we invest in,alongside the adverse impacts these entities
are having on nature

What is IPBES?
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) is an independent intergovernmental body established by States to strengthen thescience-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development.
It was established in Panama City, on 21 April 2012 by 94 Governments. It is not a United
Nations body. However, at the request of the IPBES Plenary and with the authorization of the
UNEP Governing Council in 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provides
secretariat services to IPBES.

NETechnical Annex 1.6). In recent years, scientists
15% of global GDP (US$13 trillion), while moderately
have begun ringing warning bells as they observe
dependent industries generate 37% (US$31 trillion)
declines in intact ecosystem
S U S T A I Nextent
A B L E BandY N Acondition,
TURE: OUR BIODIVERSITY ROADMAP -12(Herweijer, Mariam and Evison 2020).2
as well as increasing rates of species extinctions
throughout the regions of the world (IPBES 2019a;
see Figure 2). These indications of the degradationand loss of nature entail a direct risk for humanwell-being and global economic activities.

1. ESG INTEGRATION - RESEARCH, ESG RATINGS, PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENTMOUNTAIN
Food, climate regulation,
spiritual values

RIVER
Fresh water, disease
regulation, ecotourism

MARINE
Food, climate regulation,
recreation

URBAN
Air quality regulation,
education, recreation

COASTAL
Food, hazard risk mitigation,

recreation & ecotourism

FOREST
Timber, flood regulation,
aesthetic values

CULTIVATED LAND
Fibre, nutrient cycling,
cultural heritage

BELOW GROUND BIODIVERSITY
Flood defense, carbon cycling &air quality

Source: Someof theand benefits
nature provides
societies
andsocieties
economies.and
Adaptedfrom: Dasgupta et al.
Figure
1. Someof services
the services
and benefits
naturehumanprovideshuman
economies.
2020. See TechnicalAnnex or et
TA1.6
moreSeedetail.
https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/
Adaptedfrom: Dasgupta
al. for
2020.
Technical
Annex or TA1.6 for more detail.
Science-Based-Targets-for-Nature-Initial-Guidance-for-Business.pdf

Our objectives•• Ensure that investment decision-making is informed by biodiversity considerations, particularly for key
industries•• Advance the understanding of biodiversity issues in the investment and corporate communities
Our approach
As broadly diversified global investors, our portfolios carry a complex mix of physical, transition and systemicrisks due to biodiversity loss, based on the dependencies and impacts of the companies and other entities weinvest in.
We believe most of these risks are mispriced today, highlighting the importance of being invested in thecompanies that are adopting sustainable sourcing practices and offering sustainable products.
Climate change has been called an ‘unhedgeable risk’, meaning that only a portion of the financial risk to
portfolios can be mitigated through traditional portfolio management techniques. The remainder of the risks
cannot be hedged – they must be addressed at the source. The same can be said for nature loss. Corporate
engagement and public policy advocacy are critical tools in addressing these kinds of systemic risks and are
discussed in more detail later in this paper.
To do any of this well, we need good data that we can translate into portfolio management terms. We aremaking progress on this, but significant challenges remain.

1

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-13-Understanding our nature-related risk exposure
Seeking to understand our nature-related risk exposure has been like playing with Matryoshka dolls: thefurther you go, the more you find.
We are working to improve our understanding of the breadth of our risk exposure so that we can provide ourportfolio managers with actionable insights. We conduct ESG sector reviews to bring our portfolio managers
up-to-speed on the latest risks and opportunities. These reviews cover a wide range of sustainability issues,
from human rights to nature loss, highlighting our view of the leaders and laggards in each sector. We havealso contributed to case studies, in partnership with the Capitals Coalition and others, to explain our approach,looking at our dependencies or impacts in key sectors, including a study on seafood and plastics in the consumer
sector.
In 2020, we used the ENCORE tool to look at our aggregate portfolio and understand the dependencies andsectors at risk (see page 15 for more on our dedicated ENCORE pilot).
Our ESG Integration Guidelines outline our goal to manage portfolios with more positive ESG characteristics
than their respective benchmarks. For example, we have set guidelines to target a lower carbon footprint foreach portfolio, relative to its respective benchmark. We are currently exploring how this approach applies towater, forests and biodiversity.
In 2020, we conducted a footprinting exercise to determine our overall exposure to certain water anddeforestation risks. The results of this review are discussed on pages 15-25. This year, we launched a waterand forest integration plan, focused on analysing key water and forest risks and opportunities at the company,
sector and fund level. This includes identifying stewardship recommendations for portfolio managers, such aspriority companies to engage, case studies to have in mind, or questions to ask the CFO in their next one-toone meeting.
We will continue to drill down – from sectors to specific companies and then into their specific assets andsupply chains, down to specific geographic locations to identify areas of water stress, biodiversity hotspots andland degradation. Our goal is to understand both direct and indirect risks to our investments and to nature.
Our data collection and IT systems are improving each year and we feel confident that with our blended/
multiple provider approach, using both public and private data sources, we have the necessary ingredients toimprove our decision making. Much of this, of course, depends on corporate disclosure, and we continue to facesignificant data gaps. Later in this paper, we briefly discuss some of our efforts to fill these gaps.
Quantifying our nature-related impacts
Our portfolio managers rely upon our proprietary ESG scoring framework to understand each issuer’s exposure
to a broad range of ESG risks.

BNPP AM’s proprietary ESG scoring framework is:• Comprehensive: Covering more than 12 000 issuers• Focused on materiality: Using a limited number of material, insightful metrics for each sector• Investment insight driven: Built with and for investment professionals• Robust: With a statistically rigorous model developed with our Quantitative Research Group• Dynamic and forward-looking: Integrating unique insights through qualitative overlays• Managed by the Sustainability Centre: To ensure the integrity and consistency of the framework
Thanks to these features, we believe our ESG scoring is a powerful tool to help investment teams
generate long-term sustainable investment returns for our clients.

Today, our framework includes nature-related impact indicators, reflecting actual adverse events that haveoccurred, such as water pollution, deforestation, presence in key biodiversity areas, etc. While this data provides
valuable information for our investment teams, we aim to develop more robust biodiversity impact metrics.
This is why we established a relationship with Iceberg Data Lab and iCare & Consult to develop and provide us
with biodiversity data that is tailored to our needs as global investors (see below and page 31).

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-14-Iceberg Data Lab and iCare & Consult’s Corporate Biodiversity Footprint uses life cycle assessment data toquantify the environmental pressures along the entire supply chain of a given company, using asset level data if
available. To date, terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity are relatively well documented in scientific literatureand related environmental models such as GLOBIO3, developed by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency. GLOBIO3 is used in the Corporate Biodiversity Footprint methodology to link quantified environmentalpressures to biodiversity loss (expressed in Km² MSA, see box).
The environmental pressures that are currently covered in the Corporate Biodiversity Footprint methodology
are the following:
••
••
••
••

Change of land use (land occupation, land transformation, encroachment, fragmentation)
Air pollution (nitrogen deposition)
Water pollution (freshwater eco-toxicity)
Climate change

Each environmental pressure is then translated into a quantified impact on biodiversity (MSA Climate Change, MSA Landuse, etc) and then aggregated to compute the Corporate Biodiversity Footprint of a given company, expressed in
Km² MSA.

MSA (Mean Species Abundance) measures the mean abundance of native species in a delimited
space relative to undisturbed ecosystems (%) and is the reference metric used by IPCC, theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the IPBES.
We are optimistic about the utility of this analysis, but do wish to be clear that many challenges
remain ahead. Biodiversity in or beneath the soil, marine biodiversity, extinction risk and species
richness dimensions have not yet been fully captured, and some pressures, such as invasive
species, have yet to be modelled. This is not to say that scientists do not have good data on
these aspects of the problem, but there is still a lack of data that is usable by investors, tying
specific impacts to individual companies. We will continue to explore available and emerging
data sets to enhance our understanding and provide as much transparency as possible.
We will also continue to closely follow the methodology updates of Iceberg Data Lab and iCare& Consult’s Corporate Biodiversity Footprint, where we are a steering committee member, theTaskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (BNP Paribas is co-chairing the working groupsetting up the TNFD), as well as other key initiatives, including Science Based Targets for Nature(see section 4. FOCUS ON THE FUTURE). As these frameworks develop, we will look to include
relevant data in our proprietary ESG scoring framework as well as to inform our stewardship
activities and thematic investment programme.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-15-Taking stock of our own dependencies and impacts
BNP Paribas Asset Management’s use of Natural Capital Finance Alliance’s ENCORE dependency tool
To deepen our understanding of our biodiversity related exposure, we were among the first financial institutions
to test Nature Capital Finance Alliance’s ENCORE dependency tool. To do so, we took our aggregate assets undermanagement in listed corporates and bonds and used the ENCORE database to understand our investees’
direct dependencies on ecosystem services. We did not include financials, as ENCORE does not include
indirect dependencies. The diagram below shows how our aggregate investments – grouped by GICS industry
classification – are dependent on key ecosystem services.
BNP Paribas Asset Management’s dependencies on ecosystems services per euro invested

Source: BNP Paribas Asset Management, ENCORE. This is a preliminary assessment. Partial view of BNPP AM’s current
corporate investments (equities, fixed income). View by GICS sectors. Figure does not include the financials sector.

What have we learned from using ENCORE?
•• Water, flood/storm protection and climate regulation are the most important ecosystemservices that our investment portfolios depend upon, confirming our current priorities.
•• Granularity in the mapping is key. We will need to manually fine tune the mapping for somekey sectors, such as agriculture, because current classifications are not granular enough tofully exploit the dependency profile given by ENCORE of production processes (such as large
scale, small scale, etc.).
•• ENCORE is useful as a first step. We will need to do deeper analysis of each company to inform
our investment decisions, our direct engagements and our responsible business conduct
policies.

Our water and forest footprints
In our Global Sustainability Strategy, we established a set of ambitious targets to improve the environmental
footprint of our investments, with a focus on water and forests, by 2022. The high-level results of these initialfootprinting exercises follow.
Footprint analysis is a useful tool to improve our understanding of our exposure to water scarcity anddeforestation. It is not sufficient to assess the full range of actual and potential impacts to the environment our
portfolio holdings may be causing, nor does it provide a full picture of our exposure to water and deforestation
risks. However, it does help us to establish a baseline against which we can monitor our performance, andit provides a high-level compass to identify where closer analysis of individual issuers is warranted. This
complements the suite of tools and analysis our ESG analysts perform at the sector and issuer-level and helps
to identify key targets for direct engagement by our stewardship team and portfolio managers.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-16-

Reporting on our water target
In 2019, we set ourselves the following water target:
To improve the water efficiency of our investment portfolios, in particular in water-stressed
areas, as well as to measure and disclose the water footprint of our portfolios.
We also committed to encourage water-intensive sector companies operating in water-stressed
areas to significantly improve their water efficiency while ensuring water access to local
communities.
Water is a harder environmental theme to capture than carbon, due to its local and temporal dimensions.
The effects of water over-use and pollution varies depending on the time of the year and the vulnerability of
ecosystems, local populations and businesses.
To report on our water target, we use three overarching key performance indicators:
1. Coverage and disclosure levels
2. Water efficiency of our corporate and sovereign investments
3. Exposure to water stress.
The indicators we have chosen cannot capture the full complexity of the water theme. For example, they
focus on the availability of fresh water, and help us to identify heavy corporate water use, but do not address
water pollution, a key threat to ecosystems. These indicators were chosen to maximise coverage, be applied
at different levels of aggregation (such as corporate, countries and portfolios) and take into account local
factors as much as possible11. Our data sources include S&P Trucost water data, the CDP water dataset, UN FAO
Aquastat and the World Resources Institute12.

What did we analyse?
We looked at two areas of our portfolios – equities and fixed-income securities we hold in
publicly traded companies, which we refer to as corporate AUM, and the sovereign debt wehold, which we refer to as sovereign AUM.

Coverage and disclosure levels
Relatively high coverage levels. By combining CDP water, S&P Trucost and UN Aquastat data, our water analysis
covers roughly 75% of our corporate AUM and nearly 100% of our sovereign AUM.13
Corporate disclosure levels could be significantly improved. We used disclosed data for approximately 29% of
our corporate AUM, including 10% from CDP’s latest water questionnaire. We supplemented these corporate
disclosures with partial and full estimates provided by S&P Trucost for 16% and 29% of our AUM, respectively.
As we move ahead, we aim to encourage our investees to disclose their water footprint, especially if they
operate in water-intensive sectors (See next section 2. STEWARDSHIP).

11 There is a trade-off between the objective of coverage maximisation and modularity on the one hand, and taking into
account local factors on the other hand.
12 We use the most recent data where available (2018 or 2019, where possible). In some instances, in particular in sovereign
investment analysis, we had to use older data.
13 We were unable to include other supranational investments, which represent less than 7% of our total AUM, due to lackof data.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-17-

Figure 1: Coverage level and disclosure levels of our water analysis, by AUM (abstracted and purchased water)

45%
disclosed or
partially
disclosed75%
of our AUM
coveredCorporate

Sovereign

Disclosed Partially reported

Disclosed: in CDP,
annual and CSR
reports…
Partially disclosed:
Disclosed only on
one geography,
business unit, or
water source…

Estimated

Sources: BNPP AM based on UN Aquastat, CDP Water and S&P Trucost

Putting our analysis into perspective14. We estimate that the total accumulated annual water withdrawalsof the companies in which we are invested represents approximately 75% of the world’s total withdrawals,
when taking into account supply chains (35%, if supply chains are excluded). The largest proportion of water
withdrawals is extracted directly by companies, rather than purchased from third parties. These figures areprone to double counting and very uncertain, as they rely heavily on estimates (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Putting our analysis in perspective

Invests incompanies…

… that collectively directly
withdraw approx. 35% of theworld’s total withdrawals; 75%
when including their supply chains.

Sources: BNPP AM based on UN Aquastat, CDP Water and S&P Trucost

Water efficiency
The average water efficiency of our investments. We define water efficiency, or water intensity, as the quantityof water, in cubic metres, required to generate one unit of revenue, in EUR million.
•• Our corporate AUM’s direct water intensity (including water extracted and purchased) is approximately
24 500 m3 per EUR million of net sales15, weighted by AUM. When including supply chains, this figurenearly doubles. This hides large sectoral disparities, as highlighted in the figures below.
•• Our sovereign AUM’s water intensity is approximately 25 000 m3 per EUR million of GDP16, representing
half the world’s water intensity.17 This is probably due to our relatively lower exposure to countries thatderive a large share of their GDP from agriculture, a water-intensive activity, but further investigationis needed.
•• It is important to note that water efficiency, or intensity, does not necessarily correlate with impact towater systems or biodiversity. A very large, but highly water-efficient company, or an efficient company
operating in an area of high water stress, may have an outsized impact on the availability of fresh water.
Unfortunately, data is not widely available to allow us to make these calculations.
14 We sum the total water footprint of the companies in which we are invested to derive this figure, without taking into
account ownership.
15 This metric includes disclosed and estimated data.
16 This metric does not take into account imported water that is the virtual water embedded in imported raw materials
such as agricultural commodities.
17 Weighted average per unit of GDP of the top 20 countries representing 80% of the world GDP.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-18-

There are large disparities across sectors. Figure 3 shows the relative water intensity by GICS sector, weighted
by AUM, of our investment universe.
Figure 3: Relative water intensity by GICS sector, weighted by AUM.
The first visual includes direct scope only (extracted and purchased water); the second includes both direct
and indirect water intensity.

Low to medium

Medium to highHigh

Materials
Industrials
Information
technology

Consumer
Discretionary

EnergyExtremely highFinancials

Communication
Services

High

Industrials

Real Estate

Health Care

Consumer
Staples

Utilities

Medium to highConsumer
Discretionary

Extremely
high

Health Care

Utilities

Real Estate
Information
technology

Materials

EnergyFinancials

Co...
Ser...

Consumer
Staples

Sources: BNPP AM based on CDP Water and S&P Trucost

The above tables display the water intensity of our aggregate corporate equity and fixed-income investments,
where the size of the box represents the relative portion of our AUM. The colour represents the relative water
intensity, where darker red signifies higher intensity. We use both disclosed and estimated data to draw these
conclusions.
Based on our analysis, when looking at the tables, we note some key take-aways:•• When considering only direct water withdrawals (extracted and purchased), over 60% of our corporate
AUM is invested in sectors with a ‘low to medium’ average water intensity (less than 1 000 m3 per EUR
million of net sales). This is explained by our large exposure to the finance sector (first heat map). The
picture changes when considering direct and indirect water use.
•• When considering direct and indirect water withdrawals, no sector is ‘low intensity’: Water is a prevalentissue and it is essential to consider supply chains. Approximately 50% of our corporate AUM is invested
in sectors with ‘high’ average water intensity (between 10 000 and 100 000 m3 per EUR million of net
sales).
•• When indirect withdrawals are included, the consumer discretionary and consumer staples sectors’
water intensity increases by 48x and 15x respectively, meaning that the larger proportion of its water
use is within its supply chains.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-19-•• We find that in most cases, our weighted average intensity per AUM is lower than the sector-levelaverage, suggesting that within most sectors, we invest more in companies that are relatively morewater-efficient.18•• Our investments in the utilities sector significantly drive up our average intensity. While water
withdrawal is an interesting risk exposure indicator (everything else being equal), additional indicators
may be used to evaluate the potential impact of different sectors, such as water use, which captures thequantity of water withdrawn and used but not put back into the environment. We find, however, thatreported data is not of sufficient quality across sectors to be used at this stage.
We will continue to monitor the water intensity of our AUM against this baseline. We will also seek to refine
the analysis, by comparing the water intensity per unit of production at company level within sectors where it
is possible, which may be more relevant than basing it on unit of revenue. Finally, we will investigate the useof additional indicators, such as water use as described in the paragraph above, that would allow us to draw
complementary conclusions on the relative risk exposure and impact of different sectors and companies.
Water stress
Although responsible water use is important everywhere in the world, reliable access to clean water – forhumans and ecosystems – is always a local issue. This is why we integrate water stress, where possible, in
our analysis19.
•• Water withdrawals in water-stressed areas. Both water stress exposure and direct water intensity
data are available for 17% of our corporate AUM (approximately 430 companies). On average, thesecompanies withdraw 6% of their water from water-stressed areas20.
•• This figure masks large disparities at the individual company level. In particular, the 26 companies
with extremely high water intensity (over 100 000 m3 per EUR million) withdraw more than 10% of theirwater from water stressed areas (Figure 4, darker bar).
•• Water is a local issue, but very few companies report at site level. Out of the 432 companies in which
we are invested that report to CDP Water on at least one facility at risk from water stress, 20 declarehaving sites with water risks in the Yongding He river basin, China, the most water-stressed in theworld (Figure 5).
•• Our sovereign AUM are relatively less exposed to water stress than the world average. Over 65% of oursovereign AUM’s water intensity is contributed by countries with high, or extremely high, water stress.
This is lower than the world’s average, but predicted to increase in a business-as-usual scenario by
204021 (Figure 6).

18 For intra-sector comparison and engagement, it may be necessary to analyse the data at a more granular level andcompare companies based on their water intensity per unit of production rather than revenue.
19 Water stress: Baseline water stress measures the ratio of total water withdrawals to available renewable surface andgroundwater supplies. Water withdrawals include domestic, industrial, irrigation, and livestock consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. Available renewable water supplies include the impact of upstream consumptive water users andlarge dams on downstream water availability. Higher values indicate more competition among users.
WRI: https://files.wri.org/s3fs-public/aqueduct-30-updated-decision-relevant-global-water-risk-indicators_1.pdf ;We rely on CDP question W1.2d_C2_ that does not indicate a specific level of water stress.
20 Weighted by AUM.
21 Using WRI central BAU scenario, 2040 in Luo, T., R. Young, and P. Reig. 2015. "Aqueduct projected water stress rankings."
Technical note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, August 2015. Available online at http://www.wri.org/
publication/aqueduct-projected-water-stress-country-rankings

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-20-

Figure 4: Percent of water withdrawn in areas with water stress by companies classified in categories ofwater intensity, weighted by our AUM. The width of the bars indicate the number of companies for which wehave data (N=432). (Data; CDP Water)% of withdrawals from areas with water stress...
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

... by companies with ... water intensity

Low

Low to medium

Medium to highHigh

Extremely highData is available for 432 companies that, on average, withdraw 6% of their direct water from water stressed areas
Sources: BNPP AM based on CDP Water

50

5

40

4

30

3

20

2

10

1

0

Yongding He

Bravo

Santiago

ThamesGangesBrahmaputra

Tone

Limpopo

Mississippi
River

Chao
PhrayaYangtze River(Chang Jiang)

Baseline water stress (5= highest, blue dots)

Number of companies with sites at riskin this river basin (orange bars)

Figure 5: Companies in our portfolios that disclose sites in high stress river basins stress. Data: WRI

0

Sources: BNPP AM based on CDP Water

Figure 6: Water intensity of our sovereign AUM (m3 per EUR million of GDP), split by average water stresslevels and compared to the world’s average, current and 2040 (business-as-usual scenario)
World (BAU, 2040)

World (m3/mmEUR GDP)BNPP AM (BAU, 2040)

BNPP AM (m3/€m GDP)0
Low water stress

5000

10000

Low to medium water stress

15000

20000

25000

Medium to high water stress

Sources: BNPP AM based on UN Aquastat and World Resources Institute

30000

35000

High water stress

40000

45000

50000

Extremely high water stress

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-21-Looking aheadThis analysis will be used as the baseline to evaluate our progress on our 2019 water target. Our objective is tocontinue to monitor the evolution at AUM level, but also at fund level. We find that while data availability has
improved in recent years, some topics are still difficult to assess, in particular water stress and water accessby local communities. We will strive to continue to develop relevant indicators and integrate new datasets
to fill the gaps, and develop a more complete picture of our investments’ risk exposure and impact on water.

Our exposure to deforestation
In 2019, we set the following forest target:“To support global efforts to halve forest loss by 2020 and end forest loss by 2030, we have
set targets for relevant companies in our portfolios to comply with No Deforestation, No Peatand No Exploitation (NDPE) commitments by 2020 for agricultural commodities (palm oil, soy,paper, timber, and beef products); NDPE commitments by 2030 from non-agricultural sectors(mining, metals, infrastructure).”We recognise that policy-based indicators are only the beginning of the story. Data that would allow us toevaluate the actual performance of our investments against deforestation goals, however, is virtually nonexistent. Every year, CDP sends its forests survey to companies that they believe are exposed to deforestation.
In 2020, CDP reports a 31% response rate.22 Very few companies report land conversion in hectares or otherquantitative terms. For this reason, we use a ‘policy-based’ indicator (NDPE commitments) as an interim step
towards our ultimate goal, which is to understand ‘compliance’ with NDPE commitments.
We are investigating ways to measure and estimate land use and land use change at the issuer and portfolio
level, by using and combining new data sources (see page 24).
To report on our portfolios’ exposure to deforestation, we used three overarching key
performance indicators:
1. Transparency
2. Strength of the forest policy and commitments
3. Supply chain traceability practices.

The indicators were chosen because of their relevance, relative data availability and simplicity. Covered
commodities include timber, palm oil, cattle products, soy and rubber, where possible. To perform the analysis
below, we combined data from three key databases - CDP Forest, Forest 500, and SPOTT - to expand ourcoverage, but we find that these data sources use different criteria and cannot always be combined into one
common dataset. These databases include companies that are the most likely to be exposed to deforestation
through the agricultural commodities they produce or purchase, and their size and activities, in their operations
and supply chains. We are investigating ways to integrate additional datasets in the future, such as TRASE tools(Appendix 2 highlights the indicators chosen for our assessment).
As detailed below, we found that an alarming number of companies that we presume to be exposed todeforestation risks do not disclose adequate information to allow us to evaluate their contribution to
deforestation. Our analysis of corporate policies and traceability systems also demonstrates the need for
substantial improvement, suggesting that the companies themselves are unaware of these risks. These findings
are deeply concerning in light of the number of “no deforestation by 2020” commitments companies havemade.

22 CDP_Forests_analysis_report_2020.pdf (rackcdn.com)

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-22-

Figure 7: Percentage of our corporate AUM in relevant sectors covered by the CDP, Forest 500 and SPOTT data
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Consumer Staples

Consumer Discretionary

Financials

Sources: BNPP AM based on CDP Forest, Forest 500 and SPOTT

Coverage
We prioritise three GICS sectors for this analysis, namely consumer staples, consumer discretionary andfinancials (hereafter, ‘relevant sectors’), representing 48% of our corporate AUM. Within this, we have datafrom CDP, Forest 500 and SPOTT for 75% of our AUM in the consumer staples sector, 70% in the consumer
discretionary sector and 44% in the financial sector (Figure 7).
Transparency
Just over half of these assets are invested in 480 companies that are most likely to produce or source agriculturalcommodities related to deforestation according to CDP, SPOTT and Forest 500 (palm oil, soy, paper, timber, beef
products, rubber).
In total, out of our corporate AUM in relevant sectors:
••
••
••
••

4% is invested in companies with full reporting
22% is invested in companies with average reporting
26% is invested in companies with weak reporting
the remaining 48% is invested in companies for which data is not available from CDP, Forest 500 or
SPOTT.

See Appendix 2 for our scoring system.

“As investors, we need more spatial data to evaluate the actual performance of
our investments against our no deforestation goals. Policy-based indicators are
only the beginning of the story. This is why we are continuing to explore ways ofquantifying the land occupation and deforestation footprint of our investments.”
Robert-Alexandre Poujade, ESG Analyst, BNP Paribas Asset Management

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-23-Strength of the forest policy, commitments and traceability
As explained above, we combine the CDP Forest, Forest 500 and SPOTT datasets to maximise the coverage of
our analysis and make use of the most recent aggregated data available23. To classify policies & commitments
and traceability systems, we created three categories (strong, average, weak) to reconcile the sometimes
differing scope of the three datasets used (see Appendix 2 for the full scoring system).
Figure 8: Percentage of our corporate AUM invested in companies covered by CDP, Forest 500 and SPOTT withstrong, average and weak policies & commitments, and traceability, in relevant sectors (excluding companies
for which no data is available).

Policies & commitments

Traceability

GICS sector

StrongAverage

Weak

StrongAverage

Weak

Financials

0%

80%

20%

20%

35%

45%

Consumer staples

25%

45%

30%

5%

90%

5%

Consumer discretionary

<5%

15%

85%

<5%

80%

20%

Total corporate AUM
in relevant sectors
covered by CDP,
Forest 500 and SPOTT

5%

65%

30%

15%

50%

35%

StrongWeak

Companies that have company-wide
and commodity-specific commitments/
policies that cover all countries, alloperations, direct and indirect suppliers,
all transactions (for financial services
companies).

Companies that do not have a companywide commitment/ policy and/or do
not have any commodity-specificcommitments/ policies.

Companies that monitor and verify
compliance with their no-deforestationcommitment in their supply chains andhave a commitment to develop/havesupply chain traceability systems on
all commodities and on all operations,countries, and product and businesslines.

Companies that do not have a
traceability commitment for any
commodity produced or sourced, do nothave a traceability system in place anddo not plan to put one in place within
the next two years, and do not havea clear public process to identify andaddress issues of non-compliance with
their policy.

A large proportion of reporting companies do not satisfy sufficient criteria to earn a ‘strong’ rating:•• 65% of our AUM in relevant sectors is invested in companies with only an ‘average’ grade on policies
and commitments•• 50% of our AUM in relevant sectors is invested in companies with only ‘average’ traceability•• More than 30% of our AUM in relevant sectors is invested in companies with a ‘weak’ policy or no policy
at all.
Indeed, most of the policies, commitments and traceability systems fail to cover all operations, geographies,business units, product lines and suppliers. Figure 9 below is a deep-dive into the ‘average’ grades, tounderstand what drives the results and how corporates could improve to be considered ‘strong’ in these areas.

23 There will always be a lag given the reporting lag at the corporate level, the compilation lag in those datasets, and theaggregation and reporting lag at the investor level.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-24-

Figure 9: Percentage of our corporate AUM in relevant sectors covered by CDP, Forest 500 and SPOTT with anaverage grade and that fulfil the following characteristics
Of the 65% of our corporate AUM invested in companies
with ’average’ policies and commitments:

Of the 50% of our corporate AUM invested in companies
with ’average’ traceability:

2%

51%

94%

14%

40%

94%

Have commitmentsor policies atcommodity level,on all commodities,
but not
deforestationspecific.

Have no specificcommitments orpolicies for allcommodities thatthe company
sources, produces
or is exposed to.

Have insufficient
scope andperimeter(operations,
suppliers, allcountries, alldeals).

Have no exisiting
traceability system
nor intention todevelop one within
the next two years.

Neither monitor
for compliancewith commitments
or lack targets
that cover allcommodities

Have insufficient
scope andperimeter(operations,
suppliers, allcountries, alldeals).

Sources: BNPP AM based on CDP Forest, Forest 500 and SPOTT
Towards performance-based indicators
Our forest indicators focus on the policies and processes put in place by our investees, rather than quantitative
indicators, due to the lack of reported performance-based data on land and deforestation.
We have been investigating ways of quantifying the land occupation and deforestation footprint of ourinvestments. For example, we experimented with Exiobase 3x, which uses environmentally extended inputoutput models that describe the complex relationships between sectors and countries and their environmental
consequences. According to these models, on average, our corporate holdings have a land footprint fromagricultural commodities of approximately 30 hectares per EUR million of net sales, 99% of which is in their
supply chains. Sectors with the largest land footprint from the production and use of agricultural commodities
include consumer staples and materials.
While this figure gives a sense of the overall magnitude of our exposure to this theme, it is highly uncertain as it
is based on a macroeconomic top-down model, rather than company-reported data. As we work to improve ourmetrics and measures, we will investigate how to cover a larger number of sectors (e.g. mining), incorporate
more company-specific data in our model, and focus further on the development of a ‘land deforested’ metric.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-25-

Sovereigns
Finally, we find that nearly 70% of our sovereign AUM is invested in countries that have endorsed the 2014
New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF)24. Yet, as the five-year assessment report of the NYDF demonstrated,
commitments do not mean progress, and the world has failed to meet the NYDF’s 2020 targets. On average,
the overall forest area of the countries in which we are invested has been increasing, contrary to the world’s
average25. Yet, this figure may hide large discrepancies between planted and natural forests, and does notmean that our investments did not contribute to total natural forest loss (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: The top 30 countries in which BNPP AM is invested collectively contributed to…

12 million hectaresof natural forest loss in 2019,
the equivalent of 1/5th ofmainland France

13 million hectaresof humid tropical forest loss
between 2015 and 2019 and28 million hectaresof forests lost to wildfires
between 2015 and 2019,
the equivalent of half ofFrance’s territory.

Our work in the area of natural capital and biodiversity strengthens our ability to respond toincreasingly rigorous sustainable finance disclosure requirements from European regulators.
First, our sector analysts’ expertise, desk-based research and dialogue with companies, together
with our internal and external exploratory work, will help us to report on the mandatory andoptional principal adverse impact indicators required by the Sustainable Finance Disclosure
Regulation on the themes of water and biodiversity. In addition, our current water, forest andbiodiversity footprinting work can directly feed into our reporting on four optional indicators26.
Second, Article 29 of the French Law Energy-Climate requires investors to report on theiralignment strategy with long-term biodiversity objectives as defined in the Convention for
Biological Diversity, their contribution to the reduction of the main pressures and impacts on
biodiversity as defined by IPBES, and their use of a biodiversity footprint indicator. The biodiversity
footprinting work that we started with Iceberg Data Lab will help us achieve this.
Finally, we expect that our work may be useful when the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities
is established on the four other environmental objectives at the end of 2021, including objectives
3 and 6: The sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, and the protection
and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, respectively.

24 Halve the loss of natural forests globally by 2020 and end natural forest loss in 2030; global, non-legally binding politicaldeclaration. The associated voluntary action agenda gives guidelines to achieve these goals
25 Calculating the weighted forest area annual net change rate based on UNSTAT data on the UN SDGs, itself based on the
UN FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2020. ‘Forests’ encompass both natural and planted forests, as per SDG Indicator
15.2.1.
26 Water usage and recycling; Exposure to areas of high water stress; Land degradation, desertification, soil sealing;
Investments in companies without sustainable land/agriculture practices

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-26-

2. STEWARDSHIPOur objectives:•• Engage the highest impact industries seeking to reduce their impact on biodiversity, with a core focus
on deforestation and water issues•• Seek to address biodiversity governance and risk management, and responsible lobbying on biodiversity•• Continue to work to build a collaborative investor stewardship initiative to address biodiversity loss•• Continue to incorporate biodiversity considerations into our public policy advocacy.
Corporate engagement
Our initial water and forest footprint exercises have revealed a substantial lack of data, which may present
obstacles to informed investment decision-making to address biodiversity loss. An absence of data, however,is no obstacle to effective stewardship.
Our global corporate engagement efforts are organised around the 3Es outlined in our Global Sustainability
Strategy (the energy transition to a low carbon economy, environmental sustainability and equality andinclusive growth), as well as our focus on corporate governance and responsible business conduct. The
biodiversity crisis touches on each of these.
Our footprinting analyses, including our work with the ENCORE tools, will help us prioritise our engagements,organised around the key drivers of biodiversity loss identified by the IPBES.
We will continue to bring a sense of urgency to all of our dialogues on climate and biodiversity. For example, wehave been encouraging companies that have committed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by 2050 to consider investments in habitat restoration and afforestation today, rather than focusing exclusively
on technical solutions that may not be implemented for decades.
We will also work with our portfolio managers to integrate corporate engagement into key funds that express
an environmental theme or that are invested in companies with particularly significant impacts on nature.
As noted below, we are developing a corporate engagement strategy for our Blue Economy ETF, focused on
reducing impacts to marine habitats.
Below are several key initiatives that will form the core of our corporate engagements on biodiversity.
Investor expectations concerning biodiversity
Corporations have had environmental policies and programmes for decades, but nature loss is accelerating,driven, in part, by a variety of commercial activities. Clearly, something new is needed.
We will work to develop investor expectations of corporates to address biodiversity loss, in collaboration withother investors. The key elements will vary by industry, but, as a baseline approach for virtually every large
company, we would expect the following:•• Board oversight: The board of directors must have clear oversight of their company’s dependencies andimpacts on nature loss. We will look for boards to include biodiversity on the board agenda, either bycreating new committees or by amending existing committee charters to include biodiversity, and will
be seeking an understanding of board expertise in this area and details of how the board exercises its
oversight responsibilities.
•• Impact assessment: Companies must develop a deep understanding of how nature loss impacts thecompany in the short, medium and long term, and how the company is contributing to biodiversity
loss. This analysis should be overseen by the board, be transparent, and be updated at least annually.
•• Upgrade climate commitments to address nature loss: Corporate climate commitments should be
reviewed against the emerging science regarding nature loss, and upgraded where appropriate, toreflect the appropriate sense of urgency, scale and place. This latter category is the key distinction– GHG concentrations are global, but biodiversity is always local. Companies that have made ‘netzero’ commitments should consider investing in nature-based solutions as soon as possible. Where
appropriate, these policies should address how the company evaluates climate and biodiversity ‘offsets’,in alignment with IUCN’s Biodiversity Offsets Policy.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-27-•• Set science-based targets for nature: Companies will need to develop policies and procedures toaddress biodiversity loss, with clear and ambitious science-based goals. We recommend thatcompanies use the Accountability Framework Initiative (for forests) and participate in the developmentof the Science Based Targets Network framework.
•• Sustainable capital allocation: Boards should include considerations of ecosystem resilience in theiroversight of corporate capital allocation decisions, including executive compensation, research anddevelopment, etc.
•• Lobbying for nature: Companies should align their direct and indirect lobbying efforts with an ambitious
outcome for the upcoming meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (COP15), and ensure their lobbying is consistent with the preservation of nature. We will belooking to adapt the Investor Expectations on Corporate Climate Lobbying to biodiversity loss.
•• Disclosure: The Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures has only just begun its work.
Ultimately, we expect that the TNFD will provide the default corporate reporting framework for nature
loss. In the meantime, we expect companies to provide thorough responses to the annual CDP survey on
climate, forests and water, use the Accountability Framework Initiative reporting guidance for forests,
and include a discussion of their response to the biodiversity crisis in their regular sustainability
reporting.
Deforestation
BNP Paribas Asset Management has been an active member of the PRI/Ceres-led Investor Initiative for
Sustainable Forests for several years, and has taken the lead with a number of companies. Through thisinitiative, we have been engaging key companies on their policies and procedures for sourcing commodities
linked to deforestation, including soy, palm oil, cattle and timber products.27
Our most recent focus has been the elimination of deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of Brazil.
We are engaging the major Brazilian meatpackers and are now expanding our discussions to the commodity
traders, seeking full traceability of supply chains and cut-off dates for any further deforestation.
Systemic pesticides
Deforestation and water scarcity are only two of the more significant drivers of biodiversity loss. Systemic
pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, have been associated with alarming declines in pollinators, including
insects and birds, for years. In 2020, we helped to organise a meeting with PepsiCo, Inc., a group of investors,
and two leading scientists, to discuss the global impact of these pesticides. Our dialogue can now proceed
based on a common understanding of the current state of the science. Early indications are that our meeting
had an impact, and has helped to shift the company’s view on these ubiquitous pesticides. For example,
our meeting prompted PepsiCo to create a Neonics Workgroup within its Global Pesticide Council, a crossfunctional group comprised of senior leaders from across the company that monitors and evaluates pesticide
issues and directs PepsiCo’s policies and programmes.
We are helping to develop a collaborative investor engagement on biodiversity
Collaborative engagement is particularly well suited to addressing systemic risks. While there is a broad rangeof long-term collaborative investor engagements focused on elements of the biodiversity crisis, including
climate change, deforestation, plastics, chemicals, etc., there is no single collaborative engagement focused
explicitly on biodiversity. Biodiversity seems to be falling through the cracks. We also believe it is particularly
important to ensure that each of these initiatives incorporate biodiversity considerations to ensure that they
do not inadvertently undermine progress.

27 Although this joint PRI/Ceres initiative is ending, we have been in close contact with both organizations about theframing of this work going forward, strongly emphasizing the need to broaden this work to address biodiversity loss.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-28-During Climate Week in 2019, we co-hosted a discussion with scientists and investors to begin a discussion
about what investors should be doing to address this crisis. Is a new initiative needed? What would it mean tobring a biodiversity lens to our existing engagements? How can we be optimally effective? We have continued
that discussion with PRI, Ceres and other institutional investors, and recently chaired the first call for a PRIcoordinated informal working group on biodiversity. We are also serving on the biodiversity advisory committee
of a new Ceres Working Group on Land Use and Climate launched partly in response to our advocacy for abiodiversity-focused engagement programme.
In 2020, we also contributed to a Ceres Investor Guide to Deforestation and Climate Change, a PRI discussion
paper, Investor Action on Biodiversity, and the PRI’s Investor Expectations for the Aviation Sector, developed
for Climate Action 100+. In our comments, we highlighted the need to consider biodiversity impacts whenevaluating sustainable aviation fuels.
Proxy voting
We will continue our record of strong support for sustainability-focused shareholder proposals and will consider
submitting our own, focused on the biodiversity crisis. In 2020, we supported 94% of shareholder proposals
focused on climate change and other critical environmental issues, within our voting scope.

Public policy
Without a global policy framework that sets the right level of ambition with clear targets, we are unlikely to beable to reverse nature loss. In late 2021, governments will be meeting under the auspices of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15)), to negotiate a post-2020 Global Biodiversity
Framework.
Scientists are warning that an outcome-oriented approach with ‘multiple, coordinated goals and holistic
actions are critical’ for success: “We highlight the need for the connectedness, partial dependence, andimperfect nesting of nature’s facets to be built right from the start in the design of outcome goals, targets,indicators, and actions. In addition to addressing different facets of nature, goals must be set across the whole
gradient from ‘natural’ to ‘managed’ ecosystems, attending to the specificities of these different landscapes.”28More than 100 businesses, under the banner of Business for Nature, have issued a detailed call for a frameworkthat ‘accelerates collective leadership on nature and shows that the transition to a nature-positive future isboth necessary and achievable’.29
The framework must also include the active participation of Global South countries and indigenous peoples,with a firm commitment to a ‘just transition’. Wealthy nations must be prepared to compensate developing
countries for land that must be set aside for nature.
We plan to work with other institutional investors ahead of the COP15 talks, to express our interest in an
ambitious outcome for these critical negotiations.

“One of the things that is often missing from investor-corporate dialogues onenvironmental issues is a sense of urgency. We will always look to work withcompanies, and to encourage progress over time, but we must stress that we are incrisis. Business as usual is not good enough. Pilot projects and vague aspirational
commitments are not good enough. We know this is difficult and we won’t have all
the answers, but transformation is not optional.”
Adam Kanzer, Head of Stewardship, Americas, BNP Paribas Asset Management

28 Diaz, S., et al., Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability, Science (23 Oct. 2020), Vol. 370 Issue 6515, 411413, available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6515/411
29 https://www.businessfornature.org/news/business-for-nature-cbd-position

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-29-

3. RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS CONDUCT•• On an ongoing basis, enhance the assessment of biodiversity issues in our approach to responsible
business conduct
We believe we have a constructive role to play to help companies transition their business models onto a moresustainable path. But we do also exclude companies from our actively managed portfolios where we believe thecompany’s behaviour or business model poses unacceptably high risks to investors, society or the environment.
A key challenge in implementing this commitment is the lack of widely available information on corporatesocial and environmental impacts. Our exclusions are therefore necessarily under-inclusive.
Company and industry exclusions are one of the oldest – and least understood – elements of responsible
investment. Some argue that divestment is the only answer, while others argue that it is only a form of ‘passing
the buck’ to another investor. Although we reserve these exclusions as a last resort, we do believe they areimportant, as they:•• Uphold international norms as standards for corporate behaviour and incentivise compliance withthem, identifying lines that must not be crossed;•• Protect our portfolios from a wide variety of risks stemming from corruption, human rights violations
and environmental degradation, and•• Help to ensure that we are not prioritising short-term profits over longer-term harm.
This last point is perhaps the least well understood aspect of industry and company exclusions. Former Bankof England Governor Mark Carney spoke of the ‘tragedy of the horizon’ and the Dasgupta review also cited thecritical mismatch between investor time horizons and the timescale for significant environmental harm. Thismismatch means that capital continues to be deployed to companies and activities that produce short-term
gains, but significant long-term damage. At least three tools can help to address this problem: Regulation,fiduciary duty and ‘norms-based’ industry and company exclusions.
In addition to detailed sectoral policies that are applied to the BNP Paribas Group and BNP Paribas AssetManagement, we also use international normative frameworks, such as the UN Global Compact, to evaluate
and potentially exclude the worst actors. This evaluation has historically included a number of biodiversity
considerations, including forestry standards related to palm oil production, our coal exclusions, and a rangeof exclusions based on corruption scandals. Corruption does not explicitly relate to biodiversity, but there is
widespread evidence that forestry operations have been used to launder money from illegal activities, and
INTERPOL has highlighted the tragic fact that ‘the vast majority of the world’s biodiversity hotspots are …
located in countries where overall levels of corruption are perceived to be at least moderate to high’.30
Most recently, the BNP Paribas Group amended its Agricultural Sector policy to tighten restrictions on
deforestation and land clearance in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of Brazil – two of the most biodiverse
regions on Earth. BNP Paribas Group also released its position on biodiversity preservation in May 2021. Our
own work at BNP Paribas Asset Management builds on this.

BNP Paribas Group’s financing and investment policies related to biodiversity
As a large international financial services provider, BNP Paribas finances a number of industries,
some of which present significant sustainability challenges. For these sectors, we havedeveloped a suite of policies which take into account sustainability standards, in addition toeconomic performance criteria, when making financing and investment decisions. Developed incooperation with independent experts, these public policies apply to all of the Group’s businesslines and countries where it has a presence. In 2019, the Corporate Social Responsibility branchof BNP Paribas reviewed 2 340 transactions to ensure their compliance with these policies.
Sector-specific policies that have biodiversity aspects include agriculture, mining, palm oil,
unconventional oil & gas and wood pulp.

30 https://globaltimbertrackingnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/INTERPOL_2016_Uncovering-the-Risks-ofCorruption-in-the-Forestry-Sector.pdf

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-30-

BNP Paribas Group’s position on biodiversity preservation
BNP Paribas is convinced that biodiversity-related risks and opportunities are significant andhas been committed to preserving biodiversity for several years: inclusion of criteria relating to
deforestation and biodiversity in its financing and investment policies since 2012, dialogue withcustomers in the most sensitive sectors, development of product and service relying on naturebased solutions (NBS), act4nature commitments in 2018 (updated in 2021), publication of aposition on ocean protection in 2019, extension to biodiversity of research programs supportedby the BNP Paribas Foundation in 2019, etc. BNP Paribas wants to continue this momentum andaccelerate its actions in favour of biodiversity.
To structure these actions and understand their impacts, the Group relies on the pressures on
biodiversity listed by IPBES in its 2019 report, and mainly the first four: changes in land and sea
use, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change and pollution. This assessment framework
makes it possible to rely on concrete and diversified indicators, reflecting the multiplicity ofchallenges in preserving biodiversity.
BNP Paribas implements various levers of action to integrate the preservation of biodiversity at
the heart of its businesses:•• reduction of pressures related to the activity of its customers and companies in which theGroup invests, through constructive dialogue and supervision of our credit and investment
activities•• active support to our clients’ efforts to preserve biodiversity, through specific financial
products and services (SLL, green bonds, etc.)•• orientation of investments towards funds aiming at preserving biodiversity•• reduction of the Group’s direct impacts on biodiversity.
In addition, the Group is deploying transversal actions, in particular to improve knowledge ofimpacts on biodiversity and monitoring tools: supporting R&D, targeted partnerships, raisingawareness among internal and external stakeholders.

Brochure_Global_Sustainable_Strategy_1

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-31-

4. FOCUS ON THE FUTURE
We believe a better world is one whose economic model is underpinned by a successful energy transition,
more environmentally sustainable and more equitable and inclusive. These ‘3Es’ serve as the focus for our
global sustainability efforts. We also believe that institutional investors – including both asset managers andasset owners – have the opportunity, indeed the obligation, to take action to help achieve the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. With respect to biodiversity, we see ourselves playing a rolein helping make meaningful data available to the investment community and using our leverage as a large
investor to encourage stakeholders to act on issues of biodiversity.

Collaborating to improve the availability and usability of investment-relevant data
Corporate biodiversity footprints
One of the many consequences of water overconsumption, and more importantly deforestation and unsustainable
land management, is biodiversity loss. Biodiversity loss may, in turn, affect societies, economies and ultimately
investors. This is why we need to complement our water and deforestation work with additional data to get afull picture of our exposure, and impact, on global biodiversity loss.
Despite our efforts to combine available data sources, however, significant gaps remain. There is a pressing
need both for raw data from companies and tools to help integrate this data into our investment decisions. The
markets also need a consistent framework for understanding and reporting the full range of risks presented
by biodiversity loss.
Since 2018, we have been exploring the development of a biodiversity footprint for portfolios. We also
contributed to the measurement section of the Biodiversity Guidance of the Natural Capital protocol and wewill continue to be involved in biodiversity target setting with UNEP FI and other organisations. Open-source
tools such as TRASE.Finance and frameworks such as the IPBES direct drivers of change in nature will play
critical roles in shaping how we report our nature-related impacts.
In March 2020, working with AXA Investment Managers, Sycomore Asset Management and Mirova, an affiliate
of Natixis Investment Managers, we embarked on a global competitive search for a research firm that could
provide a tool to allow investors to measure how their investments impact biodiversity. We ultimately selected
Iceberg Data Lab and I Care & Consult at the end of a structured, highly competitive tender process initiatedby a Call for Expression of Interest (CEI). The process was guided by a set of principles for the development ofresearch tools, and we are grateful for support from nature-related experts at Global Canopy, WWF, ZSL, CDC
Biodiversité, UNEP WCMC, and Capitals Coalition, to name only a few key partners that provided input to theinitiative.
In response to our request, Iceberg Data Lab and I Care & Consult have joined forces to expand the Corporate
Biodiversity Footprint metric, which quantifies a company’s impact on biodiversity, across its activities. The
expanded tool will help investors integrate impacts on nature and biodiversity into their risk assessments
and research. In addition, the transparency of their approach should encourage convergence towards more
standard and comparable metrics. Our hope is that this will serve as an important catalyst for private sector
action, with ripple effects throughout our economies.
As noted below, we further supported this effort with an Investor statement on the need for biodiversity impact
metrics to communicate that there is currently a large and unmet demand for these tools.
Helping to expand CDP’s mandate
CDP is a key provider of sustainability data to investors. Its comprehensive surveys addressing climate change,
forests, water, corporate supply chains and cities are supported by investors cumulatively managing USD 110
trillion of assets. Our global head of sustainability is a trustee of the CDP.
We are funding a project to help CDP develop common biodiversity metrics, ensuring the relevance andusefulness of biodiversity corporate reporting to both financial institutions and policymakers. This comesat an opportune time as CDP works toward a single integrated corporate environmental impact disclosure
questionnaire. This project could help move the needle by establishing a new norm for reporting on biodiversity
to enable the integration of CDP biodiversity data into investment decision-making globally.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-32-

The Taskforce for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)
BNP Paribas Group is helping to develop a Taskforce for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures – a global effort
to define a reporting framework to allow the capital markets to identify, measure and reduce its various
impacts to biodiversity.
In September 2020, an international financial sector-led informal working group (IWG) was established to plana Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). The IWG comprises representatives from financial
institutions, corporates, regulators, NGOs and governments, brought together for a six-month period to define
the scope and operating model of a TNFD and launch it in 2021. BNP Paribas is currently co-chairing the IWG,
with active support from BNP Paribas Asset Management.
The TNFD, once launched, will develop a framework for organisations (including non-financial companies andfinancial institutions) to report on their impacts and dependencies on nature, and support them in identifying,assessing and managing these impacts and dependencies. The framework will address both how nature may
impact the organisation, and how the organisation impacts nature. This will aid in the appraisal of naturerelated financial risks and opportunities, both at the organisation and system-wide level, and potentiallyinfluence decision making in the redirection of global financial flows away from nature-negative outcomes andtowards nature-positive outcomes.
This framework will serve as a mechanism to facilitate disclosure and help organisations understand andmanage the financial risks and opportunities associated with the deteriorating state of nature and a transition
to an economy consistent with meeting future nature-related international agreements. These include, among
others, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the ambitions set out in its forthcoming Post-2020
Global Biodiversity Framework. The need to align with and draw upon existing initiatives, frameworks andstandards and not duplicate existing work will be central to the TNFD’s approach.

Raising awareness through leading-edge investor statements related to biodiversity
In 2020, after publishing our joint request for a biodiversity data provider (see above), we worked with ourcolleagues at Axa, Mirova and Sycomore to issue an Investor statement on the need for biodiversity impact
metrics, which gathered more than 30 signatures from leading institutional investors around the world,
representing over EUR 6 trillion in assets under management. The statement demonstrates that there iscurrently an unmet demand for quality research to assist investors in responding to the biodiversity crisis.

“The Earth’s biosphere is a common good, providing a vast array of ecosystem services
to all forms of life. It is the very foundation of the resilience and progress of humanity.
All markets and economies function within the biosphere and are dependent upon it.”
Investor statement on the need for biodiversity impact metrics(March 2020, excerpt), signed by more than 30 institutional investors
managing more than EUR 6 trillion
In addition, in recent years, we have signed a number of other public statements relating to biodiversity loss:•• Investor Expectations on Deforestation in Cattle Supply Chains, endorsed by 45 investors representing
approximately USD 6.8 trillion•• Investor Expectations on Deforestation in Soybean Supply Chains, endorsed by 57 investors representing
approximately USD 6.3 trillion•• Investor Statement on Deforestation and Forest Fires in the Amazon, endorsed by 230 investors
representing approximately USD 16.2 trillion•• Cerrado Manifesto Statement of Support, supported by 57 investor signatories, collectively representing
over USD 7.8 trillion•• New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, endorsed by companies representing 20% of all plastic
packaging produced globally, as well as governments, NGOs, universities, industry associations,investors, and other organisations.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-33-

5. DIRECTING CAPITAL TOWARDS SOLUTIONS
Our objective: Provide our clients with a range of solutions targeted at solving biodiversity challenges
Financial flows into global biodiversity conservation in 2019 are estimated at between USD 124 billion and
USD 143 billion. However, the estimated amount needed to protect the earth’s biodiversity is USD 722 billion
to USD 967 billion per year, leaving a current biodiversity financing gap of between USD 600 billion and USD
800 billion annually31.
BNP Paribas Group has been involved in providing innovative solutions to biodiversity challenges. In the past
few years, BNP Paribas has launched innovative structured mechanisms that aim to preserve biodiversity,
such as sustainability-linked loans that tie interest-rate reductions to biodiversity performance indicators, andblended finance solutions to promote green growth and sustainable rural livelihoods (TLFF32, ZBNF33, 2018).
We are also dedicated to providing our clients with products specifically focused on addressing the biodiversity
crisis:•• BNP Paribas Easy ECPI Global ESG Blue Economy ETF helps support the objectives of SDG 14, Life Below
Water. Although this is a passive vehicle, we cannot remain passive in the face of the biodiversity crisis.
We are therefore launching a dedicated engagement strategy for this fund whereby our Sustainability
Centre will use its stewardship capabilities to engage with current constituents of the Blue Economy
ETF, with the aim to improve their practices, track their progress and report back to our stakeholders.
•• BNP Paribas Funds Ecosystem Restoration has the objective of helping to restore our oceans, lands andurban communities. The portfolio managers will identify 30-50 companies across three core themes,
covering around 1,000 companies globally, that are engaged in improving aquatic, terrestrial and urban
ecosystems services, through their products, services or processes. This includes, but is not limited to:ocean and water pollution control, aquaculture, agricultural technology, sustainable forestry, green
cities, air pollution control and waste management solutions.
•• BNP Paribas Funds Environmental Absolute Return Thematic Equity (EARTH) is invested in companies
that are providing solutions to environmental challenges through their products, services or processes
broadly related to energy, materials, agriculture and industrial markets. It also shorts companies thatfail to adapt their business models to the transition towards more sustainable practices. To achieve
its objective, the sub-fund is invested globally in equities and equity-linked instruments of companies
active in the sectors mentioned above through a series of long and short investment positions togenerate returns that have a lower correlation to markets and sectors. The sub-fund’s long positions
are in companies providing solutions for environmental problems through innovation and disruption,with short positions in companies that will suffer from business models with transition risk and inferior
technologies.
•• BNP Paribas Easy ECPI Circular Economy Leaders UCITS ETF offers investors exposure to theperformance of 50 international large caps selected for their active participation in a business model
based on the circularity of goods, materials and raw materials. It replicates the ECPI Circular Economy
Leaders Equity index (Bloomberg code: GALPHCEN), whose methodology is based mainly on ESG criteria
at global companies. Companies are selected for their degree of participation in the circular economy
and classified according to several categories, including circular design, material recovery, extending
product lifecycles, sharing platforms and the offering of products as services (including the cloud,leasing and exchange of goods).

The investments in the funds are subject to market fluctuations and the risks inherent in investments insecurities. The value of investments and the income they generate may go down as well as up and it ispossible that investors will not recover their initial outlay, the funds described being at risk of capital loss.
For a complete description and definition of risks, please consult the last available prospectus and KIID of thefunds. Investors considering subscribing to a fund should read carefully its most recent prospectus and KIID that can be
downloaded free of charge from our website.

31 https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final-withendorsements_101420.pdf
32 https://www.tlffindonesia.org/project-pt-royal-lestari-utama-2020/
33 https://group.bnpparibas/en/news/bnp-paribas-joins-sustainable-project-budget-natural-farming-india

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-34-

6. WALKING THE TALKWe believe that ‘walking the talk’ is critical to achieving excellence. As a sustainable asset manager, ourcorporate practices and disclosures should match or exceed the standards we expect from the entities inwhich we invest. Not only will this reduce our negative impacts on society; it helps build a culture that is
consistent with our investment philosophy. We believe that immersing our employees in a more sustainable
work environment will help them to more authentically incorporate sustainability principles into their day-today activities, whether that is in investments, sales or operational roles.
As a services business, our operational impacts on the environment are relatively small compared to otherindustries, but that does not minimise our obligation to take concrete measures to reduce this impact. We havea four-pronged approach to Corporate Social Responsibility, one of which is a long-term goal of sending zerowaste to landfill. We plan to achieve this by reducing the amount of waste we generate and reusing or recycling
what is left.
We started this initiative in 2019 by undertaking a waste audit at our headquarters in Paris, where approximately
half of our workforce is located. The results of the waste audit, which show that we currently recycle 35% of
our waste, provide us with an action plan and a baseline to achieve our long-term goal of diverting 100% of
our waste.
Recognising that we do not operate in isolation and that we will need transformative change to realise ourambition, we established the Mission Zero Council to bring together key stakeholders to help us achieve ourgoal. The Council meets quarterly and includes our facilities and procurement teams, our property manager,
janitorial firm, waste haulage providers, and the food services company managing the cafeteria facilities at ourhead office. Together, we are implementing the first year of the action plan from our waste audit.
As part of our drive to send zero waste to landfill, we are eliminating single-use plastic from our cafeterias
and vending machines, providing our employees at certain locations with reusable water bottles and reusable
lunch kits that they can use to bring their own food or food from nearby vendors (sanitary conditions allowing),
and, in certain offices, we have partnered with Nespresso to have coffee pods recycled directly by them.
Employees can also bring in their capsules from home to be recycled.
We are also implementing initiatives to reduce our consumption, including paperless challenges, which
successfully reduced paper consumption at our Paris office by 23%. In 2021-22, our focus will be on
sustainable IT.
Employee and community engagement
We must think beyond our products and services and bring our employees along with us if we are to achieve theimpact we seek. Our CSR initiatives are underpinned by ongoing employee communications to help encourage
behavioural changes – behaviours we hope our employees will also adopt in their day-to-day lives.
We have created networks of ESG Champions who act as specialists within their spheres of influence andcommit to completing sustainability-related training. They now number over 150 employees globally acrossInvestments and our Global Client Group. These champions receive ongoing specialised training, including two
sessions on ways to integrate water, forest and biodiversity data into their investment decision-making. We
also invited external sell-side analysts to discuss biodiversity and provide our investment teams with various
views and angles. On other occasions, we have brought in leading scientists to speak to the ESG Champions
and to our broader employee base.
We will be hosting an all-employee screening of biodiversity and climate-related documentaries, accompanied
by roundtable discussions on the role financial institutions can play to help relieve pressures on theenvironment. We will also have Surfrider Foundation run workshops for our employees on how to create lesswaste in their personal lives. In addition to this, BNP Paribas Group hosts a number of education sessions on
biodiversity issues for employees at all levels, including the Leaders for Change, a community of top leaders
within the Group.
We also extend our efforts into the community by supporting important scientific research on issues related
to climate and biodiversity. Since 2010, the programme has supported 27 research initiatives with a total of
EUR 18 million in funding.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-35-“Our CSR program is the part of our Global Sustainability Strategy that
focuses on culture change and creating a working environment that is
consistent with our investment philosophy. We believe that immersing our
employees in a more sustainable work environment will help them to moreauthentically incorporate sustainability principles into their day-to-day
activities, whether that’s in investments, sales or operational roles..”
Chris Ouellette, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, BNP Paribas Asset Management

The biodiversity-climate nexus in practiceIn 2019, BNP Paribas formed an alliance with 3stepIT to help it globalise its leading approach toresponsible and sustainable IT lifecycle management. 3stepIT uses circular economy principles
in its approach to technology lifecycle management and finds new homes for over 97% of theequipment returned to it. The remainder, which is usually faulty or beyond repair, is responsibly
recycled through ISO 14001 certified recycling partners.

“Using BNP Paribas 3stepIT in France has helped us eliminate waste
associated with IT here, and in doing so, reduce our emissions and our
impact on the environment.”
Fatia-Fatma Balit, Deputy Head of IT, BNP Paribas Asset Management
Pierre-Yves Argoud, Head of Infrastructure and Production, BNP Paribas Asset Management

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-36-

CONCLUSION
The web of life is literally coming apart, and our societies and economies are embedded within it. Like climatechange, this is a manmade crisis, meaning that we have both an obligation and an opportunity to act.
We are integrating biodiversity considerations across the six pillars of our sustainability strategy. We havelearned quite a bit to date about our exposure to water and deforestation risks, but also about the gaps incurrent corporate disclosures and the need to build better models to help investors reorient capital towards
nature-positive pathways. We intend to continue to play our part to help fill these gaps and meet thesechallenges. The risks are great, but the opportunities are also immense.
We are building on our stewardship efforts on climate and deforestation to address water scarcity, systemic
pesticides and marine habitats. Biodiversity will become a core aspect of our stewardship work globally,
including proxy voting, corporate engagement and public policy advocacy.
We know that we cannot do this alone, and are grateful to the many individuals and organisations that havepartnered with us to date, and with whom we will partner in the future. The biodiversity crisis presents a seriesof daunting challenges, but just over two years since the IPBES ‘million species’ report was issued, we haveseen many hopeful signs of interest and activity from both investors and corporations.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-37-Appendix 1: Our participation in biodiversity-focused initiatives

Name ofinitiative

Purpose of
initiative

Our
participation

Organising body

Description

Ceres

The purpose of the Working Group on Land
Use and Climate (LAC) is to serve as a centerof investor coordination and collaboration
on climate and land use issues. The Working
Group will offer peer-to-peer sharing about
investment risks and opportunities, as well
Stewardshipas best practices to integrate those risks ininvestment policies, strategies and engagement
practices. Its broad focus is designed to allow
for multiple topic areas with specific goals
and objectives that will protect, improve andrestore natural landscapes.

Biodiversity
Working Group
Advisory
Committee
memberPartnershipfor Biodiversity
Coalition
Accounting
Financials (PBAF)

The objective of the partnership is to exchange
knowledge and contribute to a common
approach to assessing and measuring thefinancial sector’s impact on biodiversity.

BNP Paribas
Group member;
we provide
input

Corporate
Biodiversity
Footprint

Iceberg Data
Lab and iCare &Consult

Participation in the governance of the CBF (joint
Data tool
project with AXA IM, Mirova and Sycomore).

Steering
committee

ENCORE

NCFA, UNEP
WCMC

Public research tool focusing on defining towhat extent corporate activities depend on
ecosystem services or impact nature.

Data tool

Pilot

TRASE

Global Canopy

Public research tool focusing on supply chain
data.

Data tool

Pilot

ZSL SPOTT

ZoologicalSociety of
LondonAssesses timber and pulp producers, palm oil
producers and crushers and rubber producers
on the public disclosure of their policies,
Data tool
operations and commitments to environmental,social and governance (ESG) best practice.

Technical
Advisory Group
member

CDP

CDP

Define key (i.e. short list of) biodiversity metrics
for companies to disclose to help investors
Data tool
make more informed decisions.

Funder andsteering groupmemberPRI Plastic
Investor Working PRI
Group

Focused on building an understanding ofplastics from a global and holistic perspective,
including how plastics fit in with the broader
circular economy concept.

Gain insights /ESG researchWorking groupmember

CerradoManifesto

Coalition

Aims to halt forest loss in the Cerrado
associated with agricultural commodity
production and work with industry, producers,
governments and civil society to protect
globally important natural landscapes.

Investorstatement- withcommitments

Signatory /commit toengagement
and integrating
into risk
analysis

New Plastics
Economy Global
Commitment

Ellen MacArthur
Foundation

Unite businesses, governments, and otherorganisations behind a common vision andtargets to address plastic waste and pollution
at its source.

Investorstatement- withcommitments

Endorser of thecommitment

Global Canopy,
UNDP, WWF

Aims to develop recommendations for more
effective nature-related disclosures to promote
more informed investment, credit, andinsurance underwriting decisions and, in turn,enable stakeholders to better understand therisks associated with the loss or degradation ofnature and the financial and business system’s
exposures to these risks.

Reporting
Framework

BNP Paribas
Group co-chairs
working group;
we provide
inputWorking Groupon Land Use
and Climate

TNFD

Accounting
definition

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-38-Appendix 2: Key performance indicators: Forest: Strength of policies and commitments

Data source

StrongForest 500 forcompanies(timber, paper,
palm oil, beef,leather andsoy)+ SPOTT
RubberCompanies that:

CDP Forest

Companies that:•• Have a company-widecommitment relating to atleast zero net deforestation
and/or no deforestation ofhigh-conservation value andhigh carbon stocks forests; and•• Commodity-specificcommitments (conversion
free or forest-related) on allcommodities to which thecompany is exposed (timber,
paper, palm oil, beef, leather,soy and rubber) and no peat
commitment if the company is
exposed to palm oil; and•• The commitments must cover
all countries, all operations,direct and indirect suppliers.

•• Have a company-wide
policy that includes forestrelated issues and that
contains a commitment toeliminate deforestation, and/or the conversion of natural
ecosystems, and/or to no
deforestation, to no planting
on peatlands and to no
exploitation (NDPE); and•• Same as above mentioning
specifically the commodities towhich it is exposed.
Forest 500
for FI (timber,
pulp & paper,
palm oil, beef
& catlle, andsoy)Companies that:•• Have an overarchingcommitment to at leastzero net deforestation, no
deforestation and/or noconversion; and•• Have commodity-specificpolicies or explicitly statesthat their overarching policy
applies to specific commodity
supply chains;•• The policy covers all
operations and financial
services provided, all deals
and companies regardless of
size and regardless of theirposition in soft commodity
supply chains

MediumCompanies that have acompany-wide commitment
and commodity-specificcommitments, which:•• Do not cover all commodities
to which the company is
exposed (including rubber);•• Have sustainabilitycommitments on specificcommodities but not
specifically forest-related;
and/or•• Do not have a no peat policy
if the company is exposed topalm oil; and/or•• Do not cover all countries, alloperations, and all direct andindirect suppliers;

Weak
Companies that:•• Do not have a company-widecommitment; and/or•• Do not have any commodityspecific commitments.

Companies that have a company- Companies that:wide policy that includes forestrelated issues, which:•• Do not have a company-widecommitment; and/or•• Have a company-wide policy•• Do not disclose anythingthat does not mention
on a forest-related policy
any of the three selected
while mentioning that they
commitments to be considered
are exposed to certain‘strong’ on all commodities tocommodities.
which it is exposed.

Companies that have a company- Companies that:wide policy that includes forestrelated issues, which:•• Do not have any overarchingcommitment relating to•• Relates to reduce
deforestation; and/or
deforestation, a statement•• Do not have any commodityon deforestation/conversion
specific commitments or
showing understanding ofstatements.
risks, and/or signatory to the
BEI’s Soft Commodity Compact
or another finance sector
initiative on deforestation;
and/or•• Do not have commodityspecific policies/ statements on
all commodities assessed byForest 500; and/or•• The policies do not cover
all operations and financial
services provided, all deals
and companies regardless of
size and of their position insoft commodity supply chains.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-39-

Key performance indicator: Forest: Tracing and monitoring of commodity sourcing

Data source

StrongMediumWeak
Companies that:

Forest 500 forcompanies(timber, paper,
palm oil, beef,leather andsoy)+ SPOTT
RubberCompanies that:

Companies that:•• Have a commitment to develop
supply chain traceability
systems on all commodities
covered (including rubberwith SPOTT) all the way
to production levels for allcompanies or back to thefirst importer or processing
facility (and a statement thatthey check these suppliers forcompliance) for manufacturers
and retailers only; and•• The commitment covers all
geographies, operations, direct
and indirect suppliers; and•• The company monitors andverifies compliance in their
supply chains (including
rubber with SPOTT).

•• Have a commitment to develop •• Do not have commitment totraceability on any commodity
supply chain traceability
to which is is exposed.
systems on all commodities
covered for retailers andmanufacturers only; back firstimporter or processing facility
without additional complianceassurances; and/or•• Have a commitment to develop
supply chain traceability
systems on some commodities
to which it is exposed only;
and/or•• The commitment does
not cover all geographies,
operations, direct or indirect
suppliers; and/or•• The company does not monitor
or verifies compliance in their
supply chain.

CDP Forest

Companies that:

Companies that:

Companies that:•• Have a traceability system inplace to track and monitor
the origin of the disclosed
commodities; and•• This traceability system does
not exclude any product line,
geography, business unit or
activity; and•• For each commodity, have asystem to control, monitor,
or verify compliance withno conversion and/or no
deforestation commitments.

•• Declare aiming to develop a
traceability system to trackand monitor the origin of thedisclosed commodities within
the next two years; or•• Have a traceability system
in place but not for allcommodities; and/or•• Have a traceability system butwith some exclusions; and/or•• Do not have a specificmonitoring system for theirno conversion and/or no
deforestation commitments.

•• Do not have a traceability
system in place and do notplan to put one in place within
the next two years;•• Do not disclose anything on
a forest-related monitoring
while mentioning that they
are exposed to certain
commodities.

Forest 500
for FI (timber,
pulp & paper,
palm oil, beef
& catlle, andsoy)Companies that :•• Have a clear public process
to identify and deal with
policy non-compliance that
includes either a screening& monitoring process or atime-bound non-compliancestatement.

Companies that:•• Have a clear public process to
identify and deal with policy
non-compliance that includes
a general non-compliancestatement.

Companies that:•• Do not have a clear public
process to identify and deal
with policy non-compliance.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-40-

Key performance indicator: Forest: Reporting on progress and transparency

Data source

StrongMediumCompanies that :Weak

Forest 500 forcompanies(timber, paper,
palm oil, beef,leather andsoy)Companies that :•• Report on its own website for•• Report on its own website forat least 2 years or at least
at least 2 years or at least
once within the past two
once within the past two years
via an external portal, such
years via an external portal,
as RSPO, RTRS or CDP, on all
such as RSPO, RTRS or CDP, oncommodities covered.
some but not all commodities
covered.

•• Do not report on any
commodity on its own website
for at least 2 years or at least
once within the past two years
via an external portal, such as
RSPO, RTRS or CDP.

CDP Forest

Companies that:

Companies that:

Companies that:

Companies that :•• Report to CDP Forest on some •• Have been invited to report to•• Report to CDP Forest on allcommodities (regardless of the
CDP Forest but did not respondcommodities (regardless of thequality of the response).
quality of the response).
in 2020.
Forest 500
for FI (timber,
pulp & paper,
palm oil, beef
& cattle, andsoy)Companies that:

Companies that:

Companies that:•• Report the number or
proportion of portfolio
companies compliant with
their time-bound plans or
the number or proportionof companies in compliancewith the financial institution’s
policy, at least annually.

•• Report the number or
proportion of portfolio
companies compliant with
their time-bound plans or
the number or proportionof companies in compliancewith the financial institution’s
policy, less than annually.

•• Do not report the number
or proportion of portfolio
companies compliant with
their time-bound plans or
the number or proportionof companies in compliancewith the financial institution’s
policy.

S U STA I N A B L E B Y N AT U R E : O U R B I O D I V E R S I T Y R O A D M A P-41-

May 2021 - Design: AM Graphic Design - P2105011

BNP Paribas Asset Management France, “the investment management company,” is a simplified joint stock company
with its registered office at 1 boulevard Haussmann 75009 Paris, France, RCS Paris 319 378 832, registered with the“Autorité des marchés financiers” under number GP 96002.
This material is issued and has been prepared by the investment management company.
This material is produced for information purposes only and does not constitute:
1. an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell, nor shall it form the basis of or be relied upon in connection with any contract
or commitment whatsoever or
2. investment advice.
This material makes reference to certain financial instruments authorised and regulated in their jurisdiction(s) ofincorporation.
No action has been taken which would permit the public offering of the financial instrument(s) in any other jurisdiction,
except as indicated in the most recent prospectus and the Key Investor Information Document (KIID) of the relevant
financial instrument(s) where such action would be required, in particular, in the United States, to US persons (as suchterm is defined in Regulation S of the United States Securities Act of 1933). Prior to any subscription in a country inwhich such financial instrument(s) is/are registered, investors should verify any legal constraints or restrictions there
may be in connection with the subscription, purchase, possession or sale of the financial instrument(s).
Investors considering subscribing to the financial instrument(s) should read carefully the most recent prospectus and
Key Investor Information Document (KIID) and consult the financial instrument(s’) most recent financial reports. These
documents are available on the website.
Opinions included in this material constitute the judgement of the investment management company at the time
specified and may be subject to change without notice. The investment management company is not obliged to updateor alter the information or opinions contained within this material. Investors should consult their own legal and tax
advisors in respect of legal, accounting, domicile and tax advice prior to investing in the financial instrument(s) inorder to make an independent determination of the suitability and consequences of an investment therein, if permitted.
Please note that different types of investments, if contained within this material, involve varying degrees of risk andthere can be no assurance that any specific investment may either be suitable, appropriate or profitable for an investor’s
investment portfolio.
Given the economic and market risks, there can be no assurance that the financial instrument(s) will achieve its/
their investment objectives. Returns may be affected by, amongst other things, investment strategies or objectivesof the financial instrument(s) and material market and economic conditions, including interest rates, market terms
and general market conditions. The different strategies applied to financial instruments may have a significant effecton the results presented in this material. Past performance is not a guide to future performance and the value ofthe investments in financial instrument(s) may go down as well as up. Investors may not get back the amount they
originally invested.
The performance data, as applicable, reflected in this material, do not take into account the commissions, costs incurredon the issue and redemption and taxes.
All information referred to in the present document is available on www.bnpparibas-am.com

corner

The sustainable
investor for achanging world