Sustainable development and climate risks:
the role of central banks
Speech by Ignazio Visco
Governor of the Bank of Italy
18th International Conference for Credit Risk Evaluation
"Assessing and Managing Climate Change Risk: Opportunities for Financial
Institutions"
Venice, 26 September 2019
First of all, let me thank the conference organizers for setting up this important
event and for their kind invitation. Today's remarks are partly based on a speech that I
gave in May at the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development (ASVIS).
I would like to start by noting that the issue of the compatibility between natural
resources and the development goals of nations has been studied since at least the end
of the 18th century, with the works of Thomas Malthus on food supply and population
growth. It has then re-emerged a number of times in the public debate.
The less young among us may recall, for example, the simulations produced for the
project of the Club of Rome on the "Predicament of Mankind" - The Limits to Growth -
in the early 1970s. These simulations came in the wake of a worldwide demographic
explosion and set off a global alarm signalling the risks to the survival of our ecosystems
and of the human race itself. At that time, it was observed that the depletion of natural
resources resulting from the simulations, largely based on the extrapolation of the trend
under way, did not take sufficient account of two important mechanisms that regulate
the functioning of the economy: the rebalancing power of prices and the endogenous
nature of technological change. When the resources used in production become scarcer,
an increase in prices discourages demand; at the same time, higher prices provide an
incentive to search for new production methods that utilize fewer of those resources.
Over the last few decades, the biggest concern has been in relation to the effects
of climate change. Is this concern different from that of the past? One key difference
compared with the issue of the depletion of natural resources is that, in the case of
climate change, there are no "natural" market prices. Climate change is, in fact, a classic
example of a negative externality: a cost that spills over onto other markets besides the
one in which it originated. In addition, as pointed out by William Nordhaus in his Nobel
lecture, climate change is a particularly thorny externality owing to its global nature,
which puts it outside the domain not only of markets but also of national governments.
The dangers of climate change, its close link with the emissions of greenhouse gases
(including, but not limited to, carbon dioxide) and, in turn, with the human activities of
production and consumption, have all been known for some time. For example, Professor
Nordhaus himself, who wrote a sharp criticism of the results of the Club of Rome almost
50 years ago, now regards climate change as "a major threat to humans and the natural
world" - a concern that is hard not to share. Since his pioneering studies in the
mid1970s on how the climate and the economy co-evolve, which earned him the 2018
Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, the trend in the emissions of greenhouse gases has
continued to be worrisome. In fact, the growing use of fossil fuels is pushing greenhouse
gas concentrations to levels that, unless forceful measures are taken, is estimated to lead
to an increase in the temperature of the planet ranging from 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by
the end of this century. This is well beyond the threshold of 1.5 degrees that, if surpassed,
would bring potentially catastrophic consequences for our planet, according to the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Some effects are already evident. At the global level, the last four years have been
the warmest since 1880; last July was the hottest month on record for our planet. In Italy,
the year 2018 recorded the highest average temperature of the past two centuries (the
period for which reliable data are available) and 2017 was already characterized by a
significant intensification of extreme weather events, with severe cases of drought that
had serious repercussions on the water supply.
Stopping climate change will require not only a strong political determination and
a firm commitment by all countries, but also sustained efforts by all institutions and
individuals. Achieving this objective is first and foremost a responsibility of national
governments, the only institutions that can provide incentives to allocate capital to
"green" investments, levy taxes on carbon emissions, and introduce regulations limiting
the amount of allowable emissions. Reaching international agreements on a global
carbon tax or on shared targets for emissions also rests within their powers.
The difficulties in reducing emissions sufficiently across countries are enormous, as
has been evident in the last few years. Therefore, all institutions and individuals should play
their part to foster economic growth that is "sustainable" - i.e. that meets current needs
without compromising those of future generations (as defined by the UN "Brundtland
Commission" in 1987). Public institutions could promote sustainable business practices
by envisioning strategies that induce firms to take into account the environment, human
rights, consumer rights and diversity, as well as best practices in corporate governance -
the so-called Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) profiles.
Firms that are successful in adopting appropriate ESG profiles and in adjusting their
investments accordingly can expect significant advantages. In fact, the "green" sectors
are steadily growing around the globe and in Italy as well. The available data show that
the "eco-industrial" sector expanded markedly in our country in recent years: in 2017
it contributed 2.3 per cent to total value added, employing nearly 400,000 full-time
equivalent workers.
Given its central role in the allocation of resources, the financial sector can be key
in influencing the scope, speed and smoothness of the transition to a low-emissions
economy. However, it can only do so effectively if banks and other financial intermediaries
integrate sustainability in their investment decision-making processes, especially in their
corporate governance systems and in their risk management and investment strategies.
Several challenges, however, lie ahead. Currently, there are neither widely accepted
rules for ESG data disclosure by individual firms nor agreed auditing standards to verify
the reported data. Moreover, there are intrinsic difficulties in deciding which indicators are
relevant in assigning an ESG score - think, for example, of the problem of evaluating the
"social" component - especially when compared to financial aggregates, where the key
indicators, such as revenues, costs, earnings and cash flows, are widely available and are
all auditable items. Apparently, ESG-score providers rely heavily on voluntary disclosure
by firms and on subjective methodologies to select, assess and weight individual ESG
indicators. This, of course, adds to the arbitrary nature of the scores. As a result, ESG
scores of individual firms differ greatly across rating agencies if compared, for example,
with credit ratings. According to our studies and in line with the existing literature, the
correlation between the ESG scores assigned to the major listed companies in the euro
area by three of the main providers ranges from 40 to 60 per cent, compared with a
correlation between credit ratings that is over 90 per cent. There is also evidence of
significant biases in ESG scores, which tend to overrate the companies that are larger and
belong to specific industrial sectors and geographic regions.
Central banks may play their part. First of all, with respect to the methodology, they
can help to raise awareness and nurture a better understanding of the risks related to the
sustainability factors and the channels through which they are transmitted to the financial
system. The objective is to make financial intermediaries move from a backward-looking
approach to a forward-looking one, prompting them to evaluate the return on their
assets over a longer horizon, which entails making assumptions and building scenarios.
In this respect, it is important to foster cooperation and the sharing of best practices
between the various stakeholders in the financial system, including academia.
Secondly, central banks can promote the dissemination of more and better
information to bridge the current gaps in the quality, consistency and comparability
of available data. Important contributions will be provided by the recommendations of
the Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and
by the taxonomy and the transparency obligations that are being developed within
the European Commission's action plan on sustainable finance. These initiatives point
to the setting of standards that, when widely adopted, will facilitate the disclosure of
companies' exposure to environmental risks and the measurement and management
of climate-related risks by financial intermediaries. They can also limit the risk of "green
washing", i.e. the unfair use of the "green" label for production activities and financial
investments intended to mislead potential customers. This risk is likely to increase with
the demand for environmentally safe assets. Improvements in the standardization of
data and methodologies will also help to achieve sounder approaches in the issuance of
ESG ratings.
Central banks can also support the transition to a low-carbon and sustainable
growth by leading private investors by example, through the adoption of suitable policies
for managing financial resources and the related risks. In this regard, let me describe the
recent decisions taken by the Bank of Italy as portfolio manager.
This year the Bank has adopted a new investment strategy that integrates ESG
factors into the management of its equity portfolio, as described in detail on our website.
The principles of diversification and market neutrality already embedded in our previous
strategy have been preserved and two ESG criteria have been added. The first discards
companies that belong to the sectors, controversial weapons and tobacco, excluded by
the United Nations Global Compact (an initiative that requires CEOs to commit to ten
sustainability principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and the
fight against corruption as well as to take steps to support UN goals). The second gives
preference to companies with the best ESG scores, according to the assessment of a
carefully selected data provider. As we are aware of the current limits of ESG data, we
have done everything we can to make this approach as robust as possible.
The resulting portfolio achieves a significant improvement in its environmental
footprint. Compared with the composition of the old portfolio, the shareholdings included
in the new portfolio are characterized by much lower greenhouse gas emissions (down
by 23 per cent) as well as by lower energy and water consumption (by 30 and 17 per cent
respectively). These calculations rely on the data disclosed by the companies and, when
these are not available, on those estimated by ESG-score providers.
Our new investment strategy was adopted after considering and comparing various
alternatives. In general, we have found that improving the overall ESG score of the portfolio
by dropping the companies with the lowest scores comes at the expense of a slight
increase in the ex ante tracking error vis-à-vis the market benchmark, which comprises
all the listed non-financial corporations in the euro area. This finding is in line with other
empirical studies and with the theoretical argument that constraining diversification
opportunities increases the divergence from the standard market benchmark.
The effect on the tracking error does not undermine the risk-return profile of
our portfolio, mainly because, by filtering for the higher ESG-scored companies, the
idiosyncratic component of the portfolio risk tends to diminish. A backward test over
a ten-year horizon shows that our new portfolio would have provided, ex post, a better
average annual performance in terms of both lower risk and higher return, thereby
implying a higher Sharpe ratio compared with the previous portfolio and the market
benchmark.
The fact that sustainable investment does not appear to penalize financial
performance is not necessarily surprising. Several studies confirm that sustainable
investment leads to risk-adjusted market returns that are often higher than those achieved
using traditional financial models. These empirical findings may be due to a number of
factors. First, the ESG risk may have been underestimated in the past, while investors may
have not anticipated the higher returns due to the faster-than-average growth of the
green sector. Second, in its practical implementation, the traditional risk-return model
uses historical time series, which make it backward-looking, whereas the sustainability
assessment implies a forward-looking view and, in particular, a long-term view, which
could help to mitigate the "short-termism" that usually drives financial investments.
Third, good ESG practices seem to provide firms with a competitive advantage stemming
from innovation; they also contribute to reducing operating, legal and reputational risks
and lead to a more efficient resource allocation (as resources can be shifted from risk
management to productive activities), lowering the cost of capital and fostering better
operational and market performance.
Empirical studies carried out by the Bank of Italy have provided clear evidence
of a return premium on the shares of European electricity utilities with lower carbon
emissions. Historical experience has offered many examples showing that reputational
risks and serious losses for firms and shareholders can arise from business practices that
are inappropriate when viewed through the lenses of ESG.
As I mentioned, our new portfolio was built in a way that preserves, in particular,
the principle of market neutrality. It may be inquired, however, whether this principle
should be fully preserved or be "adjusted" in a context in which, in the absence of further
regulation, market forces are pushing greenhouse gas concentrations to levels that will
soon be unsustainable. I believe that this is an important topic, which warrants further
research.
A last point that I would like to touch on regards international cooperation. As a
result of the increasing concerns about the consequences of climate change, cooperation
in the field of sustainable finance has been strengthened, with several initiatives promoted
by institutions and industries.
In our role as members of the Financial Stability Board, we have discussed the studies
of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure and we have contributed to
those of the G20 Green Finance Study Group. We also participate in the new Network for
Greening the Financial System, which brings together 42 central banks and supervisors
and 8 observers from countries responsible for half of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions. Last April the Network released its first report with a list of recommendations
on how central banks and supervisors may contribute to the achievement of the Paris
objectives. The Network is currently studying, with our active contribution, possible ways
to integrate environmental and climate risks into central banks' portfolio management
strategies as well as into micro and macro-prudential supervision.
In Europe, the Bank of Italy - together with the other national supervisory authorities -
cooperates with the European Banking Authority in studying the risks that sustainability
factors pose to financial stability, drafting methodologies to assess these risks and
identifying suitable prudential responses. We also take part in the analysis scheduled by
the Single Supervisory Mechanism, which has included climate change in its risk map for
2019.
In Italy, we provide technical assistance to the Italian Ministry of Economy and
Finance for the negotiations on the legislative proposals resulting from the European
Commission's action plan on sustainable finance. As part of the Italian Observatory
on Sustainable Finance, established by the Ministry of the Environment, last year we
conducted a survey of the main financial operators, finding that sustainability is mainly
dealt with from a social responsibility point of view. Hence, more has to be done to
raise awareness of the potential problems deriving from business strategies and risk
management systems.
* * *
Let me conclude by saying that the transition towards an economy with low carbon
emissions is essential if we want to reduce the risks that climate change poses to our
well-being. Central banks, supervisory authorities and the financial sector cannot stand
in for those who can make the policies necessary to decarbonizing our energy systems,
but they may offer their contribution to facilitate this process.
The Bank of Italy is playing its part. Although further progress is still needed to
enhance the reliability of ESG ratings, we have started to introduce sustainability criteria
in our investment policy, which is aimed at promoting corporate social responsibility and
improving risk management. For the time being, our new investment strategy applies to
equity investment; we are currently assessing the possibility of extending it to other asset
classes, such as corporate bonds. As we keep working towards further improving the ESG
profiles of our portfolio, we will provide regular reports on the results achieved, so that our
best practices and our methodologies can serve as a reference for other investors. In our
capacity as supervisory authority, we are actively committed to raising the awareness of the
financial sector and of the public at large about these issues as well as to working jointly
with other institutions to better understand how to measure and address these new risks.
It is in the interest of financial intermediaries to be fully aware of how sustainability
factors can affect their activities: it would make it easier for them to take into account
the corresponding risks in their strategies and governance, thereby helping to improve
their performance. Central banks and supervisory authorities are working to prepare the
financial system to face this transition. Greater use of green financial instruments will be
fostered by the EU taxonomy of environmentally sustainable activities, the introduction of
labelling schemes (especially the standards for green bonds), a wider uptake of the new
low-carbon benchmarks, and the forthcoming application of the new rules on disclosure.
All these factors will bolster data standardization and foster comparability.
Italian investors have expressed considerable interest in sustainable finance in recent
years, but the supply is still not sufficient to satisfy demand. Companies that provide the
necessary information on the sustainability of their activities will be able to exploit the
room that seems to be available for the financing of their projects. By doing so, they will
also contribute to the development of a green financial market, which is still in its infancy.
The battle to arrest climate change is under way: winning it requires the effort of each of
us. Thank you for your attention.
References
Berg F., Kölbel J., Rigobon R., "Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings",
MIT Sloan Research Paper, Cambridge (Mass.), No. 5822, 2019.
Bernardini E., Di Giampaolo J., Faiella I., Poli R., "The Impact of Carbon Risk on Stock
Returns: Evidence from the European Electric Utilities", Journal of Sustainable Finance &
Investment, 2019.
Brundtland G., Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development:
Our Common Future, United Nations, 1987.
Ciscar J.C., Feyen L., Ibarreta D., Soria A. (eds), "Climate Impacts in Europe: Final
Report of the JRC PESETA III Project", Joint Research Centre Science for Policy Report,
2018.
Clark G., Feiner A., Viehs M., From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder: How
Sustainability Can Drive Financial Outperformance, Oxford University and Arabesque
Partners, Oxford, 2015.
Doxa, Il risparmiatore responsabile, The Sustainable Investment Forum, Milan, 2017.
Doyle T.M., Ratings that Don't Rate: The Subjective World of ESG Ratings Agencies,
American Council for Capital Formation, July, 2018.
Faiella I., "The demand for energy of Italian households", Banca d'Italia, Temi di
Discussione (Working Papers), No. 822, 2011.
Faiella I., Cingano F., "La tassazione verde in Italia: l'analisi di una carbon tax sui
trasporti", Economia Pubblica, No. 2, 2015.
Faiella I., Natoli F., "Natural Catastrophes and Bank Lending: the Case of Flood Risk
in Italy", Banca d'Italia, Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers), No. 457,
2018.
Friede G., Busch T., Bassen A., "ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence
from more than 2000 Empirical Studies", Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment,
2015.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5°C, United
Nations, New York, 2018.
Istat, "Il conto dei beni e servizi ambientali", Rome, 2019.
Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens III W.W., The Limits to Growth:
Report for the Club of Rome"s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, Universe Group,
New York, 1972.
NOAA, "2018 Was 4th Hottest Year on Record for the Globe", 6 February 2019.
Osservatorio Italiano sulla Finanza Sostenibile, "Il rischio climatico per la finanza in
Italia", available on the website of the Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea Protection.
Network for Greening the Financial System, First comprehensive report, Paris, 2019.
Nordhaus W., "World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data", Economic Journal,
1973.
Nordhaus W., "Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics", American
Economic Review, 2019.
Solow R., "An Almost Practical Step Toward Sustainability", Resources Policy, 1993.