Zfolio’s Post

What do banks, asset managers, and asset owners do wrong when trying to calculate (estimate?) their financed emissions? Generally, they underestimate the importance of good data and low data quality score calculations. Sounds trite, but its true. Let me give you a few examples: The PCAF standard allows for estimating emissions with simply a sector-average approach. So let's say you have a basket of equities including an investment in the NAICS sector code 441222 (boat dealers). You can simply use the market value of your investment amount, say $10 M, the average emissions per $ of revenue in that sector, and a asset turnover ratio to calculate the emissions of that holding. Now you've correctly licensed an EEIO model (or hired a consultant who does that for you) calculated sector-based asset turnover ratios, and repeated in a spreadsheet for all of your investments. You can probably get close to 100% coverage of your investments, and you have a number. But is any of that data useful? If you have a financed emissions reduction goal, and you engage with that boat dealer with success and convince them to reduce their emissions. But your financed emissions can't actually reflect that reduction, because it's only measuring a sector average. If you get good data on that company, your spreadsheet needs to be redone. And what about next year - will you update all of those sector averages? The fact is, to get meaningful data, you will need to have a tool that can handle multiple calculation models, multiple data inputs, across several asset classes. Want more information? Contact us!

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics