Investorers ord ”SRI” er i virkeligheden bare ”CSR” set udefra.
Bjarne Graven Larsen, Chief Investment Officer, ATP: Investors’ role in protecting human rights and the environment.
Extractive Industries: Unleashing Economic Potentials
– Investors’ role in protecting human rights and the environment
Bjarne Graven Larsen, 23 October 2009
Risk and Responsibility
Responding appropriately to SRI issues is a key element of
ATP’s fiduciary responsibility on behalf of our members
We integrate Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance
(ESG) concerns in our investment decisions in order to protect
and increase the value of our investments
If a company ignores environmental or social liabilities related to
their operations, it generates risks that threaten the value of our
If a company strives to be best-in-class within environmental or
social issues, it generates opportunities that may lead to increased
ATP’s commitment to social responsibility also aims to benefit
employees, companies and local communities affected by the
Policy of Social Responsibility in Investments
ATP does not purchase equities
in companies that deliberately
and repeatedly violate the rules
laid down by the national
authorities in the markets in
which the company operates 1. We will incorporate ESG issues into investment
analysis and decision-making processes.
or by international organisations 2. We will be active owners and incorporate ESG
endorsed by Denmark issues into our ownership policies and practices.
3. We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG
issues by the entities in which we invest.
Nor does ATP purchase 4. We will promote acceptance and implementation
equities in companies located or of the Principles within the investment industry.
operating in countries being 5. We will work together to enhance our
effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
subjected to a trade embargo 6. We will each report on our activities and progress
imposed by the UN or the EU towards implementing the Principles
and endorsed by Denmark
Integration into investment decisions
The overall coordination of SRI initiatives is conducted by ATP’s
Committee for Social Responsibility in Investments, chaired by the CEO
The day to day monitoring of breaches of ATP’s policy is handled by two
full-time staff members in the Beta investment team – in close
collaboration with portfolio managers
The SRI team also performs fact-finding and research in connection with
pre-investment due diligence as well as later engagement
A range of sources is used for news and best practice, a few examples:
Amnesty International FSC ICMM - International Council on Mining and Metals
IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Fact Finding - evaluating alleged breaches
When investigating alleged breaches of ATP’s SRI policy we
the allegations are valid and verifiable
the company has investigated and addressed the problems
relevant mitigation has been initiated
due compensation has been given and accepted
procedures and systems are in place to prevent reoccurrence
In first half of 2009, ATP evaluated 272 alleged breaches in
156 companies of ATP’s SRI policy
Engagement or divestment?
ATP is only one among many investors in large international
From a reputational perspective, divestment is the easy way out,
when ATP is confronted with companies in breach with ATP’s
But does divestment benefit employees, companies and local
Or does it just reduce pressure on companies to improve their
policies and actions?
ATP prefers engagement to divestment – as long as the dialogue
and development shows positive results
ATP as an investor in Extractive Industries
The extractive industries provides resources that are needed in
ATP does not ban industries or products that are not prohibited by law
or international conventions…
…but we do consider extractive industries a high risk sector and has
paid special attention to alleged breaches of ATP’s policy on SRI by
actors in the sector:
ATP’s Committee on Social Responsibility has at several meetings
discussed SRI in Extractive Industries – e.g. tried to identify best-in-class
companies in the sector.
More than 50 percent of the companies ATP since 2005 has decided to
exclude from our investment universe due to breaches of our SRI Policy
are directly involved in the extractive industry.
We are at present involved in two engagement efforts with companies in
the extractive industry
Engagement with Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold
ATP is currently in dialogue with Freeport McMoRan regarding ESG
issues at the Grasberg mine in Indonesia
These efforts are partly coordinated with other investors in order to
enhance our influence.
At the recent annual general meeting ATP voted for the appointment of a
designated board member with environmental expertise
Along with these efforts, ATP aim to influence the company not to use the
present waste disposal method in new projects outside Grasberg
BHP Billiton has left a similar mine in Papua New Guinea (OK Tedi) –
mainly due to environmental concerns – with the result that mining
activities has been taken over by the Papua New Guinean
Government and a Singapore-based company – thereby reducing the
international pressure to improve conditions
ATP believes that the combined pressure from (even small) shareholders
will benefit the local communities more than divestment 8
Engagement with companies engaged in Oil Sands
• Even when ATP does not have direct investments we participate in
joint engagement actions through UN PRI.
• One example is a recent letter to 19 companies engaged in Oil Sands
production in Canada.
• It was signed by 43 investors with $ 3 trillion under management.
• The letter called on the companies to improve the disclose of their
handling of environmental, social and regulatory risks
• We have started to receive answers from companies
Investors role in protecting human rights and environment
Divestment strategies seldom produces any positive outcomes.
Most of the time it reduces pressure on companies to improve
policies and action
Engagement strategies has a potential for producing positive
outcomes – but both realism and patience are of uttermost
Investors and NGO’s have common interests…
NGO’s wants to influence investors
Investors wants input from NGO’s on companies’ alleged breaches
of SRI Guidelines
… But Investors are not NGO’s
Their interest in human rights and environment mainly stems from
an interest in protecting and increasing the value of their
Their dialogue with companies concerning these issues is of
another nature and done in another form than NGO’s methods 1