Learn all about the changes in 2018 Corporate Sustainability Assessment for DJSI.

1. 2018 RobecoSAM Corporate
Sustainability Assessment (CSA) –
Methodology Changes
March 8th, 2018

2. Agenda
Introduction
• Jacob Messina, Head of Sustainability Investing Research
2018 Methodology Changes Review
• Jacob Messina, Head of Sustainability Investing Research
• Roland Hengerer, PhD, Senior Energy Analyst
• Melissa Spinoso, Sustainability Investing Analyst
Q&A
2

3. 3
2017 Methodology
Review
Introduction

4. 4
2017 Methodology
Review
Approach to Methodology Changes in 2018
• Focus on question materiality review: identifying non-differentiating questions, industry-specific changes
• Alignment with updates to the CDP questionnaire and recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-
related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
• Strengthening Corporate Governance component (including compensation)
• Revision of Media & Stakeholder Analysis process
• Better identification of public and partially public questions
Methodology Changes 2018

5. 5
2017 Methodology
Review
2018 Methodology Changes Review

6. 6
2017 Methodology
Review
CSA 2018 Methodology Changes:
• Corporate Governance (all industries)
• Policy Influence (all industries)
• Tax Strategy (cross – industry)
• Climate Strategy (cross – industry)
• Biodiversity (selected industries)
• Impact valuation (all industries)  Feedback Section
Methodology Changes 2018

7. 7
2017 Methodology
Review
Corporate Governance

8. 8
2017 Methodology
Review
Corporate Governance
The Corporate Governance criterion has been updated
New and updated questions:
• Management Ownership (new)
• Management Ownership Requirements (updated)
• Family Ownership (new)
• Government Ownership (new)
• Executive Compensation – Success Metrics (updated)
• Executive Compensation – Alignment with Long Term Performance (updated)
• Dual Class Shares (new)

9. 9
2017 Methodology
Review
Management Ownership
Rationale:
• Academic research suggests that stock ownership by senior management is positively correlated to financial
performance (e.g. Gugler et. al., 2008 or Park & Jang, 2010).
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether the company’s CEO and other Executive Committee Members own company stock.
Data Requirements:
• The shares included in the calculation should not be hedged or the personal financial risk otherwise removed.
Expectations:
• Public disclosure of the stock ownership held by the CEO expressed as multiple of CEO annual fixed salary.
• Public disclosure of the average stock ownership held by Executive Officers (other than the CEO) expressed
as multiple of the average Executive Officer annual fixed salary.
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is directly proportional to stock ownership level of the company’s CEO and other executive
officers.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

10. 10
2017 Methodology
Review
Management Ownership Requirements
correlated to financial performance
Rationale:
• Academic research suggests that requiring senior management to own company stock is positively correlated
to financial performance (e.g. Core & Larcker, 2000).
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether stock ownership requirements are in place for the company’s CEO and other
Executive Committee Members.
Expectations:
• Disclosure of stock ownership requirements for CEO and other Executive Committee Members in public
reporting or corporate website.
• Stock ownership requirements for the CEO expressed as multiple of CEO annual base salary.
• Stock ownership requirements for Executive Officers (other than the CEO) expressed as multiple of the
average Executive Officer annual base salary.
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is proportional to the level of stock ownership requirements for the CEO and other Executive
Committee Members.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

11. 11
2017 Methodology
Review
Family Ownership
Rationale:
• Academic research (e.g. Eugster & Isakov, 2016 or Corstjens, Peyer & Van der Hey-den, 2006) suggests that
family ownership is positively correlated to financial performance.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether (founding) family members, personally or through other companies or
organizations, have combined at least 5% of the voting rights of your company.
Expectations:
• Public disclosure of (founding) family members that have combined more than 5% of the voting rights.
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is based on the company’s family ownership level: research based thresholds have been defined.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

12. 12
2017 Methodology
Review
Government Ownership
Rationale:
• Academic research (e.g. Goldeng et. al., 2008 or Chen et. al., 2017) suggests that fully independent
companies perform better than companies with excessive government ownership or control.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether individual governmental institutions own 5% or more of the company’s voting
rights and whether the company has golden shares for governments.
Expectations:
• Public disclosure Indication of the total voting rights of individual governmental institutions that own 5% or
more of the company’s voting rights.
• Public disclosure of golden shares for governments (if any).
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is inversely proportional to the company’s government ownership level.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

13. 13
2017 Methodology
Review
Executive Compensation – Success Metrics
Rationale:
• Use of financial metrics to evaluate management performance have become ubiquitous as the benefits of
aligning incentives with company performance have been established. RobecoSAM’s research shows that use
of revenue, operating profit, and EPS are common practice. Differentiation is now only observed by use of
return metrics (capital efficiency) and relative metrics which compare the company to peers.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether the company has pre-defined financial returns and/or relative financial metrics for
Chief Executive Officer’s variable compensation.
Expectations:
• Indication of Financial Returns (e.g. ROA, ROE, ROIC) and Relative Financial Metrics (e.g. comparison to peers
using metrics such as total shareholder return, Tobin’s Q, growth) linked to Chief Executive Officer’s variable
compensation.
• Metrics that are selectively used for other senior executives or specialist senior managers at a lower level
(such as Sustainability or Environmental Managers) should not be included
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on the existence of pre-defined financial returns and/or relative financial metrics for
Chief Executive Officer’s variable compensation.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

14. 14
2017 Methodology
Review
Executive Compensation –
Alignment with Long Term Performance
Rationale:
• Economic alignment of management with the long term performance of the company is an essential
component of executive compensation. This alignment can be achieved in several ways, including deferral of
short term compensation, time vesting and long term performance periods.
• Alignment with long term performance is particularly important during periods of short CEO tenure, as the
risk of short-termism increases. For example, in 2009, CEO’s of S&P 500 companies held their position for an
average of just 7.2 yrs. This has subsequently increased to 10.8 years in 2015 as the economy recovered and
turnover declined, but the risk of a reversion remains. (Matteo Tonello, The Conference Board, Inc., 2016).
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether the company has guidelines on deferred bonus, performance period and time
vesting for CEO’s variable compensation.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

15. 15
2017 Methodology
Review
Executive Compensation –
Alignment with Long Term Performance
Expectations:
• Public disclosure of:
• Percentage of short-term CEO compensation paid in the form of deferred shares,
• Longest performance period covered by the company’s executive compensation plan,
• Clawback provision in place
• Longest time vesting period for variable CEO compensation.
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is directly proportional to the percentage of the short-term CEO compensation paid in deferred
shares, the longest performance period covered by the executive compensation plan and the longest time
vesting period for variable CEO compensation.
• Credit is also awarded for the existence of a clawback provision.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

16. 16
2017 Methodology
Review
Dual Class Shares
Rationale:
• The one-share, one-vote system is designed to give equal treatment to all shareholders, ensuring economic
risk is aligned with control. In contrast, dual class shares give more voting rights to individuals or
organizations that provided less capital to the company. This misalignment between economic interest and
control increases the principal-agent problem, the risk of mismanagement, and inability for shareholders to
hold the board and/or management of the company accountable.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks the amount of shares outstanding per voting category.
Expectations:
• Public disclosure of amount of shares and voting power per voting category (non-voting shares, single vote
per share or multiple votes per share).
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is directly proportional to the percentage of the company’s single voting shares out of total voting
rights: a minimum threshold has been defined.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

17. 17
2017 Methodology
Review
Policy Influence

18. Policy Influence
18
Policy influence response challenges
• In the 2017 CSA, many companies solely reported political contributions not the total related to policy
influence.
• Most companies did not disclose contributions to the public beyond what is legally mandated, and public
disclosure covering trade associations memberships and the issues or topics is very uncommon.
Methodology Development in 2018
• The two questions in the criterion have been updated to provide additional clarity on the data requirements.
• We have separated the various types of spending into distinct categories.
• Coverage applies to the percentage of operations covered, in case spending data was only available for
specific regions.
• For a company to perform well on the question, we expect comprehensive information on all spending areas.

19. Contributions and Other Spending
19
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks how much companies are spending on policy influence efforts
Total contributions and other spending segmented into:
• Lobbying, interest representation or similar
• Local, regional or national political campaigns / candidates
• Trade and business associations (including chambers of commerce) or tax-exempt groups (e.g. think tanks)
• Other (spending related to ballot measures, referendums, etc.)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting of the requested information
Partially public: Additional credit may be granted for publicly available evidence

20. Contributions and Other Spending
20
Please remember to:
• Include policy influence activities with a “positive” purpose: e.g. green building councils, etc., and
• Exclude charitable contributions or donations to corporate citizenship activities which are already
reported separately in the Corporate Citizenship & Philanthropy question.
• Exclude PAC contributions by employees
Expectations:
• If reporting a segmented breakdown is not desired, please choose the second option and indicate whether
spending in that category is included/excluded or whether there were no contributions within that category.
• A policy against political contributions is insufficient justification of a company’s prohibition against all policy
influence activities.
• Policies that prohibit policy influence shall specifically address all the relevant categories, and the amounts
related to any categories not specifically prohibited shall be reported.
Partially public: Additional credit may be granted for publicly available evidence

21. Largest Contributions and Expenditures
21
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks for:
• Two major issues/topics for which a company spent money to influence policy in FY2017 (either directly
or through political organizations or trade associations), as well as the corporate position on the issue.
• Clear description of the Position/Engagement as to why companies are spending
• Corporate Position:
• Support: described in three categories (in line with CDP definitions; next slide):
• Oppose
• Three largest contributions to organizations, candidates, or association
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information
Partially public: Additional credit may be granted for publicly available evidence

22. Largest Contributions and Expenditures
22
CDP Definitions related to Policy Support:
• Support: select this option if you are engaging in full support of this legislation type across all the
geographies in which you are engaging on it
• Support with minor exceptions: engaging in support of this legislation type with either minor exceptions to
the approach or with minor exceptions to geographies for whom it is proposed and where you are actively
engaging
• Support with major exceptions – engaging in support of this legislation type with either major exceptions to
the approach or major exceptions to the geographies for whom it is proposed and where you are actively
engaged
Partially public: Additional credit may be granted for publicly available evidence

23. 23
2017 Methodology
Review
Tax Strategy

24. 24
2017 Methodology
Review
Tax Strategy
The Tax Strategy criteria has been updated
New question
• Effective Tax Rate
Deleted question:
• Taxation Governance
Modified question:
• Tax Strategy (policy/principles/strategy)
• Public reporting required
• Specific elements of the tax policy have been listed

25. 25
2017 Methodology
Review
Effective Tax Rate
Rationale:
• Multinational organizations have attracted significant public scrutiny and criticism in recent years, with
concerns that they are not paying their “fair share” of tax in all of the jurisdictions in which they create value.
In light of these and other concerns, in 2013 the G20 asked the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) to create an Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). BEPS is intended to
eliminate tax mismatches, align profits to where value is created, and enhance transparency for tax
authorities across the global landscape.
• The OECD estimates that $100 billion to $240 billion per year of tax revenue is lost to tax structuring
schemes. In recent years, we have seen numerous examples of authorities taking action to recover these lost
tax revenues, with large settlements and/or unwinding arrangements that will impact future earnings.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks for standard financial tax information, including:
• Your reported tax rate (income statement) for the last two years and
• Cash tax rate (cash flow statement) for the last two years
• If necessary, why the reported tax rate and/or the cash tax rate might be lower than expected.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

26. 26
2017 Methodology
Review
Effective Tax Rate
Expectations:
• RobecoSAM has calculated the average tax rate for companies across the 24 GICS® Industry groups
• RobecoSAM assesses the average of the companies reported or cash tax rate (whichever is lower) and
compares this to the averages calculated (automatically done in the assessment tool)
• Companies close to the average are rewarded full points
• Companies with deviations from average, but with reasonable explanations for this deviation, are not
penalized
• Explanations for differences in actual vs. expected tax rates should be clearly verifiable in the company’s
public reporting
Public: This question requires publicly available information

27. 27
2017 Methodology
Review
Effective Tax Rate
Acceptable explanations for differences in reported tax rates:
• Group-wide net operating losses
• Tax credits as a result of net operating losses at the group level
• Non-recurring (one-time) operating losses in your own operations
• One-time losses, such as write-offs of large investments, large settlements or fines)
• Net operating losses from acquired companies
• Single jurisdiction tax code (e.g. low domestic rate and max. 10% sales abroad)
• Company derives majority of sales in a company with a low tax rate (e.g. Ireland)
• Timing – issues outside of the two year reported period
• Events that have occurred outside of the reported two fiscal years (e.g. from losses, tax settlements,
govt. refunds, etc.)
Public: This question requires publicly available information

28. 28
2017 Methodology
Review
Climate Strategy

29. 29
Climate Strategy
Climate Strategy criterion has been updated
New and updated questions:
• Management Incentives (updated)
• Scenario Analysis (new)
• Climate-related Targets (updated)
• Low-Carbon Products (updated)
• Scope 3 GHG Emissions (updated)
• Internal Carbon Pricing (updated)

30. 30
Climate Strategy
Why did we review the climate strategy criterion?
• To reflect updates made by CDP in their 2018 Climate Change questionnaires
• To align with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
Major changes since 2017:
• Introducing the “Scenario Analysis” question
“The Task Force believes that all organizations exposed to climate-related risks should consider (1) using scenario analysis to help inform
their strategic and financial planning processes and (2) disclosing how resilient their strategies are to a range of plausible climate-related
scenarios.”
• Asking for “science-based” climate-related targets
• Requesting more details on scope 3 emissions and internal carbon prices
• Expanding industry applicability

31. 31
2017 Methodology
Review
Management Incentives
Rationale:
• This question aims to capture how rewards are associated with the management of climate change issues,
including attainment of targets. This ensures that climate-related ambitions and goals are embedded
throughout the company and that management is held accountable for the achievement of these goals.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether companies provide incentives for the management of climate change issues.

32. 32
2017 Methodology
Review
Management Incentives
Expectations:
• Employees at the highest management level to be entitled to climate change-related incentives. (new)
• Type of incentives (e.g. monetary, recognition or other)
• Incentives are based on KPIs (e.g. emissions reduction, energy reduction, efficiency, purchasing, supply chain
engagement) (new)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information

33. 33
2017 Methodology
Review
Scenario Analysis (new question)
Rationale:
• Today, many organizations are affected by climate change-related risks. However, the most significant effects
of climate change are likely to emerge over the medium to longer term, while the precise timing and magnitude
of these impacts remain uncertain. This uncertainty represents a challenge for organizations and investors to
understand the potential effects of climate change on their businesses and financial performance. Climate-
related scenario analysis is a strategic planning tool to help companies consider how such risks and
opportunities may evolve and what the potential implications may be under different conditions.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks if companies use climate-related scenario analysis to inform their business strategy
Apply only to AIR, ALU, ARO, AUT, BNK, BVG, CHM, COL, COM, CTR, ELC, FBN, FDR, FOA, FRP, GAS, IDD,
INS, MNX, MUW, OGR, OGX, OIE, PIP, REA, STL, TOB & TRA

34. 34
2017 Methodology
Review
Expectations:
• Companies to quantitatively use a climate-related scenario analysis to inform our business strategy
• Companies to use a recognized approach scenario analysis or their scenario analysis to contain a series of
critical parameters and assumptions that define the key drivers and development pathways over the
scenario’s timeframe:
1. Parameters used (e.g., discount rate, GDP, other macro-economic variables etc. )
2. Assumptions Made (e.g., assumptions related to policy changes, technology
development/deployment, energy mix, price of key commodities or inputs, geographical tailoring of
transitional and physical impacts, and timing of potential impacts)
3. Description of the different scenarios with time horizons set
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information
Scenario Analysis (new question)

35. 35
2017 Methodology
Review
Climate-Related Targets
Rationale:
• Setting emission reduction targets enables companies to adopt a systematic and disciplined approach
towards reducing their emissions and minimize their contribution to climate change. Further, the use of
science-based targets reduces companies’ regulatory uncertainty, improve overall profitability and
competitiveness while strengthen investor’s confidence about a company’s credibility.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether companies have any corporate-level climate-related targets and whether these
targets are science-based.

36. 36
2017 Methodology
Review
Climate-Related Targets
Expectations:
Standard Method (emission targets)
• An absolute and/or relative target to be set
• Targets to be science-based (but not necessarily approved by the Science Based Targets Initiative) (new)
• Baseline year, year when the target was set and target year to be reported
• Companies to report on their emissions reduction targets as a percentage reduction of the emissions to be
achieved in the target year compared to the base year (i.e. “% reduction from base year”)
• Companies to report on their progress towards the targets (i.e. “% achieved emission reductions”) (new)
Alternative Method (other climate-related targets) (new)
• If companies do not use absolute or relative emission targets, they can select to report on an “Alternative
Method” where climate-related targets (energy productivity, energy usage, waste, renewable fuel etc.)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned expectations. Companies can get full points only
when they report using the “Standard Method”.

37. 37
2017 Methodology
Review
Low-Carbon Products
Rationale:
• This question focuses on the initiatives companies have in place to reduce the emissions derived from their
activities – whether it be directly through their products or through the provision of products or services to third-
parties to reduce their own emissions.
• As the pressing need for reducing greenhouse gas emissions continues, investors are looking at different
mechanisms to reduce the carbon intensity of their investments. They look beyond direct emissions and
increasingly consider low carbon products and avoided emissions at 3rd parties for the overall calculation of the
carbon footprints of their portfolios.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether companies offer products and/or services that can be classified as low carbon
products or products that enable a third party to avoid GHG emissions.
Apply only to ALU, ARO, ATX, AUT, BLD, BNK, BVG, CHM, CMT, COM, CON, CTR, DHP, ELQ, FBN, FOA,
FRP, HOM, ICS, IDD, IEQ, INS, ITC, LEG, LIF, MNX, OGR, OGX, PIP, REA, SEM, SOF, TEX, THQ, TLS, TRA,
TRT & TSV

38. 38
2017 Methodology
Review
Low-Carbon Products
Key Definitions:
Low carbon products: are products with low embedded emissions that contribute to the transition of a
low carbon economy e.g. products that require less raw material during the production process.
Avoided emissions products: are products or services that allows a company's client (i.e. a third party)
to reduce their environmental footprint and avoid emissions e.g. eco-efficient products
Expectations:
• Companies to describe the products and/or services that they offer and can be classified as low carbon
products or that enable a third party to avoid GHG emissions.
• Companies to select the level of aggregation they report on (new)
• Companies to report on the percentage of total revenues from these product(s)/services
• Companies to report on estimated total avoided emissions per year (new)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information

39. 39
2017 Methodology
Review
Scope 3 GHG Emissions
Rationale:
• While many climate-change risks and impacts can be attributed to companies' direct activities, many may lie
elsewhere in the value chain. Today, Scope 1 and 2 emissions are broadly reported, but quantifying and
reporting Scope 3 emissions poses a bigger challenge for companies. Increasingly, it is becoming important to
understand the source of these emissions and how companies can work to decrease the impact of their
indirect activities.
Question:
• With this question RobecoSAM assess to what extent companies consider Scope 3 emissions in their value
chain and asks for the top 3 most relevant sources of scope 3 emissions that are relevant to the company’s
businesses.
PRO BNK CSV DHP ELC FBN GAS HOM INS MUW OIE REA TCD TEX FDR TOB RTS COS HOU PUB REX CNO

40. 40
2017 Methodology
Review
Scope 3 GHG Emissions
Expectations:
• Companies to report on the top 3 most relevant sources of scope 3 and provide an explanation of their
relevance to the company’s business (new)
• The amount of the metric tons CO2e is reported for each source selected (new)
• Companies to provide a short description of the "emissions calculation methodology" used (new)
• The coverage of emissions per source is reported (new)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information

41. 41
2017 Methodology
Review
Internal Carbon Pricing
Rationale:
• Many major publicly-traded companies have integrated an “internal carbon price” as a core element in their
ongoing business strategies. Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning
as a means of testing strategic and investment assumptions' vulnerability to ever-stronger climate related
regulation and the broader emergence (explicitly or implicitly) of a cost of carbon.
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether companies use an internal price of carbon to anticipate an eventual regulatory
approach in some form to address climate change.
Apply only to AIR, ALU, ARO, ATX, AUT, BLD, BNK, CHM, COL, COM, CON, CTR, DHP, ELC, ELQ, FBN, FRP,
GAS, IDD, IEQ, INS, MNX, MUW, OGR, OGX, OIE, PIP, REA, STL, TCD & TRA

42. 42
2017 Methodology
Review
Internal Carbon Pricing
Expectations:
• Companies to specify their objective to implement an internal carbon price (new)
• An internal price of carbon to be used and reported
• Companies to specify the type of internal carbon price they use (e.g. shadow price, internal fee, offsets etc.)
(new)
• A company-wide application of the internal price of carbon (new)
• Companies to specify the approach used for the carbon price setting (new)
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting on the above-mentioned information

43. 43
Climate Strategy
RobecoSAM’ s CSA is aligned with CDP
RobecoSAM CSA 2018 CDP questionnaire 2018
Management Incentives C1.3a. Employee incentives
Scenario Analysis C3.1 Business Strategy
C3.1a Climate-related scenario analysis
Climate-Related Targets C4.1a Absolute targets
C4.1b Intensity targets
Low-Carbon Products C4.5a. Low-carbon products
Scope 3 GHG Emissions C6.5 Scope 3 emissions data
Internal Carbon Pricing C11.3a Internal price on carbon

44. 44
2017 Methodology
Review
Biodiversity

45. 45
Biodiversity
Biodiversity criterion has been updated
New questions:
• Biodiversity Commitment (new)
• Biodiversity Exposure & Assessment (new)
Deleted questions:
• Responsibility
• Approach Towards Biodiversity: Policy / Strategy
• Approach Towards Biodiversity: Assurance
• Approach Towards Biodiversity: Reporting
• Impact of Proposed Operations
• Impact of Current Operations

46. 46
Biodiversity
Criterion Rationale:
• Businesses depend on natural resources for their production processes and rely on healthy ecosystems to
operate. However, this dependency may often result in major negative impacts on natural habitats and
biodiversity.
• If biodiversity is not managed properly, companies may face operational, legal and reputational risks or even
risk to lose their license to operate.
• In October 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a revised Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity, including the Aichi Targets for 2011-2020. These provide businesses with an overarching
framework on biodiversity.
• The International Finance Cooperation’s Performance Standard 6, for example, recognizes the role of
businesses in protecting and conserving biodiversity in accordance to the CBD.
Apply only to ALU, COL, COM, ELC, FRP, GAS, HOM, MNX, MUW, OGX, REA and STL

47. 47
2017 Methodology
Review
Biodiversity Commitment
Question:
• RobecoSAM asks whether the company has a commitment to maintain, enhance, or conserve
biodiversity/ecosystems on the land that is under its responsibility, whether they work with expert partners to
help meet biodiversity commitments and whether this includes any targets for no loss or improvements to
biodiversity.
Key Definitions:
• RobecoSAM applies a broad definition of biodiversity. This includes species (flora and fauna), habitats and
ecosystems.
Public: This question requires publicly available information

48. 48
2017 Methodology
Review
Biodiversity Commitment
Expectations
• Companies to have a publicly available commitment not to operate/explore/mine/drill in World Heritage areas
and IUCN Category I-IV protected areas
• Application of all Mitigation Hierarchy steps (avoidance, minimization, restoration & offset) when operating in
areas with globally or nationally important biodiversity
• Globally important biodiversity can include:
- Species classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, endemic species
- Internationally recognized areas: World Heritage sites, Ramsar Wetlands, UNESCO MAB
- Important biodiversity areas: Important Bird Areas, key biodiversity areas, AZE sites, Endemic Bird Areas, important
plant areas
• Nationally important biodiversity: legally protected areas, habitats, and species
• Partnership with external biodiversity experts to help the company design biodiversity strategy and fulfill its
commitment
• A target for No Net Loss or Net Improvement to be set. Further, the timeframe and the progress achieved
towards the target should be reported.
Assessment scheme: disclosure
• The scoring is based on reporting all the above-mentioned information

49. 49
2017 Methodology
Review
Biodiversity Exposure & Assessment
Question:
• RobecoSAM assess whether companies conduct periodic assessments to know which of their sites contain
globally or nationally important biodiversity and if so, the extent to which management plans are in place.
Expectations
• Companies to periodically assess their sites to know which contain or are adjacent to globally or nationally
important biodiversity
• Companies to have biodiversity management plans in place wherever important biodiversity has been
identified
Assessment scheme: performance
• The scoring is based on the principle of having a low potential exposure to areas with important biodiversity,
having assessed a large proportion of sites/land under responsibility, and having plans in place when
important biodiversity has been identified

50. 50
2017 Methodology
Review
Q&A

51. Questions?
51
2017 Methodology
Review
Contact us:
RobecoSAM CSA Helpline
+41 44 653 10 30
assessments@robecosam.com
Visit the CSA website:
www.robecosam.com/csa

52. Disclaimer
52
2017 Methodology
Review
No warranty This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither its accuracy nor completeness is guaranteed. The material and information
in this publication are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. RobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies
disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any opinions and views in
this publication reflect the current judgment of the authors and may change without notice. It is each reader's responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and
usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this publication.
Limitation of liability All information contained in this publication is distributed with the understanding that the authors, publishers and distributors are not rendering legal,
accounting or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and accordingly assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. In no event shall
RobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of any
opinion or information expressly or implicitly contained in this publication.
Copyright Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout of this publication are the exclusive property of RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies
and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of RobecoSAM AG or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies.
No Offer The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investment instruments
or other services, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. The information described in this publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction where the provision of
such information would run counter to local laws and regulation.
© 2018 RobecoSAM AG