The ESG risk of Calvert Global Real Estate Fund's holdings is comparable to its peers in the Real Estate Sector Equity category, thus earning an average Morningstar Sustainability Rating of 3 globes. Funds in the same category rated 4 or 5 globes tend to hold securities less exposed to ESG risk. ESG risk measures the degree to which material environmental, social, and governance issues, such as climate change, biodiversity, human capital, as well as bribery and corruption, could affect valuations. ESG risk differs from impact, which is about driving positive environmental and social outcomes for society’s benefit.
Based on its latest prospectus, sustainability or ESG factors are a focus in the investment process of Calvert Global Real Estate Fund. Funds with ESG-focused mandates are more likely to deliver positive sustainability outcomes. One key area of strength for Calvert Global Real Estate Fund is its low Morningstar Portfolio Carbon Risk Score of 8.37 and very low fossil fuel exposure over the past 12 months, which earns it the Morningstar Low Carbon Designation. Thus, the companies held in the portfolio are in general alignment with the transition to a low-carbon economy.
By prospectus, the fund aims to avoid, or limit its exposure to, companies associated with controversial weapons, tobacco, and and small arms. The fund fulfills this goal by having negligible investment exposure to each of these activities. The fund aims to avoid or minimize holdings in companies breaching international norms, including the UN Global Compact or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fund has no exposure to high or severe controversies. Controversies are incidents that have a negative impact on stakeholders or the environment, which create some degree of financial risk for the company. Examples of types of controversies include bribery and corruption scandals, workplace discrimination and environmental incidents. Severe and high controversies can have significant financial repercussions, ranging from legal penalties to consumer boycotts. Such controversies can also damage the reputation of both companies themselves and their shareholders.