This fund has relatively low exposure to ESG risk compared with its peers in the Global Equity Mid/Small Cap category, earning it the second highest Morningstar Sustainability Rating of 4 globes. 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 Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund. Funds with ESG-focused mandates are more likely to deliver positive sustainability outcomes. The fund's current involvement in fossil fuels rests at 6.1%, which compares favorably with 8.2% for its average category peer. Companies are considered involved in fossil fuels if they derive some revenue from thermal coal, oil, and gas. Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund shows 20.8% involvement in carbon solutions. This percentage is high in absolute terms and surpasses the 12.2% average involvement of its peers in the Global Small/mid Stock category. Carbon solutions include products and services related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, green buildings, green transportation, and so on. No companies held by Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund are recognized as being involved in controversies at a high or severe level. From bribery and corruption to workplace discrimination and environmental incidents, controversies are incidents that have a negative impact on stakeholders or the environment, which create some degree of financial risk for the company. Severe and high controversies can have significant financial repercussions, ranging from legal penalties to consumer boycotts. In addition, they can damage the reputation of both companies themselves and their shareholders.
Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund has a 12-month asset-weighted Carbon Risk Score of 10.6. This is situated at the lower end of the medium carbon risk band, suggesting that its portfolio holdings are not among the worst-positioned to transition to a low-carbon economy, but they are not among the best-positioned either. Investors concerned about the transition risks may prefer to consider funds with negligible or low carbon risk. Funds with a lower carbon risk classification may be more favored by investors concerned about transition risks, as such funds often tilt toward companies that operate in sectors less exposed to the transition (for example, healthcare and IT) or companies in more carbon-intensive sectors (for example, materials and utilities) that consider climate change in their business strategy, and therefore are positively aligned with the transition.