Here we list the buzzes and profiles that have been most viewed in the last 90 days.

For full details and rankings of which firms and individuals are most effectively developing their online profile in sustainable investment and corporate governance engagement on SRI-CONNECT, see Our reach; your opportunity.

Or you can request a personalised Industry Profile Report that analyses and benchmarks (vs peers) the activity and visibility of individual firms.

Most read research buzzes

  1. (971)

    Having recently delivered a number of ESG comms mini-audits and worked with other companies on their broader sustainable investor communications plans, I am constantly surprised by how much time companies spend on reporting (months) and on data disclosure to ESG/sustainable investors (weeks) relative to the amount of time they spend finding out who all of this reporting and disclosure is actually for (typically, somewhere between no time and a few hours).

    (If a company can’t put a name and a face to the 1, 2, 3, 10 … individual analysts and portfolio managers that it believes it is communicating with, how can they know that they are communicating the right stuff rather than just the stuff that conventional wisdom, standard setters and ESG ratings agencies assume might be relevant to investors?).

    (971)How many investors & analysts actually matter to each company?  I reckon it’s 58

    For all of the talk about “what INVESTORS want on sustainability”, the reality is that – for any specific company, there are a specific group of individuals at investment firms and investment research providers.  For an average company, I reckon there are 58 individuals who can be identified as the primary target audience for the sustainability information provided by companies for material investment action.

    Of course, there is no such thing as an ‘average company … of average size … in an average geography … with average exposure to sustainability issues’ … which is why we encourage all companies … before embarking on their sustainable investor communications in any given year to create / update their Register of SRI Interest.

    However, the generic process discussed below should help all companies progress from the scary and paralysing prospect of “what capital markets want on sustainability” to the more accessible (and real) “what Lisa from Investor A, Iason from Ratings Agency B and Juan from Data Provider C want on sustainability’.

    Here is how we identify the priority 58.

    (NB - all of these analysts and investors can be identified for free using the SRI-Connect Directory)

    (971)Lead (sector) analysts at current major holders (7)

    The first priority group is, of course, the specialist sustainability sector analysts at any current major holders.  These are the individuals who have nominated responsibility for covering your company’s sector within the investment firms that actually hold your shares.

    If we assume that ‘Top 20’ is a workable cut-off for ‘major’ holders, European and North American firms should be able to identify between 8 – 10 of these analysts.  Outside those regions, the number may drop to 4-6.  So, we’ll take 7 as an average.

    (971)Issue analysts at major holders (+2 = 9)

    Some asset managers (strangely IMHO) don’t allocate coverage responsibility based on sector (as they do for ‘mainstream’ research), instead they allocate by sustainability issue.  Let’s say there are 2 such investors within each firm’s top 20.

    (971)Heads of research at major holders (+4 = 13)

    Then, in some cases, a company won’t be able to identify a sector- or issue-covering specialist.  In these cases, the company will need to use the Head of SRI/ESG research as a proxy contact until they can identify the right coverage analyst.  We have added 4 to our total as an average between an expectation of 6 such analysts in EU & NAM and 2 elsewhere.

    (Heads of SRI/ESG Research … please take note.  Encourage your analysts to update their sector and issue coverage on SRI-Connect via here (and/or do it on your own website).  Otherwise, you inevitably become the de facto contact point for companies).

    Overall, companies should be able to identify an average of 13 specialist analysts interested in their sustainability performance.  Yep, that feels about right.

    (971)Analysts at target investors (+10 = 23)

    Then, I have never met a company that does not want to expand the pool of capital available to it.  So, all firms will want to include the relevant analysts from a target group of firms.  Let’s not be greedy, let’s say a company has a target list of 20 investors and half of these have an interest in sustainability.  (Again, companies should prioritise sector specialists over issue specialists and both over ‘Heads of SRI/ESG research’.

    (971)Sustainability specialist investors (+10 = 33)

    Beyond the largest institutional investors, there are about twenty investors worldwide that have developed advanced and specialist expertise in sustainable investment that differentiates them from the broader approaches being adopted by other (often larger) institutions.  Such investors used to be identifiable as those with specialist and thematic funds; then they because the pioneers of fundamental integrated analysis and are now those most enthusiastically embracing ‘sustainable economic transition’ and ‘impact’.

    If a given company wants to engage with at least half of these, that adds 10 individuals to the target list.

    (971)Issue-focused thought-leading investors (+3 = 36)

    Beyond this, there are typically a few opinion-leader investors who are globally-vocal about the issues facing your sector even if they don’t and may never hold your company.  Their views are part of the sustainable investment debate; you want to be part of that same debate; add them to the list.  (NB this does not mean every investor with a perspective on climate change.  Rather it means the (typically two or three) driving forces behind research or campaigns of particular relevance to your company.

    (971)Analysts at research and engagement service providers (+22 in total = 58)

    • Finally, we come to the research providers – who probably should be prioritized at roughly the same level as investors.  Certainly not more (as it’s the investors that actually buy, hold or sell companies’ shares) … but not less either (as research providers reach (with their distribution) (smaller, non-target and quants) investors that companies can’t realistically expect to reach.

    From these we suggest that companies need to identify (rationale below):

    • A => 10 x lead sector analysts from ESG Ratings Agencies’
      • (3 x ‘big guns’, 3 with regional focus, 3 from the CRAs + 1)
    • B = > 5 x sustainability specialists at sell-side brokers
      • … because they produce contextualized RESEARCH (as opposed to data and ratings), integrate into valuation and have broad distribution reach (including to ‘mainstream’ investors)
    • C => 3 x analysts at credit ratings agencies
      • … for the same reasons as sell-side brokers … but in fixed income
    • D => 1 x influencers from data providers
      • … because the analysts that work for ‘insights’ teams contextualise raw data in a way that makes it usable by investors
    • E => 2 x analysts at ‘engagement service providers’
      • … where these have a particular focus on issues of relevance to your company
    • FG => 1 x analysts at ‘for impact’ or ‘grant-funded’ research providers
      • … where these have a particular focus on issues of relevance to your company
    • Grand total = 58 …

    … relevant individuals at significant organisations … all of whom have names and faces and parents and likes and dislikes … but may not be called Lisa or Iason or Juan.

    In short, they are human beings whose specific sustainable investment needs and priorities can be understood and met by companies.


    (Much as I abhor the Trumpian (Trumpish? Trumpesque?) capitalization, it is a big ‘BUT’)

    … while these 58 individuals can usefully be identified as priorities in the communications purposes, I do not for so much as one second suggest that this should be done to the exclusion of other investors or research providers.  Having identified the priorities, companies should then take steps to ensure that all sustainability information is provided equally and openly for the benefit of all investment users and that all investors and research providers to participate in an annual sustainability performance update webinar.

    (Finally, please note that I don’t purport to represent what other stakeholders need.  There are lots of audiences that companies need to communicate with.  I don’t pretend to know about these audiences or what they need.  My focus is on understanding and communicating about the investment value chain.)


    (Like almost all quantitative data in sustainable investment) … 58 is a meaningless number.

    What is meaningful and interesting is the process by which it is generated.  Do you agree with this?  Have I missed any categories?  Have I over-prioritised some?  Do companies actually go through this process?  Do they need to?)

    Discuss on SRI-C via here | Discuss via LinkedIn here

  2. (469)



    As of 20/12/2022 ISS ESG are advertising 83 job opportunities in the ESG/SRI space

    Locations include: Tokyo, Mumbai, New York and Paris 

    Jobs posted in the last week include: 

    ESG Methodology Specialist (Mumbai | CloseDate: Unknown) 

    ESG New Business Sales (New York | CloseDate: Unknown)

    Sustainability Advisor- Manager (Toronto | CloseDate: Unknown)

  3. (418)



    Transition Pathway Initiative: Carbon performance assessment of food producers: Discussion paper 

    The food sector is significant both to investors and the climate. The world’s 20 largest publicly listed food producers had a market capitalisation of over US$710bn in 2021, and the entire food sector contributes, either directly or indirectly, to 19-32% of annual global GHG emissions. Most of the food processing sector’s emissions are driven by upstream Scope 3 emissions from purchased goods and services, especially the emissions associated with crop and livestock production, and land-use change.

    This discussion paper proposes a methodology to assess the Carbon Performance of food producers. It incorporates company feedback on the individual company assessments have undertaken. TPI are publishing it now to solicit additional feedback from interested parties, with the aim of improving the methodology still further. To date, TPI has developed methodologies to assess the Carbon Performance of 10 high-carbon sectors, including electricity utilities, oil and gas producers, and high-carbon industrial and transport sectors.

  4. (394)



    Fertiliser is agriculture's problem child.

    On the one hand, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilisers are hugely important to increasing crop yields and securing the global food supply. It would be no exaggeration to say they revolutionised food production in the 20th century. On the other hand, the same nitrogen-based fertilisers represent an enormous threat to the integrity of our ecosystems. They not only emit nitrous oxide – a gas 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming potential – but also seriously damage soil health, pollute water systems, and put biodiversity at risk in their current quantities. According to the IPCC, the usage of synthetic fertilisers has gone up by an enormous 800% since 1960. That increase has left a huge footprint: the synthetic fertiliser supply chain was responsible for around 2.1% of emissions globally in 2018.

    Agriculture is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise and the key to reducing its footprint undoubtedly lies in the more efficient, sustainable application of fertiliser, especially given the estimated increase in global usage by over 50% by 2050. There is no silver bullet that will solve the challenge of producing more food for a larger global population at a lower environmental impact… yet collaboration between farmers and FLAG-sector companies can drive meaningful reductions today and speed progress towards a net zero future.

  5. (394)



    • Continued forest loss represents growing physical and regulatory risks to companies and investors. COP15 has put further pressure on businesses to tackle deforestation, especially in biodiversity-sensitive regions.
    • MSCI's analysis flagged 11% of MSCI ACWI Index constituents as having the potential for direct or indirect contribution to deforestation, with food producers and retailers particularly well represented.
    • Although most companies in industries with high exposure to deforestation risks are not formally addressing the issue, MSCI’s Biodiversity Screening Metrics can help investors manage biodiversity risks in their portfolios.

  6. (328)



    S&P Global Ratings: Latin America Green, Social, Sustainability,  And Sustainability-Linked Bonds 2022 

    On the heels of S&P Global Ratings’ revisions to its forecast for global issuance, “Global Sustainable Bond Issuance Likely To Fall In 2022,” published Sept. 20, 2022, this research explores some of the characteristics that make the Latin American green, social, sustainability, and sustainability-linked bond (GSSSB) market unique and aims to shed light on regional issuance trends. This research draws on data from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Climate Bonds Initiative, Environmental Finance Bond Database, and S&P Global Ratings’ forecasts for GSSSB issuance in 2022. 

    Key Takeaways

    • Due to challenging market conditions worldwide, we forecast a 40% decline in GSSSB issuance in Latin America in 2022 compared with 2021.
    • GSSSB in Latin America, which declined 25% year over year in H1 2022, is showing strong resilience in the face of a 60% drop in non-GSSSB issuance in the region.
    • Sustainability-linked bonds make up a higher proportion of GSSSB in Latin America than in any other region globally, and sovereign issuances in the region continue to attract attention from international investors. 
    • S&P believe financial institutions will continue promoting the development of the GSSSB market, supported by multilateral development banks.
    • Progress in regulations and the establishment of green and sustainability taxonomies may help support the growth of GSSSB in the region

  7. (322)



    New Forests: New Forests' outlook for Forestry Investment 

    New Forests has previously published comprehensive reviews of the outlook for institutional forestry investments

    This paper takes a refreshed view of the key trends influencing forestry investment and the forestry sector more broadly. There have been significant shifts in geopolitics, supply chains, the Covid-19 pandemic, a Russian invasion of Ukraine and intensification of global efforts to address the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. These issues translate into both an acceleration of previous trends as well as new opportunities and risks for investors in sustainable forestry and broader land use.

    This forestry investment outlook is a shorter form than previous versions and seeks to consolidate a view, at this moment in time, on how the forestry asset class is evolving and what the implications are for investors over the next few years.

  8. (320)


    In this month’s installment of their visual series on topical themes, Aviva Investors look at climate in the aftermath of November’s COP27 event in Egypt.

    Read this article to understand:

    • The here and now consequences of climate change
    • What a difference 0.5 degrees can make
    • How markets are reacting to the climate crisis


  9. (316)



    MSCI ESG Research: ESG and Climate Trends to Watch for 2023 (Report and Event)

    Amid a shifting ESG and climate landscape, the latest paper ESG and Climate Trends to Watch for 2023, identifies key trends companies and investors need to be cognizant of.  

    The 2023 trend report discusses developments like: 

    • Climate change and the road to net-zero
    • Responses to regulation
    • Supply chain innovations
    • Biodiversity
    • New technologies
    • Issues affecting everyday life 

    Event details:

    11:00 a.m. EST New York
    4:00 p.m. GMT London
    5:00 p.m. CET Paris

    Virtual Platform

  10. (310)


    HSBC: ESG of EV batteries - Mineral supply chain now firmly in the cross-hairs

    • New EU battery rules include supply chain due diligence requirements for cobalt, natural graphite, lithium and nickel
    • EV auto manufacturers will need to check the conformity of batteries used (all of which currently supplied by 3rd parties)
    • Obligations likely to start in 2025; we think this will raise reputational risk for EV battery and carmakers serving the EU

    Clients of HSBC Global Research can access the full report via the HSBC Global Research website or by contacting Wai-Shin Chan

    “New EU due diligence rules. On Dec 9 2022, the European Council and Parliament provisionally agreed the new EU Batteries Regulation (which will replace the current Batteries Directive). Formal approval is expected later this year. Among the various new rules, companies placing batteries (including electric vehicle (EV) batteries) on the EU market will need to undertake due diligence on the sourcing, processing and trading of raw materials - specifically cobalt, natural graphite, lithium and nickel. These new rules will apply 24 months post entry into force of the Regulation.

    Prevention, mitigation, verification required. The due diligence entails the identification and addressing of actual or potential risks in order to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts of the mineral supply chain in relation to a list of specific categories. Risk categories to be assessed include air pollution, water use, soil protection and biodiversity (environmental) as well as health & safety, labour rights, human rights and community life (social). Importantly, 3rd-party verification of the due diligence by an approved independent body is required. EV auto manufacturers will need to check that the batteries they use (all of which are currently supplied by 3rd parties) are compliant with the Regulation.

    Sustainable supply in short supply...A large portion of the named mineral supply currently derives from sources with significant ESG issues e.g. the DRC for cobalt and Indonesia for nickel. Moreover, China dominates the refining and processing of each mineral, as well as the recycling of EV batteries in general.

    ...but greater scrutiny likely to accelerate the shift. Notably, it was civil society that was most vocal during the consultation period for the Regulation regarding the inclusion of sustainable sourcing. We therefore think consumer, as well as investor, pressure will drive companies towards more sustainable battery supply, in addition to government policy (including the planned EU Critical Raw Material Act).

    Impacts will be felt all along the value chain. Those who haven't already done so will need to undertake detailed assessments of their EV battery supply chains going all the way back to mineral extraction. Downstream winners will be those who can access the most sustainable inputs; upstream winners could be either miners, processors or recyclers, so long as they are operating sustainably. We think VW is arguably in the lead among the OEMS and we highlight Samsung SDI and LG Energy Solutions as examples of battery manufacturers that have been proactively establishing responsible sourcing. We think Umicore stands to gain in recycling.”

Most viewed job posts

  1. (489)



    JobPost: VZ Gruppe - Analyst/-in Nachhaltigkeit (ESG) Asset Management

    Das Asset Management der an der Schweizer Börse kotierten VZ Gruppe ist für die Bewirtschaftung und Weiterentwicklung von Anlagelösungen zuständig. Für verschiedene Kundenbedürfnisse bieten wir eine breite Palette von regel- und fundamentalbasierten Vermögensverwaltungsmandaten, Advisory-Mandaten und Self-Execution-Angeboten an. Zudem entwickeln wir redaktionelle Inhalte zu Anlagethemen. Da wir weiter wachsen, suchen wir Verstärkung für unseren Hauptsitz an zentraler Lage in Zug.

    Kontakt: Manuel Rütsche, Head Asset Management (LinkedIn: (1) Manuel Rütsche | LinkedIn)

  2. (451)



    Family Leave Cover (10 month Fixed Term Contract)

    Job Description

    The successful candidate will lead on and contribute to a range of projects within the PRI’s stewardship team. This will include supporting the development and coordination of PRI-led collaborative engagements, contributing to internal and external communication needs of the team and general administrative support for PRI stewardship initiatives and the broader team.

    As this is a relatively new function within the stewardship team, the exact nature of the role is likely to be varied and will be tailored depending on the skillset and prior experience of the successful candidate.

    Core Responsibilities Include:

    • Work with the team to improve processes and systems used to coordinate PRI collaborative stewardship initiatives
    • Support the development of new collaborative stewardship initiatives by developing template materials to be used in engagements (such as investor letters to companies and investor briefing packs with background information on companies)
    • Provide administrative support for PRI stewardship initiatives. This includes:
    • Attending, organising, and taking notes for initiative meetings
    • Liaising with participating investors
    • Answering in bound questions

Most viewed organisations

  1. (4) Design Seed Services ltd.
  2. (3) Themis Research
  3. (2) Unregistered Firm
  4. (2) Stock Exchange of Singapore

Most viewed users

  1. (4) Myrto Kontaxi @ Unregistered Firm
  2. (2) Margaret Wachenfeld
  3. (1) Indika Edussuriya
  4. (1) Corinne Bendersky @ S&P Global Ratings