Sustainable, Responsible &/or ESG Policy:

Investment opportunity

The Sustainable Multi Asset Fund Range is part of the Fidelity SFF range of funds, which is backed by our worldwide proprietary integrated fundamental and sustainable research.

We understand the need for greater transparency on ESG and so we apply a consistent approach across asset classes and provide detailed ESG exposures information for our funds. We are also committed to further enhancing the quality of reporting.

Recognising the importance of active engagement, we design our engagement to capture how well a company proactively manages sustainability issues that are the most material to its business. This helps us to distinguish companies which are following best practice and the laggards.

Investment objective

The Fidelity Sustainable Multi Asset Fund Range offers clients the opportunity to invest in a sustainable future while generating long-term capital growth utilising a cost-efficient approach.

The objective of the range is to increase the value of investments over a typical market cycle of five-to seven-years. Lead Portfolio Manager, Caroline Shaw, and Co-Portfolio Manager, Ayesha Akbar, aim to primarily invest in funds managed by Fidelity that have ‘good’ sustainable characteristics.

The range consists of three risk-controlled solutions: 'conservative', 'balanced' and 'growth'. The funds have carefully constructed strategic asset allocations which aims to help to deliver long-term growth for a given level of risk. It also helps to set reasonable expectations for their behaviour and to deliver consistent returns over the long term.

The range will be actively allocated to quality sustainable investment strategies across asset classes and geographies, based on their potential to generate growth using our sustainable approach. They are backed by Fidelity’s proprietary fundamental and sustainable research, as well as the ESG integrated investment process in Fidelity solutions and multi asset. To gain exposure to markets, the range primarily invests in Fidelity managed funds from our active and systematic sustainable capability, offering a transparent approach with efficient access to sustainable companies at a compelling cost. Each of the funds offers a different level of risk-return, distinguished by the balance between two broad asset class groups: equities and fixed income assets.

Exposure to these asset classes will consist mainly of actively managed Fidelity strategies combining sustainable and systematic capabilities, but the range will also look to invest in strategies managed by other portfolio managers such as closed-ended listed alternatives funds. The majority of the funds’ exposure will come from Fidelity’s SFF range of funds, which is a cross-asset range of funds with strict sustainable investing guidelines. The investment universe is driven by selecting issuers with strong and/or improving sustainable characteristics, whilst aiming to achieve compelling long-term financial performance and outperformance of their relative peer groups.

There are three categories of funds in Fidelity’s SFF range of funds:

• The best-in-class category invests only in the top performers on sustainability within a sector.
• The sustainable thematic category uses an approach that contributes to addressing sustainability challenges or creating a positive value-add to society and the environment.
• The Sustainable Research Enhanced Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are tilted towards issuers with positive sustainable characteristics with the objective of showing positive skews towards high ESG ratings: MSCI rating AAA –BBB (developed markets) or AAA to BB (emerging markets), Fidelity’s proprietary ESG Rating A to C.

The Fidelity Sustainable Multi Asset Fund Range will take exposure only to those active managers and instruments which meet our ESG research criteria which includes understanding the approach taken to ESG as part of the idea generation and portfolio construction process as well as the overall corporate approach to sustainability. The range does not use equity index future contracts given sustainability concerns.

• Any exposure should adhere to the SFF range of funds’ exclusion criteria on a look-through basis, both Fidelity and third-party strategies, active or passive.
• Sustainable multi asset strategies using primarily Fidelity exposure should invest in at least 70% in strategies aligned to the Fidelity SFF rules, with sovereign and cash exposure counted in this weight.
• The remaining exposure should be aligned to Fidelity’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) Article 8 non-SFF criteria. Specific criteria for third-party exposure (except sovereign and cash) apply.
• Considered to have ‘good’ ESG characteristics are sovereigns with MSCI ESG ratings from AAA to BBB for developed markets and AAA to BB for emerging markets.
• Engagement takes place at strategy level through the Solutions and Multi Asset's Manager Research Team.
• Third-party active strategies focused on traditional asset classes (for example, equity, fixed income): need a minimum ESG rating of B from the Solutions and Multi Asset Manager Research Team.
• Third-party passive strategies focused on traditional asset classes will be assessed based on the index methodology.
• Third-party non-equity or fixed income strategies including but not limited to alternatives, commodities and real estate, need an ESG rating of C or above from the Solutions and Multi Asset Manager Research Team.
• Impact multi asset funds can only invest in strategies with an ESG A rating from the Solutions and Multi Asset Manager Research Team.

The funds within the SFF range of funds are subject to the SFF range of funds exclusion framework which sets out the basis upon which certain issuers may be excluded from the investment universe of the SFF range of funds.

Firmwide exclusion:

• We adopt a principles-based approach to ESG matters and as part of this we place companies which we regard as unsuitable investments on an exclusion list.
• When deciding to exclude a company, we are guided by international conventions.
• The Convention on Cluster Munitions, the International Convention on the Prohibition of the use of, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, guidance from The United Nations.
• The World Bank and other global regulations which uphold ESG principles.

Equity and corporate bond issuers may be excluded from the SFF for two reasons:

Behavioural exclusions

For failure to conduct their business in accordance with accepted international norms (behavioural exclusions) for example, issuers which fail to behave in a way which meets their fundamental responsibilities as aligned with international norms such as the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC).

Fundamental exclusions

For their involvement in activities or product categories which are unsustainable and cause significant harm (fundamental exclusions) for example, issuers within certain single product categories or industries which are fundamentally unsustainable@

• Tobacco: All tobacco producers and distributers/retailers/suppliers/licensors with more than 5% of the revenues coming from tobacco sales.
• Controversial weapons: All controversial weapons manufacturers intended use components, exclusive delivery platforms and smart weapons.
• Semi-automatic weapons: All manufacturers and retailers with more than 5% of the revenues coming from the sale of semi-automatic firearms.
• Thermal coal: All issuers that derive more than 5% revenue from the mining of thermal coal and its sale to third parties, and issuers that derive more than 5% revenue from thermal coal-based power generation. We will allow an exception to this exclusion if an issuer has less than 30% revenue from thermal coal related activities and if the following applies: The issuer’s revenue share from renewable energy exceeds revenue share from thermal coal activities. Where the issuer has made an effective commitment to a Paris Agreement aligned objective based on approved Science Based Targets or alignment with a Transition Pathway Initiative scenario or a reasonably equivalent public commitment. Evidence of company engagement and/or commitment must be logged in the ESG engagement section of the ESG Rating App.
• Conventional weapons: All issuers that derive more than 5% revenue from the production of conventional weapons.

Sovereign exclusions

Sovereign holdings are also subject to an exclusion framework based on three principles relating to a country’s public governance, respect for basic human rights and foreign policy for example, issuers that fail to comply or behave in line with the principles of public governance, human rights and foreign affairs.

Process:

Investment Process

The investment process is designed to ensure a well-diversified portfolio across asset classes, capital structure, instruments and a range of uncorrelated sources of income and returns with good sustainability characteristics. It seeks to achieve a balance between capital growth and effective risk management at all stages of the investment process with the aim to deliver consistently on objectives of long-term capital growth.

At the centre of our investment approach is Fidelity’s fundamental and sustainable research. The range leverages Fidelity’s extensive proprietary research from across the firm including our equity, fixed income and real estate teams. Acknowledging the significance of sustainability factors to social, environmental and long-term investment outcomes, we incorporate ESG factors throughout the entire investment process, which is underpinned by three basic principles:

• Screening is driven by selecting securities across both corporate and sovereigns that maintain ‘good’ ESG characteristics. for example, defined by the exposure to sustainability ratings.
• Engagement through our firmwide research process allows us to engage over the long-term and target meaningful improvements with companies. This also takes place at the strategy level through our strategy and instrument research process.
• Integration at the fund level ensures at least 70% is invested in strategies aligned to Fidelity’s SFF range of fund rules. The remaining exposure should be aligned to Fidelity’s SFDR Article 8 non-SFF criteria.

The investment process is backed by Fidelity’s research capabilities, including our proprietary sustainable and fundamental research, as well as Fidelity Solutions and Multi Asset’s expertise in asset allocation, strategy and instrument selection, portfolio construction and risk management. Fidelity’s ESG ratings leverage our extensive research capabilities and ongoing engagement to provide a forward-looking evaluation of a company’s focus and trajectory on ESG-related issues. This helps to distinguish companies with strong sustainable characteristics and potential to compel long-term financial performance.

The funds invest primarily in active and systematic managed Fidelity strategies, blended alongside exposure to sustainable alternative strategies such as property, infrastructure and renewable energy to achieve its investment objectives. Before implementation in the portfolios, each underlying investment vehicle passes through Fidelity Solutions and Multi Asset’s strategy and instrument research process. In general, Caroline and Ayesha will look to invest in strategies with good sustainable characteristics and the ability to generate capital, with the potential to select across a range of strategies with different style exposures in each asset class.

Strategic asset allocation

The funds in the range have carefully constructed strategic asset allocations which aims to help to deliver long-term growth for a given level of risk. They have been designed to provide investors with specific choice of funds with varying levels of risk. It also helps to set reasonable expectations for their behaviour and to deliver consistent returns over the long term.

They have been designed and optimised by a team of specialists at Hymans Robertson in conjunction with Fidelity, based on rigorous research into the long-term behaviour of asset classes, including their relationships with each other and how they behave through time.

Whilst the funds are not managed relative to a benchmark, we use Investment Association (IA) sector peer groups when judging the performance of the funds. The funds will be managed to deliver specific outcomes for clients but also in accordance with their IA sector peer groups, allowing for flexibility to allocate between different asset classes.

Tactical Asset Allocation (TAA)

TAA aims to add value and manage risk in portfolios through adjusting asset allocation incrementally in response to changing market conditions. We believe that markets can often fail to recognise significant events, and can overreact to ‘noise’, so an effective TAA process can help capture emerging opportunities and avoid shorter-term risks.

Our approach to TAA is based on combining a wide range of quantitative and qualitative inputs to create a diversified pool of tactical investment ideas. From broad macroeconomic analysis generated by Fidelity’s Global Macro and Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) Team, to the insights of experienced portfolio managers, to on-the-ground research from Fidelity’s extensive global platform, our process combines a breadth of perspectives to generate ideas. We believe this diverse range of inputs is important to manage risk, and that an effective team-based approach is built on robust debate, challenge and accountability.

Within this team-based approach, we recognise the importance of active decision-making, and our strategies draw on the significant experience and expertise of Caroline and Ayesha. The team also considers issues of sustainability in the asset allocation process, using a broad framework to assess opportunities which includes ESG risk factors and dynamics in sustainability. The output of the tactical asset allocation process is a common pool of tactical ideas for Caroline and Ayesha to draw on in respective investment strategies. In practice, the team maintains a set of core investment views spanning major asset classes, global regions and currencies, which is updated on an ongoing basis as market conditions evolve. Alongside these core views, they generate complementary ideas for tactical positions in the form of pair trades or other diversified strategies. These tactical views are applied according to the parameters of each strategy.

Strategy and instrument research

Strategy and instrument research are a rigorous process combining quantitative and qualitative analysis to assess a broad universe of investment strategies. Our experienced and well-resourced team of analysts uses this repeatable process to generate recommendations of funds, strategies and instruments. Recommendations are discussed and debated in a range of forums and are subject to ongoing due diligence. Based on this, they are used by Caroline and Ayesha to access markets in their portfolios.

Once the research into a strategy has taken place, analyst recommendations are made which propose ideas for Caroline and Ayesha to access markets. Detailed research notes on each investment recommendation are published and updated regularly, as well as analyst ratings ranging from strong buy to strong sell, reflecting their conviction level. Model portfolios are built to provide style-neutral exposure, another way in which ideas are shared across the Investment Team. Once recommendations are made, each investment recommendation is presented to the team and debated. We consider this an important part of the process as it provides an independent assessment of all investment proposals, with input from our diverse team, ensuring broad-based discussion. After a recommendation has been presented, the strategy requires further review by Fidelity Solutions and Multi Asset’s Operational Due Diligence Team and Fidelity’s Legal and Compliance departments prior to an investment.

Each underlying strategy is subject to ongoing discussion and review, as well as regular monitoring. Our analysts regularly meet each active manager, conducting due diligence into each aspect of their strategy. The team monitors for changes including organisational structures, changes to investment process and ongoing risks associated with each strategy. Our analysts publish internal research notes to ensure that information is effectively communicated and accessible across the team. We aim to be invested for the long term, but a strategy may be sold at any point if, for example, we lose conviction in the manager’s ability to deliver consistent value, we believe that the strategy has drifted away from its stated approach and objectives, or we identify another strategy which we believe has superior potential for long-term investment returns. Overall, our process is highly iterative and involves ongoing analysis, as well as robust governance and oversight, which we believe is important in selecting the optimal strategies and instruments for implementing investment views.

Analysing sustainability in underlying strategies

As with many elements of research, evaluating the integration of sustainability in underlying strategies requires an iterative approach. There is no single ‘correct’ way to identify the sustainability of a strategy, and our team uses a range of approaches to build an overall picture. Both quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis have roles to play here, each bringing their own strengths and weaknesses.

For example, one line of enquiry might be to aggregate the sustainability metrics of underlying securities to determine a portfolio’s overall ESG profile. In this way, we might derive an average ESG score or a distribution of ESG scores for a portfolio’s constituents. As a quant-driven approach, this has strengths in automation and consistency. However, aggregating holdings-level scores risks doing little more than describing a fund’s style, its holdings’ market cap, and its geographic focus. For example, we might expect strong security-level ESG scores amongst growth equity strategies, where the fund manager invests in corporates with low capital intensity and, therefore, typically lower carbon footprints. Second, an aggregate quantitative score would not tell us if the overall rating is the result of a sustainable investing process, or simply a coincidence based on the investment universe. However, this is important information when building evidence of a strategy’s sustainability.

If a strategy’s holdings-level scores are the result of deliberate, sustainable investment philosophy, we might be confident that the ratings profile will remain consistent in the future. On the other hand, if a strategy’s holdings-level scores are the result of purely economic views, an investment algorithm, or mere coincidence, we should be alert to rapid potential change in the portfolio’s overall ESG profile. For example, a fund manager might acquire several growth stocks, which have high ESG ratings, to express a view on interest rates. This would score highly on a quantitative, aggregate basis. Yet, as the portfolio construction is independent of ESG research, we would have limited confidence that the portfolio’s aggregate ESG score will be constant or improve. Rather, it is likely to change with interest rates, as the portfolio manager rotates their holdings.

As a result, it is helpful to go one step further in evaluating the sustainability of strategies and managers across the investment industry. We can combine a quantitative approach with an analyst-led, qualitative assessment of a manager’s security selection process. This approach is useful because it links holdings-level characteristics to the investment decisions being made by the manager. By speaking directly to portfolio managers, we also ensure our ESG analysis is forward-looking. We can anticipate changes in sustainable investing processes, whether for better or worse, and build investment recommendations around the strategy’s direction of travel, and not just its recent history. Indeed, we believe that the direction of travel for a strategy is just as important as its current sustainability profile, and our team monitors these dynamics closely.

As set out above, there are a number of ways to assess the sustainability of a strategy, and we believe that the best approach considers both Caroline and Ayesha’s investment process and the ESG risks of its holdings. Through qualitative and quantitative assessment, solutions and multi asset analysts propose a peer-relative sustainability score and investment action, based on the managers’ ability to add value through navigation of ESG risks and opportunities. Our intention is to assess the integration of ESG analysis with the investment process, which means cross-checking policy with practice. Strategies are scored relative to a core benchmark and we do not apply a normal distribution to our scores, although our framework sets out some objective distinctions between high and low ratings. Our ESG framework analyses the quality of ESG research and the degree of integration with security valuation, buy and sell recommendations, and portfolio construction, which can be evaluated across investment styles.

Broadly, we consider four key pillars when evaluating a strategy:

• The investment policy.
• The integration of ESG research with the investment process.
• The quantitative ESG profile of the portfolio.
• The quality of the investment manager’s engagement with companies, issuers, and investments.

Managers are assigned a proprietary rating from A to E against each pillar, which are combined to generate a final score. This structured and repeatable approach was developed by our Manager Research analysts, with support from Fidelity’s centralised ESG specialists. Our dedicated portfolio analytics colleagues ensure our analysts can leverage holdings-level ESG scores, including Fidelity’s proprietary equity and fixed income ESG ratings, as well as MSCI, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and other third-party data. Understanding the sustainability of strategies requires significant resources and support, so Fidelity’s well-equipped teams, with access to the appropriate data sets, provide important input into our team’s research.

Resources, Affiliations & Corporate Strategies:

Fidelity has been committed to sustainability for over a decade. Having launched our Principles of Ownership in 2003 and as a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment since 2012, sustainable investing has been, and remains, a key priority. We have an extensive global research network of fundamental research analysts with broad bottom-up asset class coverage who works closely with our global sustainability team. 

As an investment manager, we have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of our clients. As such we have developed our approach to sustainable investing, comprising three key components (integration, stewardship, and solutions), as articulated in our Sustainable Investing Principles.  This approach aims to provide our clients with investment solutions that meet their financial and non-financial objectives, and to comply with rapidly evolving sustainability regulations for product labelling and disclosure. 

Proprietary ratings and tools sit at the heart of Fidelity’s sustainable investing approach, facilitating the integration of sustainability in our fundamental research and ensuring a consistent approach. These tools include:

 ESG Ratings: an assessment of management and mitigation of ESG risks.

Our ESG Ratings aim to provide a forward-looking assessment of an issuer’s sustainability characteristics, with emphasis on how it operates and the associated negative impact and risks.

Four key principles underpin our ESG Ratings:

• Consideration of both non-financial and financial impacts ('double materiality'). A focus on absolute impacts allows comparison across sectors and geographies.
• Providing a forward-looking perspective that is complementary to our financial forecasts, helping to inform the long-term prospects of an individual issuer. 
• Consideration of material impact across more than 100 individual subsectors for a more focused and relevant set of indicators.
• Flexible output for different use cases. Individual E, S, and G scores provide guidance for determining an overall ESG score at the issuer level and trajectory ratings.

Note: Third party ESG ratings may apply when a Fidelity ESG rating is not available. The prioritisation between third party ESG ratings and Fidelity ESG ratings may vary across products, please refer to the prospectus for more information.

 Climate Ratings: alignment to the outcome of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Our Climate Ratings assess an issuer’s operational alignment to the objectives of the Paris Agreement, providing a holistic view of climate-related risks and opportunities. We look at three key areas:

• Carbon emissions disclosure: Disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 emissions.
• Emissions reduction targets: Concentrates on current emissions, net zero GHG emissions ambitions, targets and carbon reduction targets.
• Climate governance: Analyses executive remuneration plans linked to climate ambitions, as well as governance responsibilities and oversight.

 SDG Tool: an assessment of positive contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Our SDG Tool provides an insight into an issuer’s positive contribution to environmental and social outcomes. Here, we focus on products and services (what an entity does), rather than operational alignment (how an entity operates).

It is intended to complement our ESG Ratings, which assess the management of adverse impacts arising from ESG issues.

SDG Tool primary use cases:

• Issuer and entity-level assessment - analyses the percentage of revenue that contributes to each SDG. This can be used as the input to help define a thematic investment universe.
• Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) - under SFDR, there is a requirement to identify issuers that make a positive contribution to an environmental or social outcome and can qualify as ’sustainable investments‘. 
• Reporting - provides the ability to report the contribution of a fund’s investments to the SDGs to our clients on a consistent and scalable basis.

 Quarterly Sustainability Reviews: an internal forum to review relevant quantitative and qualitative metrics and discuss sustainability integration in specific strategies.

Our integration tools and processes also support the prioritisation of stewardship activities and the development of solutions that meet different regulatory requirements and client objectives.

Furthermore, we promote active ownership as the steward of our clients’ assets, supporting real world sustainability outcomes that help us to fulfil our fiduciary duty. Effective and outcomes-focused stewardship combines bottom-up corporate engagement, top-down thematic engagement, and system-wide stewardship. This approach is essential to drive change and encourages regular engagement and dialogue which we believe is more efficient than exclusions because this simply diverts the problem elsewhere. We believe that monitoring the progress of engagements is as important as initiating them to assess change over time. The outcomes (or lack of outcomes) resulting from our engagements can be reflected by investment analysts in our ESG ratings and used to inform investment decisions. Our Voting Principles and Guidelines sets out our minimum expectations for our investee companies in key areas including climate change, deforestation, and gender diversity. 

Sustainability Team

As an active bottom-up research house, we have always looked beyond financial reporting to gauge the value of an investment. This involves maintaining ongoing dialogue with investee companies, staying vigilant to the evolving regulatory landscape, and monitoring other factors that could influence sustainable cash flows over our investment horizon, including those currently categorised as ESG. We began formally integrating ESG considerations into our investment and research processes since becoming a signatory to the Principles for Responsible Investment in October 2012. 

As a logical consequence of our focus on sustainability, we established our Sustainability Team over a decade ago. Initially a small group based in London, the team has now grown to include 30* professionals with the global presence spanning London, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney and Melbourne. Members of our Sustainability Team bring a diverse skill set, including expertise in research, climate science, and governance, with many boasting over a decade of experience.

The significant expansion of our team - nearly half of whom joined in 2021 or later - underscores the growing importance of sustainability within the financial services sector. This increase in team size, knowledge, and skillset has also allowed us to organise the team based on specialisation. Broadly, the team is divided into specialists focused on:

• Stewardship and research
• Strategy, product, and governance
• Client engagement

Within these broad areas, sustainable investing specialists focus on key themes such as climate, diversity, deforestation and circular economy among others.

*Source: Fidelity International, as at 31 March 2025. Excludes China AMC resources. 

Industry collaboration

Fidelity recognises the importance of networks and information platforms for sharing tools and pooling resources, using investor reporting as a source of learning. Our Sustainability Team keeps its current and potential membership of investor organisations under constant review. We monitor all international treaties, supranational organisations and other sustainability memberships to ensure we are up to date with market trends and to stay involved in the debate (listed per category):

Gender Diversity:

• 30% Club Australia (2021)
• 30% Club Hong Kong (2022)
• 30% Club Japan (2019)
• 30% Club Investors Group (2019)
• 40:40 Vision (2020)
• Bright Network Women in Leadership
• Lord Mayor's Appeal - We Can Be
• Women in Finance Charter (2017)
• Women on Boards (2018)

Social Inclusion and Diversity:

• #10000 Black Interns (2020)
• BBBA Talent Accelerator (2020)
• Black North Initiative
• Black Young Professionals
• Catalyst After School Programme
• Disability:IN (2022)
• Diversity Project
• LGBT Great (2019)
• Lord Mayor's Appeal (2019)
• Minority Supplier Development UK (2020)
• OutBritain (2022)
• President’s Challenge Enabling Employment Pledge and Enabling Mark (2023)
• Race at Work Charter
• Social Enterprise UK (2021)
• Social Mobility Foundation (2021)
• Stonewall (2016)
• Trans in the City (2021)
• Valuable 500 (2019)
• Veteran Owned UK (2021)
• WeConnect International (2021)

Climate Change:

• Asia Investor Group on Climate Change (2020)
• CDP - formerly Carbon Disclosure Project (2019)
• Climate Bonds Initiative (2019)
• Climate Investment Summit (2022)
• Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment
• Global Standard on Responsible Corporate Climate Lobbying (2022)
• Green Finance Industry Taskforce Singapore (2020)
• Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (2021)
• Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (2020)
• Investor Agenda (2021)
• Investor Group on Climate Change (2021)
• Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (2020)
• One Planet Asset Manager Initiative (2021)
• Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (2022)
• Point Zero Carbon Programme (2022)
• Powering Past Coal Alliance (2021)
• Transition Pathway Initiative (2021)
• UN Climate Change Conference (2021)

Responsible Investment and Finance:

• Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (2015)
• Asia Research & Engagement (2023)
• European Sustainable Investment Forum (2017)
• European Public Real Estate Association (2023)
• Hong Kong Green Finance Association (2020)
• International Regulatory Strategy Group
• Investment Association (2010)
• Investor Forum - UK (2014)
• Principles for Responsible Investing (2012)
• The Purposeful Company Task Force
• Responsible Investment Association Australasia (2021)
• Sustainable Trading (2005)
• UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (2010)
• World Benchmarking Alliance (2020)

Governance and Corporate Accountability:

• Asian Corporate Governance Association (2004)
• Assogestioni (2007)
• Corporate Governance Forum (2009)
• Hong Kong Principles of Responsible Ownership (2017)
• International Corporate Governance Network (2005)
• Japanese Stewardship Code (2014)
• Taiwan Stock Exchange’s Stewardship Principles for Institutional Investors (2016)
• UK Stewardship Code (2010)

Biodiversity:

• Finance for Biodiversity (2021)
• Finance for Biodiversity Pledge (2021)
• Green Praxis Biodiversity (2022)
• Natural Capital Investment Alliance (2021)
• Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures Forum (2021)
• The Finance Sector Deforestation Action Initiative (2023)

Other Initiatives and Collaborations:

• Council for Sustainable Business
• Edinburgh Airport Sustainability Pledge
• Environment management system standard ISO 14001 (2023)
• Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (2020)
• Inspiring More Sustainability (2019)
• Investors Against Slavery and Trafficking Asia-Pacific (2020)
• Maastricht University & GRESB (2021)
• Mental Health First Aid Training (2017)
• WEF Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (2019)
• WorkWell Leaders (2023)

Dialshifter

This fund is helping to ‘shift the dial from brown to green’ by…

Giving preference to investing in issuers that are more environment friendly vis-à-vis their products/the impact of their operations on the environment and excluding all issuers that derive more than 5% revenue from the mining of thermal coal and its sale to third parties, and issuers that derive more than 5% revenue from thermal coal-based power generation.*

*Subject to exceptions mentioned in the answer to the next question.

SDR Labelling:

Sustainability Mixed Goals label

SDR Literature:

• Consumer Facing Disclosure