The information in this section is based on individual indicators of the Swiss Climate Scores recommended by the Swiss Federal Council. The Swiss climate scores establish best-practice transparency on the Paris-alignment of financial investments to foster investment decisions that contribute to reaching the climate goals. The individual indicators on climate performance can serve different objectives in investment decisions, which is why a summary of all indicators into a single score would not be expedient. The section contains information only on Goal 13 "Climate Change" of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as climate data and methods are already the most developed and available. Individual information on other Sustainable Development Goals, such as environmental protection, animal welfare and gender inequality, can be found in the following section.

Paris Score : The Paris Score assesses a fund's alignment with internationally recognised climate scenarios for achieving the Paris Climate Agreement with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. The better the companies in the fund are aligned with this, the better the score. However, this is not an indicator of the impact/ effect of the fund to have directly reduced climate-damaging emissions or to reduce them in the future (see also the video on the difference between alignment and impact in the bottom section on this page). This indicator may be more suitable for investors who want to be in line with their values and therefore want to invest in particular in companies from the most climate-relevant sectors whose production plans are in average aligned with international climate scenarios. Investing in a fund with a good Paris Score can thus ensure that the most climate-relevant companies in one's portfolio are in average on a good path, but not that any change in behaviour (an "impact") is achieved at the companies as a result of the investment.

Climate Stewardship of the management : Financial institutions can contribute to the transition to net zero by advocating for science-based and externally verified transition plans towards 2050 with invested companies. For example, some portfolios that actively seek to contribute to climate goals may intentionally include companies that are not yet on track to meet the 1.5°C target. Such companies, and with them a growing share of the economy, should thereby become climate-friendly over time. This might be one reason why the Paris Score and the Climate Stewardship Score can differ in some cases. The British NGO InfluenceMap has rated major asset managers in terms of their climate influence (so-called climate stewardship). The Climate Stewardship Score, similar to a school grade, describes how credibly an asset manager influences companies to bring them into line with the Paris Climate Agreement. This includes, for example, influencing the business model, escalation strategies and voting on climate-related resolutions at shareholder meetings. This indicator may be suitable for investors who want to achieve impact with their investment and would even be willing to invest in companies that are even harmful to the climate in order to change them through management influence. However, the risk that the influence will be unsuccessful should be taken into account. Note also that the rating is the same for all funds of the asset management company, if an individual fund manager would deviate from the company’s voting and engagement policy, it is not reflected in the rating. Investing in a fund with a good climate stewardship score can thus ensure that the asset management company is committed to transitioning companies in line with the Paris Agreement, but it is no guarantee that the companies in the portfolio are already or will become climate-friendly.

Fossil and renewable energies: Many companies have specific climate-relevant business activities such as coal, oil, gas or renewable energies. Information on the share of companies active in these areas can serve various investment objectives. These indicators may be suitable for investors who want to be in line with their values and therefore want to invest as much as possible in companies from climate-friendly sectors and as little as possible in companies from climate-damaging sectors. This information may also be appropriate for investors who believe that fossil fuel or renewable energy activities could reduce financial risk or increase opportunity.

The information in this section shows the proportion of companies in the fund that are involved in various "controversial" activities. Which activity is truly controversial and whether it is relevant to an investment decision is, of course, up to the investors themselves. Since funds often invest in several hundred multinational companies in different industries, almost all funds are invested in "controversial activities". If some of these activities are problematic for you, you can target your investment accordingly. Please note: The data on controversial activities is largely supplied by the sustainability rating agency ISS ESG. Based on a consumer survey, we have interpreted most of the definitions for controversial activities in the fund database as strict as possible. A 0% tolerance level for turnover in the respective controversial company activities was also selected. All activities analysed by ISS ESG are therefore taken into account. Different stages of value creation are considered, this may include, for example, services for processing, production or distribution of products. An example: Assuming that 5% of the fund volume is invested in one company which generates 1% of its turnover with the distribution of alcoholic beverages and in another company which generates 1% of its turnover with the production of oxygen masks for the air force, then 5% each is shown in the database behind the controversial activities "Addictive substances (tobacco, alcohol)" and "Civilian firearms or military equipment". Fund providers can define a different scope for the exclusion of controversial activities or obtain data on controversial activities from different ESG rating providers. It is therefore worthwhile for investors to understand the exact exclusion definition of controversial activities of fund providers and to ask in case of ambiguity.

These indicators may be suitable for, among others, investors who want to be in line with their values and completely exclude certain corporate activities in their investment for moral, political or religious reasons. You will find full transparency on the definition of the individual controversial activities in the respective info i's. However, controversies on international standards may also be relevant for investors who believe that, for example, a high proportion of companies that have violated the principles of the UN Global Compact could represent a financial risk.

ISS ESG Fund Rating: While the ISS ESG Fund Rating Stars at the top of this page award stars relative to the Lipper Global Benchmark class, and thus a fund with a low ISS ESG Performance Score could receive several stars. The ISS ESG Performance Score at the bottom of this page represents an absolute ESG rating of the fund. The ISS ESG score ranges from 0 to 100, with 100 representing "very good". For the calculation, the individual ratings of companies in the areas of environment, social affairs and corporate governance are combined and aggregated at fund level. (Data source: ISS ESG) However, neither the ISS ESG Performance Score nor the Fund Rating can be used to infer the sustainability impact of the fund. The ISS ESG Performance Score rather provides information on how well the companies in the fund manage sustainability risks and opportunities. This indicator may therefore be suitable for investors who believe that a particularly good integration of sustainability risks and opportunities based on the ISS ESG assessment could reduce financial risk and/or increase opportunity. However, the risk that ISS ESG's assessment of the integration of sustainability risks and opportunities of individual companies may differ from other ESG rating providers should be considered.

ISS ESG Prime Status: The "ISS ESG Prime Status" is a fund award from the ISS ESG rating agency. To receive the "Prime Status", a fund must have received at least a weighted "ESG Performance Score" of 50 and must also not exceed certain exclusion criteria thresholds. These include funds with controversies in the area of international norms and standards (highest controversy level) or if more than 10% of the companies have a significantly negative impact on the sustainable development goals of the United Nations (SDG Impact Rating). Further exclusion criteria are a carbon footprint over 150% compared to the average of the fund's peer group or if a fund invests in companies that are active in the area of controversial weapons or if, for more than 10% of the companies in a fund, the approval at shareholder meetings for board elections or remuneration reports is below 90%. (Source: ISS ESG) However, the Prime Status does not automatically indicate the impact of the fund. This indicator may be appropriate for, among others, investors who believe that consideration of the criteria set by ISS ESG could reduce financial risk and increase opportunity. However, consideration should be given to the risk that ISS ESG's assessment of the integration of sustainability risks and opportunities of individual companies may differ from other ESG rating providers. This indicator may also be suitable for investors who wish to be consistent with their values and for whom the minimum criteria set by ISS ESG is sufficient for this purpose.

Labels: All the labels listed use different definitions, minimum criteria and screening procedures. A comparison of the labels with regard to different aspects can be found behind the click field "All labels". With the exception of the French label Finansol, it is not yet possible to automatically infer the impact of the fund from any of the labels. In principle, individual labels may be suitable for investors who are of the opinion that taking into account the criteria defined by the label could reduce financial risks and increase opportunities. However, the risk that the assessment of the labels or sustainability ratings may differ from other ESG rating providers should be taken into account. Individual labels may also be suitable for investors who wish to be consistent with their values and for whom consideration of the minimum criteria set by the label is sufficient for this purpose.

Transparency profile: The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), introduced by the European Commission, established Article 8 and Article 9 for investment funds that invest a percentage of their portfolio in activities considering ESG factors (Art 8) or that have sustainable objectives (Art 9), respectively. Art 8 and 9 funds need to consider ESG factors to reduce ESG related financial risks. Moreover, the fund managers need to explain their methodologies, for instance for excluding certain sectors (Art 8) or including sustainable companies and how those companies do not significantly harm the UN Global Compact Principles (Art 9). However, these articles serve solely as disclosure categories and do not indicate the degree of sustainability or whether a product is suitable for value- or impact-oriented investors.