APPENDIX A: FINDINGS
1.0 Longitudinal Within-Case Analysis 1.1 In-Depth Summary of Findings
1.1.1. Sparebank1 SR-Bank (SB1)
2011:Annual Report. No information regarding the environment in the
CSR-section, nor in the other sections of the report. An example of “Description”
and “Positive Writing Style” is: “SpareBank 1 SR-Bank has a comprehensive social commitment. We support local initiative in the fields of culture, sport, research and education. This is done by making active use of the endowment fund for public benefit and through a large range of different sponsor
agreements.”(p.129). They describe their actions relating to social commitment in a positive way, but note that the environment is not regarded as a factor in their perception of social commitment.
2012:Annual Report. No information regarding the environment in the
CSR-section, nor in the other sections of the report, as such there is no change from the 2011 report. Slight change in formulation regarding their commitment, which now has a more emotional tone. An example of “Description” and
“Emotional Writing Style” is: “SpareBank 1 SR-Bank is deeply committed to its community. We support local cultural, sporting and youth initiatives. We make numerous financial donations to local volunteer-based organisations and clubs through a number of sponsorship agreements.” (p.126).
2013:Annual Report. The environment is mentioned for the first time in the 2013 report. The information provided is generally vague, contradictory or not
explained, as seen by the number of segments coded with ‘Vague Writing Style’
and ‘Indicating Facts’. An example of a segment coded as “Vague” follows: “As a responsible financial group, we are proactive in relation to climate challenges, including by setting criteria for environmental prevention measures in our own organisation. The Group has a specific environmental strategy and guidelines, which are reviewed annually ... No CSR strategy has been established (p.16-17).”
The indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption are provided in a table. All the indicators except
paper-consumption and energy consumption are explained, but the information is
presented in a vague and/or positive writing style. “The Group regularly introduces measures that are intended to help reduce the consumption of
electricity, paper and other resources, as well as ensure that resource-demanding travel is limited. A great deal of attention is also paid to managing technological waste and purchasing environmentally friendly solutions. The bank is always trying to ensure it buys the right technological equipment based on specific assessment criteria for energy and environmental requirements.” (p.16). They also reported a decrease in paper-consumption from 2012 - but this indicator was not logged in 2012.
2014:Annual Report. Slight increase of relevant information regarding environmental topics compared to previous years. The most used code is still
“Vague Writing Style”, but “Description” and “Rationalization: Instrumental” are also coded more than once. The segments coded as vague relate to much of the same information as in 2013, which was their emission and environmental
measures, -practices, and -guidelines. The indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption are provided in a table.
All the indicators except energy consumption are explained, but the information is rationalized, instead of being presented as vague and/or positive. An example of the rationalization (I) used is: “The group returned 2.3 tons of technological waste in 2014, an increase of 1 ton compared with 2013. This was due to the large-scale replacement of IT hardware that could not be recycled through reuse by
others.”(p.17). The codes “Subjective Writing Style”, “Rationalization:
Instrumental”, and “Coercive Action Type 1” are used for the first time in the 2014 report. An example of Coercive Action Type 1, which is an imprecise way to state a intent/measure/ of avoiding the negative outcome in the future, is as
follows: “The existing routines for sending out information through the post will be reviewed during 2015 to see whether it is possible to make greater use of email” (p.17).
2015:Annual Report.Similar coding to 2014 in regards to coding of emission and environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines, and the indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption. All the indicators except energy consumption are explained, but the information is vague and/or positive, except air travel and paper consumption - which is still
rationalized. An example of the rationalization used is: “The increase is primarily attributable to increased employee travel between the Bergen region, one of our growth areas, and the increased use of resources for projects under the auspices of the SpareBank 1-alliance in Oslo”(p.17).
2016:Annual Report.Generally an increase of neutral information regarding their environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines, but still some vague
statements. Responsible investment and requirements for suppliers are described in more detail. The indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption are provided in a table. All the indicators are explained, in a mostly neutral tone, and are therefore coded as “Description”
instead of vague, positive or rationalization, as seen in previous years. There are some exceptions, for instance, reduction in paper-consumption is coded as
“Praise”: “A significant drop in paper consumption of 17.7 tons was registered in 2016 compared with 2015. This is a result of deliberate, targeted measures. This is, first and foremost, due to much of our customer communications being switched to our digital channels, combined with new digital solutions for
document management internally.”(p.23). They also presented a goal to conduct a materiality analysis.
2017:Sustainability Report.First year Sparebank1 SR-Bank has presented a SR, however, this is just the CSR-chapter form their annual report released as a separate report. A slight decrease of information which is reflected in the number of coded segments. The indicators related to emissions, such as waste,
electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption are provided in a table. All the indicators are explained, but in a more positive and/or vague manner than 2016.
“Indication Facts” is used a couple of times in relation to emission indicators, such as air travel. For instance, they state that “The group's climate accounts show that total CO2 emissions in 2017 were 507.5 tonnes. The calculated emissions include a total of 2,787,873 kilometres travelled by air travel...” (p.3), but fail to mention that this is an increase of 26.47%. This is an example of a segment coded as Indicating Facts. Conducting a materiality analysis is stated as a goal for next year, this year too.
2018:Sustainability Report. Materiality Analysis conducted, and reported on in the text, but the complete one is not included, instead there is a link to their website. One of the materialities relates to the environment “guidelines for responsible credit”. The emissions are reported using the Greenhouse Gas
Protocol Initiative (GHG Protocol) for the first time (presented in a table). This is presented in a natural manner. There is more focus on responsible finance, credit, purchasing and green products, which is reflected in the increase of coded
segments from the previous year. This information is mixed in terms of presentation, with some being neutrally described whilst other information is vague. An example of a vague statement is: “In general, the group can have the biggest impact within responsible investments and loans/credit by using its influence to set requirements and steer capital in a sustainable direction.
Therefore, one important focus area for SR-Bank is responsible finance and ESG factors.”(p.25). Indicating Facts is used to code two segments, both of which relate to the organisation’s activity in the oil and gas industry. However, their activity in this area is not elaborated on. An example follows: “Our corporate market portfolio is well-diversified with an emphasis on commercial property, oil and gas, agriculture, and traditional industry.”(p.26).
2019: Sustainability Report. First year using GRI-reporting, and also joined the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).First year the SDGs are included, their chosen goals are goal: 5, 8 and 13 (climate action).
The amount of information regarding practices, implementations, actions,
guidelines etc. has increased significantly compared to 2018, and the information is generally quite neutral compared to previous years. This is reflected in the increase of “Description” whilst the number of “Positive Writing Style” codes has remained relatively similar. There is an increase in “Vague” codes, however, this is minor compared to the ratio of these codes from previous years. An example of a vague statement in 2019 is as follows: “...one important priority area for
SpareBank 1 SR-Bank is ESG and responsible finance. The group’s priority activities in 2019 were assessed and implemented.”(p.29). Their first Green Bonds was also introduced in 2019, but the information about this is limited. The
information regarding emissions are mostly neutral, such as “The climate accounts for 2019 show a reduction in CO2 emissions from 2018 to 2019. The
group’s CO2 emissions in 2018 were 936 tonnes compared with 701 tonnes in 2019.” (p.27).
2020: Annual Report. Joined the Poseidon Principles, which is a climate-friendly shipping initiative. Information regarding practices, implementations, actions, guidelines etc. has increased slightly compared to 2019, and the information is generally quite neutral compared to previous years. However, there is a slight increase in “Vague” and “Indicating Facts” codes. An example of a segment that is coded as both “Description” and “Vague” is: “Climate risk was explicitly discussed by both the board and the executive management team on several occasions throughout 2020. The revised sustainability strategy and associated new climate strategy were adopted by the board in May 2020.”(p.24). An example of a
“Minimization: Covid-19” statement relates to their emissions: “Between 2018 and 2020, the group’s greenhouse gas emissions were cut from 936 tonnes to 337.7 tonnes. Given the Covid-19 situation, estimating the reduction the group would have achieved had this situation not occurred is difficult. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2019 to 2020 was mainly due to flights. A project aimed at reducing flights taken by the group was started in 2020. This work was impacted by the Covid-19 situation and it was not appropriate to continue the work in 2020”(p.29). This statement fails to acknowledge the impact Covid-19 actually has had on their emissions, in addition, air travel for the previous years are also left out of the emissions-table. The segments coded as “Indicating Facts”
relate to emission-calculation. For instance, the following statement lacks benchmarks which makes it difficult to assess: “The three equities funds were analysed in 2020, using a tool developed by Blomberg that indicates CO2
intensity (million tonnes CO2/million NOK turnover), with the following results:
SR-Bank Verden 16.86, SR-Bank Utbytte 25.54 and SR-Bank Norge 24.34. The analysis came closer to a quantification since there was an increase in the proportion of companies reporting their emissions, from 32% to 74% from 2019 to 2020.”. The first segment coded with “Admission” was presented in 2020, and is as follows: “The group has a negative impact in three areas: resource efficiency, the climate and biodiversity. The impact in these areas can be seen in the analysis through financing for vehicles, mortgages and sectors generally associated with higher greenhouse gas emissions”(p.21-22).
1.1.2. DNB
2010: CSR Fact book. Disclosure of emission and environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines, and the indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption is mixed. About half of this information is neutral, the other half of these statements are coded as
“Rationalization: instrumental” or “Rationalization: theoretical” and “Indicating Facts”. Example of theoretical rationalization: “The Group’s internal energy consumption showed a negative trend in 2010. The rise in energy consumption has not been finally analysed, but it is assumed that the increased use of all sources of energy mainly reflects temperature conditions.” (p.16). DNB reports membership, inclusion and/or compliance with the following
groups/frameworks/rankings: GRI, BREEAM, Equator Principles, Eco-lighthouse, DJSI, UNEP FI, and PRI.
2011: CSR Report. The 2011 report is longer than the previous report, as reflected in the number of coded segments. The largest difference is the number of
segments coded as “Description” (50). This represents an increase in neutrally reported information. The information relates to environmental measures,
-practices, -initiatives, and -guidelines. For instance, in 2011 DNB uses the GHG Protocol to calculate emissions, has begun certifying their operations according to ISO14001, and participates in the CDP and has a stated goal of becoming the best in their Nordic financial services group. Still induced on the DJSI ranking within CSR. DNB also reports on their activities related to environmentally friendly projects, such as financing renewable energy, offering carbon neutral solutions for leasing customers (i.e. car fleet), and their green funds (DNB Grønt Norden and DNB Renewable Energy).
“Indicating Facts”, “Emotional Writing Style”, and “Positive Writing Style” also increased in 2011. An example of Emotional Writing Style follows:
“DNB wishes to operate in an ethically responsible and honest manner. We will facilitate and contribute towards sustainable development, because we know that you care!” (p.2). The segments related to the “Indicating Facts” codes are all related to DNB’s involvement in the energy sector (i.e. oil and gas), companies reviewed due to breaches in guidelines (which include environmental aspects), and their own emission indicators that are not elaborated on in the text. For instance, the following statement is focused on renewable energy but fails to
mention what the remaining 60% of the energy sector is: “Approximately 40 per cent of DNB’s financing of the energy sector is channelled to renewable energy projects, which corresponds to just below NOK 30 billion. DNB expects further growth in this field.”(p.15).
2012: CSR-report. This indicates less information related to environmental subjects. The information relating to environmental measures, -practices, -initiatives, and -guidelines is mostly coded with “Description”. For instance, further work with implementing ISO14001 is underway, DNB started to purchase carbon offsets for all their flights, including a larger part of their international operations in their reporting. DNB also retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. An example of a description code is “In 2012, dnb joined forces with other norwegian asset owners and asset managers to establish the norwegian forum for responsible and sustainable investments (norsif).” (p.13).
There is an increase of “Vague” codes in 2012, with a total of five. This is four more than in 2011. Due to the elaboration of information relating to emissions (such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption) there is a decrease of segments coded as “Indicating Facts” in 2012 (4 compared to 8).
However, DNB still does not elaborate on what the “energy sector” consists of:
“Approximately 36 percent of DNB’s financing of the energy sector is channelled to renewable energy projects, which corresponds to just over nok 40
billion.”(p.30). The amount of segments coded as “Positive Writing Style” has had a slight decrease, and no segments were coded as “Emotional Writing Style” in 2012. DNB had an increase of “Admission” codes, these related to poorer performance in emissions and the CDP. In 2012, DNB compensated for their business travel emissions through buying offsets, for the first time.
2013: CSR-report. The information provided in the 2013 report is quite similar to the 2012 report. There is a decrease of six “Description” codes compared to 2012.
One major difference is the inclusion of a materiality analysis in 2013. The biggest difference is the increase from five to nine “Vague” codes and from zero to two “Praise” codes. An example of a vague segment, is: “... Other
environmental issues”. While the amount of “Positive Writing Style” remained stable, the following example is a typical phrasing in this category “One of DNB’s
most significant environmental efficiency measures is the relocation of employees to new, eco-efficient buildings, such as the new head office in Bjørvika. Space efficiency, new working methods and increased use of web meetings, renewable energy sources, energy-efficient IT solutions and the location at a public transport junction are reflected in DNB’s carbon accounting report. Among other things, the carbon accounting report for 2013 shows an 11 per cent decline in air
travel.”(p.20). DNB also retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. The number of
“Indicating Facts” codes remained the same in 2012 (four), but was related to other segments than emission indicators. For instance, one segment related to the decision tonotretain their CDP goal, “The target to be the best Nordic financial services group reporting to the CDP, which was established in 2011, has not been retained. DNB is satisfied with the results achieved in 2013, with a transparency score of 84 and a performance score of B, which represented a strong
improvement from 2012” (p.13). This statement is not elaborated on. Another example of “Indicating Facts” follows “Norway and the Baltics. The figure for 2012 has been adjusted on the basis of improved information in 2013. In 2013, approximately 30 percent of total consumption was estimated based on the assumption that the source of energy was electricity. In 2012, 70 per cent was estimated.” (p.28). The statement regarding financing of the energy sector remains unchanged, i.e. 36% is renewable and that equals ca. NOK 40 Billion.
2014: CSR-report.The information provided in the 2014 report is quite similar to the 2013 report, however, there is an increase of neutral statements. This is
reflected in the number (47) of “Description” codes, paired with the few “Positive Writing Style” and “Vague Writing Style” codes. The coded segments for these codes were four and 10, respectively and are therefore relatively stable. Another change can be seen in the increase of “Admission”, “Defense” and “Praise” codes.
However, these changes are small. Examples of the “Defense” statement is as follows: “The figures include energy consumption which is not covered by the energy class B requirements, including energy for under-street heating, data processing halls, cafeteria and meeting areas and charging of electric cars. The environmental target from 2009 was based on a portfolio of older buildings with large basement areas, requiring less energy than current premises.” (p.33). An example of “Admission” is: “DNB will not be able to reach the target of a
recycling percentage of 75 per cent since the percentage of waste paper, which has been the largest recycling item, continues to decline.” (p.33).
DNB retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. However, they also joined the Green Bond Principles in 2014. DNB neutrally stated their new environmental targets for 2015-2017. In addition, DNB increased their CO2compensation to account for more of their emissions. DNB also continues to state their
contribution to renewable energy in the energy sector, but the phrasing was changed in 2014: “DNB’s lending to finance wind, solar and hydropower
increased by close to 25 per cent in 2014 and renewable energy is thus one of the industries on which DNB’s exposure is growing the most. Most of the loans, around NOK 40 billion, finance hydropower, but solar and wind power projects account for a steadily increasing proportion.” (p.25). However, this was the only segment coded as “Indicating Facts”, which is four less than in 2013. A
materiality analysis included this year too.
2015: Integrated Annual Report.New reporting standard in 2015 is an integrated annual report. The report is an annual report, with a chapter on sustainability, but the information regarding environmental aspects is more dispersed throughout the report - making it more difficult to locate all the relevant information. The new standard has resulted in less detailed information (particularly numbers, tables etc.) in the report. This is particularly prominent because the formerly detailed information is now published in separate reports, and statements referring to this information is therefore coded as “Vague”. An example of these statements follows: “See an overview of the number of excluded companies in 2015 in DNB’s sustainability library on dnb.” (p.52). However, emission indicators are still reported on in text and table.
The main difference can be seen through a decline in segments coded as
“Description” (35 comapred to 47), and an increase of segments coded as “Vague Writing Style” (13 compared to 10). The amount of “Positive Writing Style” also increased by 3. Other than the decrease of codes, the information reported is typically similar to previous years, and relates to environmental measures,
-practices, -initiatives, and -guidelines in a mostly neutral way. For instance, DNB issued their first green bond in 2015, reported on the performance of their green equity funds (DNB miljøinvest and DNB Grønt Norden), the continued CO2
offsets for their own operations, and the first audit of suppliers compliance with the code of responsible conduct. The other code-categories remain somewhat stable, with a slight increase (2-3) in “Praise” and “Indicating Facts”. The codes relating to “Indicating Facts” both included statements regarding DNB’s
involvement in the Shipping, Seafood, and Energy sector. For instance “One of the world’s leading shipping and seafood banks” (p.11). This is not elaborated on.
Instead, DNB continued their reporting on their focus on renewable energy, but this statement is also changed this year: “DNB has a leading position among Nordic banks within loans for wind, hydropower and solar energy projects, with a total portfolio of some NOK 47 billion” (p.52). The statement is positive, without a percentage, and refrains from mentioning the un-sustainable parts of the energy sector (i.e. oil and gas). DNB retained their memberships, inclusion and
compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. A materiality analysis included this year too. DNB scored a B in the ranking by CDP, this was stated in a neutral way.
2016: Integrated Annual Report. The information provided in the 2016 report is quite similar to the 2015 report, however, there are some changes. In the 2016 report, the table containing information relating to emissions (such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption) is divided into scope 1 (mandatory), 2 (mandatory), and 3 (voluntary), but is no longer a part of the integrated report, and is instead reported separately. There is nothing on these indicators in the text either. There is no information about purchasing carbon offsets this year. DNB has included the GHG emissions from their mutual funds, relative to the reference indices. In addition to retaining their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, they also joined the SDGs. The SDGs goals DNB has adopted are:
Quality Education (nr.4), Decent Work and Economic Growth (nr.8), and Climate Action (nr.13). The Materiality analysis is included this year too, but “integrate and promote sustainable considerations in operations” has been assigned a more important role within DNB. In addition, they added a new inclusion criteria for responsible investments, which goes: “According to the coal criterion, mining companies and power producers which themselves or consolidated with entities they control derive 30 per cent or more of their income from thermal coal, or base 30 per cent or more of their operations on thermal coal, may be excluded from the
investment universe. The use of “may” implies that the company's strategy and future allocation between coal and renewable operations will be taken into
consideration.” (p.75). DNB continued their reporting on their focus on renewable energy, but the statement has changed this year too. Their loans to the renewable sector only make up 24% of the total loans to the energy/offshore sector - which also includes oil and gas. What the remaining 76% goes to is still not elaborated on, as seen in their statement: “Within renewables, direct loans to wind, water and solar energy totalled NOK 45.6 billion, which is 24 percent of total loans to the energy/offshore sector.”(p.74). They also had a related statement in a different part of the report that involves renewable energy: “We focus on renewables because we believe in this industry, which most of all needs predictability and a long-term per-spective. It is challenging to make many justifiable investments when energy prices are low and the future of electricity certificates is uncertain”(p.83). This segment was coded as “Defense”. Despite these statement, 2016 was the first year DNB elaborated slightly on their involvement in the energy sector, as seen in the following statement: “As a bank, we reflect the whole of Norway and are a bank for several parts of the industry. Norway is an oil and gas nation, where DNB has built up a significant portfolio and strong expertise. Given that Norway has unique hydroelectric power resources, we have also developed in-depth expertise within renewable energy. Oil, gas and renewables will continue to coexist for a long time, and we will give long-term support to these sectors. The petroleum industry has also developed skills and expertise that are useful for offshore wind power, and we are seeing that more com- panies are also investing in renewables”(p.83).
The statement is not regarded as neutral, and is the only segment in the 2016 report that is coded with a combination of “Defense”, “Rationalization:
Instrumental”, “Rationalization: Theoretical”, and “Subjective Writing Style”.
Lastly, DNB received an A- in the ranking by CDP. That statement is coded as
“Praise”, “As the first Norwegian financial institution, DNB was awarded a rating of A- for its climate work by the Carbon Disclosure Project, CDP.”(p.15).
2017: Integrated Annual Report. The information provided in the 2017 report is similar to the 2016 report, this includes vague and excluded information, but also newly added information, such as the GHG emissions from their mutual funds, relative to the reference indices. There is a slight increase of segments coded as
“Positive Writing Style” and “Praise” in the 2017 report. DNB retained their
memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years. However, in 2017 they improved their CDP score from A- to A, joined the Responsible Ship Recycling Standards (RSRS), and complied with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Another change regards their SDG goals, of which DNB has chosen to retain the goal relating to Decent Work and Economic Growth (nr.8), and adopted goal relating to Gender Equality (nr.5). As such, they have
discontinued their focus on the goals relating to Quality Education (nr.4) and Climate Action (nr.13). The Materiality analysis is similar to 2016. DNB launched a new sustainable fund called “DNB Lavkarbon” which was described as “... a diversified global factor fund that is “fossil-free” and has a low carbon
footprint…” (p.23). Note that the former statement is coded as “Description” and
“Vague”. However, a statement further elaborating on the fund was coded with a combination of “Rationalization: theoretical”, “Subjective Writing Style” and
“Vague Writing Style”: “The definition of fossil-free varies. We have chosen to call the fund ‘low carbon’ to indicate that it is also important to us that the
companies in the portfolio have low CO2 emissions. However, there will be some emission of CO2 associated with all production processes.”(p.41). DNB’s
statement regarding their loans to the renewable part of the energy sector changed this year too, and is therefore coded differently. The segment is coded as “Vague”
and “Description” this year: “In addition, the Group finances renewable energy with about NOK 40 billion.”(p.40).
2018: Integrated Annual Report. The information provided in the 2018 report is similar to the 2017 report, this includes vague and excluded information, and the GHG emissions from their mutual funds, sections on responsible investment and purchasing (included since 2011), and SDGs. The main difference regarding this information is that some of it is now reported in a “Sustainability Fact Book” in the Appendix of the report. In 2018 there was an increase of 10 “Description”
codes, and a decrease of two “Vague Writing Style” codes - which indicates more neutral information. There is also an increase of “Indicating Facts” codes (1 compared to 0), a decrease of “Positive Writing Style” codes (4 compared to 5).
An example of a “Description” statement follows: “DNB launched Grønt Boliglån (green home mortgages), giving more favourable terms to customers who take up
loans for residential properties with an energy efficiency marking of A or B.”(p.18).
DNB retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, and their SGD goals, and CDP ranking remained the same as in 2017. However, DNB joined the UN Global Compact Business Action Platform for the Ocean, and was ranked the third best bank in the world on ESG by Sustainalytics in 2018. The Materiality analysis was updated, and now “Responsible lending and investment” is regarded as very important to DNB instead of the previous phrasing. DNB also further improved their DNB Grønt Norden fund: “They now exclude companies with high levels of greenhouse gas emission”(p.4). This statement is coded as “Vague” because there is a lack of a benchmark/elaboration for what “high levels” mean. The statement regarding loans to renewable energy in the energy sector was not included in the 2018 report, but DNB did introduce a framework for “green loans” which was based on the Green Loan Principles. However, this was not elaborated on.
However, DNB did issue bonds of ca. NOK 16 billion to projects within renewable energy in 2018.
2019: Integrated Annual Report. The information provided in the 2018 report is similar to the 2017 report, this includes vague and excluded information, and the GHG emissions from their mutual funds, sections on responsible investment and purchasing (included since 2011), and materiality analysis (which remained the same). However, in 2019 DNB included their emissions indicators (scope 1-3).
The table did not contain any information from the previous years, nor any benchmarks, and was thus coded as “Indicating Facts”. There was no information about the indicators in the text. The SDG goals are the same as in 2018, but this year DNB has linked the relevant SDGs to their actions in the Sustainability Fact Book. This also includes all SDGs that are not their two main focus areas (nr. 5 and nr.8). In 2019 there was an increase of eight “Description” codes, and an increase of two “Vague Writing Style” codes - despite the increase in “Vague”
codes, this development indicates more neutral information in 2019. An example of a segment coded as “Description” follows: “Another loan went to REC Solar, where DNB and three other banks financed a green loan of USD 150 million related to solar panels that are 20 per cent more efficient than traditional panels.
The sustainable product framework will be updated in 2020 to include more
products, and will also be adapted to the EU's coming classification system for sustainable economic activities (taxonomy) as this is further developed.” (p.51).
There was a slight decrease of segments coded as “Praise” (3 compared to 5).
DNB retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, and their SGD goals, and CDP ranking remained the same as in 2018. No rating by Sustainalytics was included in 2019. In addition, DNB joined the Poseidon Principles, Climate Action 100+, and Getting to the Zero Coalition.
The information regarding the support (loans and bonds) to the renewable industry is included in 2019, but is divided into separate parts of the report. This information is coded as “Description” because the information is presented in a neutral way. An example of some of this information follows: “In 2019, the number of sustainable bonds issued set new records, both from a global and a Norwegian perspective. In total, NOK 36 billion in green bonds was issued from Norwegian banks, companies and institutions, up from NOK 29 billion in 2018.
DNB is the market leader in Norway with a 27 per cent market share. Including our international operations, we participated in sustainable bond transactions with a nominal value of NOK 40 billion in the course of the year, which is an increase of 75 per cent from 2018.” (p.58). The graph relating to their direct loans to renewable energy states that they issued 40.6 Billion in 2017, 48.3 Billion in 2018, and 46.2 billion in 2019. However, the information relating to these statements are not present in the 2018 report.
1.1.3 Nordea
2010: CSR report.Disclosure of emission and environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines, and the indicators related to emissions, such as waste,
electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption - and information regarding their environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines - is reported in a, mostly, neutral way. However, this is similar to the majority of the coded segments in the report, which is coded as “Description”. For instance, “The stakeholders made it clear in the dialogues that they expect us to run our operations in an
environmentally friendly way. 2009 we set targets to reduce our CO2 emissions by the year 2016. Our target is to reduce energy consumption by 15 %
(Mwh/FTE), internal travelling by 30 % (trips/FTE), customer paper con- sumption by 50 % (tons/customer) and internal paper consumption by 50 %
(tons/FTE).” (p.16). Other than that, in 2010 Nordea sat a new Responsible Investment Strategy, continued work on their emission goals from 2009 to 2016, bought Renewable Energy Certificates (RECS) for their electricity consumption (Nordic countries), detailed many supplier-visits, included a GRI index and their industry guidelines for lending to emission-intensive industries such as oil, shipping and gas. Note that guidelines are in place for industries that they are heavily invested in, but that Nordea do not elaborate to what degree they are invested in these (emission-intensive) industries. As such, the segment is coded as Indicating Facts. Nordea reports membership, inclusion and/or compliance with the following groups/frameworks/rankings: GRI (B+ level), UNGC, GHG Protocol, LEED Green Building Certification, Green Building Council, CDP, Equator Principles, Water Disclosure Project, Sustainable Value Creation, UNEP FI, and PRI.
There were also four segments coded as “Indicating Facts”, such as: “In December Helena Hagberg went on a field visit to Russia. The visit was triggered by research made on Russian companies combined with the fact that many
European companies operate in Russia. Russia is identified by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as a country with many challenges when it comes to corruption and bribery, human rights, environmental aspects etc. International as well as Russian companies are limited in their disclosure on how they manage and address these risks. During our visit we met with NGOs, companies and investors.
The challenge of doing business in Russia from an ESG perspective was not understated by any of the companies or organisations we met. A strong risk management system is fundamental.” (p.22). The segment is coded as “Indicating Facts” because despite Nordea mentioning being on a field visit, and that there are ESG-issues in Russia, there is no further elaboration of these statements.
Other codes that had some frequency were “Praise, Coercive Action type 2, Admission, Positive-, Emotional-, and Vague Writing Style”. An example of
“Admission” and “Praise” and follows: “As a cross-border company we are culprits when it comes to travelling.” (p.7), and “Nordea’s Responsible
Investment team influences companies thought to be in violation of international treaties through dialogue and field visits. This is often another clear win-win, where the company in question, society, the environment and the investors all benefit.” (p.12).
2011: CSR-report. The 2011 report is quite similar to the 2010 report, this is reflected in the similarities between the number of times the different codes have been used. This mostly relates to the number of “Description” codes (41
compared to 43) and number of “Vague” codes, which remained equal. An example of a vague (and positive) code is “Travel increased substantially in 2009 and 2010, so in spite of a dramatic drop in travel in the last three quarters, travel for 2011 overall is above 2008 level” (p.35). Other information provided is quite similar between the reports. The most significant change is a reduction from 5 to 1
“Indicating Facts” in 2011. The information is quite similar as well, with a few changes: Nordea removed the long elaborations of their supplier visits - although they still elaborate much on the process, and they launched a sustainable fund called “Emerging Stars” which used positive screening. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, and their CDP ranking was overall fourth, which makes Nordea the best bank in the nordic.
2012: CSR-report. The 2012 report is quite similar to the 2011 report, this is reflected in the similarities between the number of times the different codes have been used. This mostly relates to the number of “Description” codes (37
compared to 41) and number of other codes such as “Emotional- and Positive Writing Style, and Admission”. The fewer coded segment is due to a decrease in information provided regarding the environment, compared to other CSR-themes.
There is one segment coded as “Marginalization” and one as “Rationalization:
instrumental”. The example of “Marginalization” is: “We have therefore restated the consumption figures for Nordic energy and water for previous years in this report, however, the effect is insignificant.” (p.48). The main difference, in terms of codes, is an increase of three “Vague” codes. An example of a vague statement is: “It also establishes that the Group should in no way compromise generally accepted ethical and legal principles, nor should it have dealings with counterparts that we suspect to be of questionable morality.” (p.19). The segment is coded as
“Vague” because there is no explanation regarding what “generally accepted ethical principles” or “questionable morality” is. The rest of the information is quite similar as well, with a few change, such ass: Nordea stated that 31% of their investments are owned by responsible investors (positive statement). Nordea
retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, including their CDP ranking.
2013: CSR-report. The 2013 report is quite similar to the 2012 report. However, there is a decrease of “Description” codes (27 compared to 37). The number of other codes such as “Emotional- and Positive Writing Style, and Marginalization”
is similar to 2021. There is a decrease of “Vague” codes (2 compared to 7), and an increase of “Praise” (1). An example of “Positive” is: “While as a financial
institution, the direct environmental impact from our activities is relatively small, we still strive to minimise our negative impact by reducing our CO2 emissions”
(p.5). The fewer coded segment is due to a decrease in information provided regarding the environment, compared to other CSR-themes. The rest of the information is quite similar as well, with a few changes: Nordea conducted their first materiality analysis, collaborated with the CDP to make an environmental investment guide, and mentioned their involvement in oil, shipping, and gas - but not to what extent. Nordea also adopted a new system for more accurate
environmental data, started buying guarantees of origin for their electricity, and launched a new ESG-focused fund called Swedish Stars. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, including their CDP ranking.
2014: CSR-report. The 2014 report is quite similar to the 2013 report, this is reflected in the similarities between the number of times the different codes have been used. This mostly relates to the equal number of “Description” codes and the number of other codes such as “Emotional-, Positive-, and Vague Writing Style.
There is an increase of “Praise” (4 compared to 1) codes. An example of a praise code it: “As any business should, we strive to reduce the negative environmental impacts of our operation.” (p.20). The fewer coded segment is due to a decrease in information provided regarding the environment, compared to other CSR-themes.
For instance, there are many interviews with Nordea-employees included in the report this year. The rest of the information is quite similar as well, with a few changes: Nordea entered into the Green Bonds market and gave an overview of the biggest actors within the market, they moved the GRI index from the appendix to the Environmental section of the report, and joined the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. Note that Nordea do not issue their own green bonds,
but act as an intermediary for their customers. They issued ca. 3.5 billion though this service. Their environmental indicators, targets and status is all still reported in detail. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, while they did mention their CDP commitment, they did not write anything about their ranking this year. Nordea were included on FTSE4Good.
2015: Sustainability report. The 2015 report is different from the previous report in that there is more space dedicated to environmental aspects. For instance, Nordeas work with the environment and climate change is already presented in the first couple of pages in the 2015 report. The increase of sustainability-related information compared to other CSR-themes is visible through the number of coded segments in 2015 versus 2012-2014. There is a lot of new information regarding Nordeas emission and environmental measures, -practices, and
-guidelines, and the indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption. However, the amount of information regarding their environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines has increased most. The information is represented in a neutral way, as reflected in the number of segments coded as “Description” (51). There is also an increase of “Vague” (6 compared to 3), “Rationalization: Instrumental” (1 compared to 0), and “Positive” (6 compared to 4). An example of a vague statement is: “Our target for internal paper
consumption is within reach, however, with just one year to go we need to redouble our efforts to meet our air travel target.” (p.43). The segment is coded due to the vagueness related to what “within reach” is, and due to the vagueness of what a redoubling of their efforts is, seeing as no reduction-efforts are
elaborated on. Some other changes were also significant in 2015: Nordea became carbon neutral through buying carbon offsets, decided to not have client
relationships with companies that had 75% of their revenue from coal, and was the intermediary for green bonds totalling nok 183 billion. Their environmental indicators, targets and status are all still reported in detail. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, and included their CDP rank again. Nordea also joined CDP Water and adopted the SDGs in 2015. Nordea is focusing on the following goals: Quality Education (nr.4), Gender Equality (nr.5),
Decent Work and Economic Growth (nr.8), Industry Innovation and Infrastructure (nr.9), and Climate Action (nr.13).
2016: Sustainability Report. The 2016 report is quite similar to the 2015 report, however, there is more emphasis on other CSR-themes, compared to climate change and environmental aspects, than it was in 2015. This is most visible through the reduction of coded segments. The majority of the codes are
“Description”. There are a few noteworthy changes in codes in the 2016 report.
There is an increase of “Positive-, and Emotional Writing style” - 10 compared to 4, and 3 compared to 0, respectively. There is also one “Subjective Writing Style”
code. An example of a positive segment is: “The development of our new proactive sustainability framework was a top priority in 2016, during which we continuously reviewed all our policies. This work is still in progress, but I am pleased that we now have a new, more comprehensive Code of Conduct in place.”
(p.32). This is coded as positive due to the use of language such as “top priority”
and “comprehensive code of conduct” which is used to emphasise favorable aspects of their operations. An emotional (and positive) statement from 2016 is as follows: “In 2016 we decided to raise the bar even further and after a challenging and rewarding process we are proud to display one of our most extensive
materiality analyses in our sustainability journey.”(p.14).
The “Vague” codes in the 2016 are mostly related to the new reporting standard for their environmental indicators - which are uncomparable to that of 2015. The same indicators, status of previous goals (i.e. those from 2009-2016) are all reported on, but in much less detail than before. Some vague statements connected to this are: “The Sustainability Report 2016 includes data from all countries, with some exceptions depending on accessibility to reliable data, due to insufficient systems” (p.2), and “For comparison, please see the Sustainability Report 2015. Please note that the 2016 scope includes all countries of operation.
Because of this, the figures are not comparable.” (p.11). Nordea reported that they reached 2 out of 4 on the targets from 2009 (did not reach air travel nor internal paper use), and presented new goals for 2017. They presented a new materiality analysis where sustainability themes featured in the most important and second most important category. Other changes were: no mention of industry guidelines for oil, gas, shipping etc, 53% of suppliers screen for ESG, and Nordea was the intermediary for green bonds totalling 15.38 million. Nordea retained their
memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, they did exclude their CDP rank again. Nordea changed some of their prioritized SDGs, and now focus on: Climate Action (nr.13), Quality Education (nr.4), No Poverty (nr.1), Reduce Inequalities (nr.10), and Partnership For the Goals (nr.17).
2017: Sustainability Report. The 2017 report is quite similar to the 2016 report, however, there is more emphasis on other CSR-themes, compared to climate change and environmental aspects, than it was in 2016. This is most visible through the reduction of coded segments. The majority of the codes are
“Description”, this year there is a decrease of “Positive Writing Style” (2 compared to 10), and an increase of “Vague Writing Style” (10 compared to 5) and “Indicating Facts” (2 compared to 0). An example of a “Vague” code relates to Nordeas investments: “Being the company we are – a financial institution – there are of course areas to which we can contribute more than others. One is taking climate action by sustainable financing, investment and advice. We have already taken the lead in responsible investment, even though the numbers are still small in relation to the total. Now, we need to take action on lending and
advice.”(p.5). They do not mention how much of their investments are dedicated to sustainable financing as compared to less-sustainable or unsustainable. Nordea is also vague (especially compared to 2015) about their client relationship with companies involved with coal - and no threshold percentage is mentioned. Rather, they focus on industries which are affected by this, which is energy production and mining companies. Other than there are a few changes in 2017: Nordea established a new sustainability strategy, launched two new ESG-funds (Swedish Bond Stars & European Stars), Nordea issued their first green bond of nok 5 billion, and was the intermediary for ca. nok 28 billion. Their emissions only include the nordic countries this year, and not the entirety of their company due to data collection issues - this is a similar statement as in the 2016 report. However, this year they included previous years in the emission indicators table. Nordea reached 6 out of their 9 goals for 2017, and transferred the un-achieved to 2018.
The goals are much less specific than before 2016 because they are small, vague, and have no meaningful target (either qualitative or quantitative). However, Nordea did include a more comprehensive sustainability notebook in the appendix.
Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, while they did mention their CDP commitment, they did not write anything about their ranking this year. However, they did join RSRS and TCFD (not well integrated). Nordea changed some of their prioritized SDGs, and now focus on: Climate Action (nr.13), Good Health and Well-being (nr.3), Decent Work and Economic Growth (nr.8), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (nr.16). Further, they stated that they focus on all goals, but that these are the ones they especially highlight.
2018: Sustainability Report. The 2018 report is quite similar to the 2017 report in terms of content, however, there is more emphasis on other CSR-themes,
compared to climate change and environmental aspects, than it was in 2017. There is also a new reporting style, where the SDGs are much more integrated
throughout the report. The change in the amount of relevant information is most visible through the reduction of coded segments. The majority of the codes are
“Description”, but this year there is a decrease of “Vague Writing Style” (5 compared to 10), and an increase of “Indicating Facts” (4 compared to 2). An example of “Indicating Facts” is: Nordea is not a large water user, Never- theless we measure our water consumption to make sure we do not overuse it. In 2018, our total water withdrawal was 157,035 cubic metres.”(p.14). There is no
benchmark or reference point to the amount of water - which makes it difficult to interpret. There were a number of changes in Nordea in 2018: they implemented green loans for mortgage and corporate, launched new goals for 2021 (some quantitative), conducted a new materiality analysis were climate change was given an even higher importance, included the percentage of their assets under
management (AuM) that relates to the environment (2.5% of total AuM portfolio, which equals nok 58,44 billion), reached 5 out of 6 short-term goals for 2018 and sat new goals for 2019. Nordea changes their method for reporting environmental indicators and calculating emissions this year. Nordea did not include numbers for any previous year nor from other branches than the Nordics. This has happened since 2016. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, while they did mention their CDP commitment, they did not write anything about their ranking this year. Focused SDGs from last year retained.
2019: Sustainability report. The 2019 report is very similar to the 2018 report, however, there is more emphasis on other CSR-themes, compared to climate change and environmental aspects, than it was in 2018. The change in the amount of relevant information is most visible through the reduction of coded segments.
The majority of the codes are “Description”, but this year there is a decrease of
“Indicating Facts” (2 compared to 4), and an increase of “Praise”” (5 compared to 2), and “Positive Writing Style” (6 compared to 2). Examples of “Praise” follows:
“Nordea, as the only Nordic bank, is 1 of 30 founding banks of the Principles for Responsible Banking (PRB) developed together with the United Nations
Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI). The Principles were officially launched and signed at the Climate Week in New York in September 2019. By creating them, Nordea and the other founding banks have accom-
plished the comprehensive framework needed by banks to collectively address the global sustainability challenges and work towards the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Devel- opment Goals (SDGs).” (p.5). Other than that, there were a few changes in 2019: Nordea stated that they have new
guidelines for emission-intensive industries - but not what these guidelines are, they issued 11 new sustainability funds, and increased their AuM in the
sustainable section by 87% (which is just above 5% of their portfolio seeing as it is a 87% increase from 2.5%), reflected on the impact of their investments, reported on progress of 2019 short-term goals and sat new ones for 2020, launched a CO2tracker for their digital bank customers, and issued their second green bond (but not how much it constituted). Nordea did issue a total of 27 billion in green bonds, but they do not state how much of the amount is issued by them versus as an intermediary. 2019 was the first year Nordea reported on their lending to different industries, with oil, gas, offshore, paper, forest and mining, and shipping accounting for 9% of their total corporate loans. Environmental indicators, goals and status all reported and now the numbers are compared to previous years which makes them easier to interpret. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, while they did mention their CDP commitment, they did not write anything about their ranking this year. Focused SDGs from last year retained.
2020: Sustainability Report. The 2020 report is very similar to the 2019 report.
However, there are 4 codes relating to Covid-19 this year. Other than that there are some small changes in a number of different codes. Most notably a decrease in
“Praise” (3 compared to 5), and “Positive” (5 compare to 6) an increase of
“Vague” (9 compared to 6). Examples of a Covid-19 code, “Acknowledgement:
Covid-19”: “Already in 2019 we reduced our total carbon footprint, despite an increase in scope to also include postal services, paper and water. Following this reduction, our total emissions of 15,898 tonnes CO2e in 2020 marked a 62%
reduction from 2019 even though waste was added to the scope in 2020. The reduction in carbon emissions was mainly due to Nordea’s travel policy in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”(p.17). An example of a “Vague” statement is “Besides dealing with the effects of the pandemic, in 2020 we continued to focus our sustainability efforts where we believed they could have the greatest impact.”(p.20). Other changes in 2020 were: Nordea sat the objective to become net-zero by 2025, issued NOK 367.4 billion in sustainable AuM (but not how many percent this constitutes), conducted a new materiality analysis (climate action retained strong focus), updated guidelines so that they do not get involved with companies that use unconventional oil and gas extraction, sat new goal of reducing the footprint of their shipping portfolio by 25% compared to the global fleet by 2015, sat goal of reducing the emissions from their lending portfolio by 40-50% compared to 2019 levels. Nordea continued to report on their lending to carbon-intensive industries, but this year they were not easy to see as they are not named on the graph - the exception is “shipping”. Nordea also stated that they committed to RSRS (they joined in 2017). The environmental indicators, goals and status were all reported and the numbers are compared to previous years. The Nordic branch is the only one included, which is similar to previous year. Nordea retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous years, however, while they did mention their CDP commitment, they did not write anything about their ranking this year. Focused SDGs from last year retained.
1.1.4 Storebrand
2010: Annual Report. Disclosure of environmental measures, -practices, and -guidelines is reported in a, mostly, neutral way. However, this is similar to the majority of the coded segments in the report, which is coded as “Description”. An
example of a segment coded as description is “Together with PwC, Alcoa and Syngenta, Storebrand has led a World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) project to describe how the world can be sustainable by 2050, and what the role of business is. It is both possible and profitable for businesses to make changes that help to ensure we do not consume more natural resources than we have.” (p.8). Other frequent codes are Indicating Facts (3), Praise (3), Positive Writing Style (3), and Vague Writing Style (7). Examples of Praise and Vague Writing Style follows: “The company car scheme was also wound up and the Group acquired five electric cars that employees at the head office can use for external meetings. These measures benefit society.” (p.36), and
“We are proud to have been named the world’s most sustainable financial company” (p.7). The first statement is coded as praise due to the phrasing of the company car scheme as being beneficial for society. The second statement is coded as vague because they do not provide any information regarding the rating.
Other information presented by Storebrand in 2010: Storebrand launched their first environmental fund 15 years ago, mentioned that they are involved in the oil sector, purchase climate quotas to become carbon neutral, and reports according to the TBL. Storebrand elaborates on how they screen and find sustainable
companies to invest in, and how they invest more in sustainable leaders, and less in the poorest performers. Disclosure of the indicators related to emissions, such as waste, electricity-use, air travel, and paper-consumption, and goals and status related to this is reported in the appendix. The information is very vague and difficult to interpret. For instance, the target for 2011 is lower than the number achieved in 2010, and the results are reported as percentage increase/decrease - but the numbers do not match. Storebrand reports membership, inclusion and/or compliance with the following groups/frameworks/rankings: GRI, Eco-lighthouse, UNGC, Swan Ecolabel, DJSI, UNEP FI, WCSD, CDP, Forest Footprint
Disclosure Project and PRI. Storebrand was in the DJSI top 10%.
2011: Annual Report. The 2011 report is very similar to the 2010 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2010. This is evident through the similar amount of coded segments, specifically relating to “Description”, “Praise”,
“Positive Writing Style” and “Vague Writing Style”. New to 2011 is that Storebrand implemented sustainability parameters in all the groups investment decisions, was named most sustainable asset manager by the World Bank,
Included in the DJSI top 10%, Qualified for the Leadership Index in CDP, and 9th most sustainable company by the World Economic Forum. The indicators related to emissions are still presented in a vague manner, but this year their work with these indicators are not reported on in the text. Storebrand are Carbon Neutral.
They retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. In addition to joining the FTSE4Good indice.
2012: Annual Report. The 2012 report is very similar to the 2011 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2011. This is particularly evident through the similar amount of coded segments “Description”, “Praise”, “Vague Writing Style”. There is a decrease of “Indicating Facts” (0 compared to 1) and
“Positive Writing Style” (2 compared to 4). New to 2012 is that Storebrand launched a new sustainability fund (Trippel Smart), helped develop the Principles for Sustainable Insurance (PSI), integrated guidelines for sustainable investments and for suppliers, was included in the ROBECOSAM Sustainability leaders List, and included in the DJSI top 10%. The indicators related to emissions are still presented in a vague manner, and this year their work with these indicators are not reported on in the text. The targets for 2013-14 are to keep emissions for the indicators at a “stable level”. Storebrand are Carbon Neutral. They retained their memberships, inclusion and compliance with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year.
2013: Annual Report. The 2013 report is very similar to the 2012 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2012. This is particularly evident through the similar amount of coded segments “Description”, “Praise”, “Vague Writing Style”. There is an increase of“Positive Writing Style” (4 compared to 2).
New to 2013 is that Storebrand details how many oil, palm oil, and coal
companies that have been excluded - and why (but not how involved they are in that industry), and invested nok 750 million in climate bonds. The indicators related to emissions are still presented in a vague manner, but it has improved this year. However, their work with these indicators are not reported on in the text.
Storebrand is carbon neutral. The targets for 2013 were to remain stable, but Storebrand states that they want to constantly lower the environmental impact of their operations. This is rather contradictory. They retained their memberships,
inclusion and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. New to sustainalytics in 2013. Storebrand was included on the DJSI top 10%.
2014: Annual Report. The 2014 report is very similar to the 2013 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2013. This is particularly evident through the similar amount of coded segments “Description”, “Praise”, “Positive Writing Style”. There is an increase of “Vague Writing Style” (5 compared to 3).
An example of a vague statement is: “At present the Group has excluded (number) companies from investment, and these com- panies have been disqualified as suppliers to us for several years” (p.12). In 2014, Storebrand invested 4.5 billion in green bonds, and introduced sustainability-labelling of funds. Still a lot of space dedicated to their investment in sustainable leaders, however, no examples of any companies have been reported before. BMW is listed as one of the companies Storebrand invests in. As such, Storebrand invests in the leaders within an industry and not just ‘green’ companies. In 2014
Storebrand had a statement coded as “Defense” for the first time: “As a long-term investor, Store- brand is prepared to assume its share of the responsibility and contribute to financing the solutions. The challenge lies in the fact that the use of fossil fuel is a very integral and important part of society’s economic model. In order not to take too high a risk with our customers’ pension assets, it is necessary that changes in the investment profile take place gradually. Investments in
innovative solutions and influencing companies and the authorities in a more climate-friendly direction are just as important as the exclusion of companies that make a negative contribution to climate change.”(p.14). Storebrand conducted their first materiality analysis in 2014, with the following as materialities: “...
industry distrust, climate change, corruption and financial crime, as well as overexploitation of natural resources…” (p.38), but there is not much more information on this. There are no meaningful goals for the environmental indicators for 2015, and the progress/status for 2014 is not better than in 2013.
Their work with the emission indicators are not reported on in the text, despite many being higher than their goal. Storebrand is carbon neutral. They retained their memberships, inclusion, compliance, and ranks with the same
groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year.
2015: Annual Report.The 2015 report is very similar to the 2014 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2014. This is particularly evident through the similar amount of coded segments “Description”. This year, there is a (1) decrease of “Indicating Facts”, Coercive Action Type 2”, and “Subjective Writing Style”, and a (2) decrease of “Positive Writing Style”. There is an increase of “Vague Writing Style” (6 compared to 5). The most notable
differences are the changes in “Praise” (5 compared to 2) and “Emotional Writing Style” (2 compared to 0). An example of a segment coded as “Praise” and
“Emotional Writing Style” is: “Storebrand will influence and cooperate with the finance sector, which is one of the most important individual factors associated with adaptation. Climate change is the greatest po- litical and economic challenge in history, and we have very little time. Little time to develop solutions,
implement them and reverse an emission trend that has existed for 200 years.
Storebrand will thus be in the forefront of this work. We will inspire others, safeguard our customers’ pensions and play an active role in safeguarding our common future.” (p.12). Other than that, the information is rather similar as during the previous years. However, there are some changes in 2015: Excluded 40 coal companies, and sold 23 coal producing companies. Both decisions were elaborated on and launched the SPP Green Bond Fund.Storebrand stated that they invest 571 billion in sustainable companies (their entire portfolio), but note that a
‘sustainable’ company may well be an oil company that has stringent
sustainability practices, targets, and progress towards more sustainable operations and is therefore not the same as investments in renewable energy or green
technology. A sustainable company is one that is screened using Storebrand’s standards (based on international principles). This phrasing can be a bit confusing.
Emission indicators are difficult to interpret this year, possible due to a
misspelling. However, despite this, targets are more meaningful this year i.e. the targets are an actual decrease of the 2015 level. The exception is emissions pr.
FTE, for which the target is higher than 2015 level. In addition, their work with the emission indicators remains excluded from the report. Storebrand is carbon neutral. The materialities from 2014, were again confirmed in the 2015
stakeholder dialogues. They retained their memberships, inclusion, compliance, and ranks with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. Joined Corporate Knights ranking, and placed 20th.
2016: Annual Report. The 2016 report is very similar to the 2015 report. As such, there was much of the same information as in 2015. This is particularly evident through the similar amount of coded segments “Description”. The most notable differences this year are the changes in “Praise” (9 compared to 5), and “Positive Writing Style'' (3 compared to 1). An example of a segment coded as “Praise” is:
“Storebrand has a positive impact on society through our core business. As Norway’s largest private asset manager, we create a more sustainable world through our investment strategy. We weed out the least sustainable companies, increase investments in more sustainable companies and exercise active ownership.” (p.14). The Increase of “Praise” could indicate that Storebrand is presenting itself in a more positive light in 2016. Other than that, the 2016 report is rather similar to the 2015 report. However, there are some differences. Despite having more information, there are some aspects that used to be reported, which are no longer included. For instance, there is no information regarding green bonds, or exclusion criteria for coal. Some additions in 2016 are: Storebrand launched a sustainable mortgage, established ambitious goals for ESG and integrated sustainability into their business strategy, and launched 6 fossil free funds (total nok 800 million). Storebrand also reported that they had a 5.4 CO2e/1MNOK on invested capital better than the relevant index (first time reported). This is coded as vague, because there is a lack of information that would make this a clear, understandable, and comparable statement. The
materialities from 2015, were again confirmed in the 2016 stakeholder dialogue.
The emission indicators and their respective goals are unspecific again this year, and there are no meaningful targets, i.e. targets are removed and only status for 2015 and 2016 is reported. Their work with the emission indicators are not reported on in the text, despite many being higher than their goal. Storebrand is carbon neutral. They retained their memberships, inclusion, and compliance with the same groups/frameworks/rankings as the previous year. Their ranking are presented in an accessible and more understandable manner this year. Ranked 8 of 152 by Sustainalytics, 81 of 100 DJSI, scored B according to CDP, scored A according to PRI, and ranked 2 of 100 by Global 100.
2017: Annual Report. The 2017 report is quite similar to the 2016 report, but there are some significant changes. For instance, the environment is given more space in this report. This year Storebrand reports that they report based on the
