Responsible Investing in Private Equity2013 ESG ENGAGEMENT REPORT
RobecoSAMGovernance & Active Ownership
06/2014
www.robeco.com
www.robecosam.com
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 1
Table of contents
Executive summary 2
1. Introduction 3
2. Eight years of fund engagement in perspective 4
3. ESG performance in 2013 6
3.1 Overall ESG results 6
3.2 Newly added funds 7
3.3 ESG sub-scores 7
3.4 ESG leaders, laggards and followers 7
3.5 ESG performance across different fund programs 9
4. Factors influencing ESG performance 10
4.1 Fund size 10
4.2 Fund vintage year 10
4.3 Investment region 11
4.4 PE investment strategy 12
4.5 UN PRI subscription 12
5. Examples of good ESG practices 14
5.1 Good ESG practices by clean tech funds 14
5.1.1 Angeleno Group 14
5.1.2 Munich Venture Partners 15
5.1.3 Pegasus Capital Advisors 16
5.2 Other examples of good ESG practices 16
6. Concluding remarks 18
APPENDIX 19
ESG Scores and sub-scores, 2010 - 2013 19
2 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
Executive summary
This 2013 edition of the Responsible Entrepreneurship Report marks eight years
of RobecoSAM Private Equity’s engagement with private equity (PE) funds on
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) integration. Thanks to a substantial
increase in investments and new programs since 2006, this has been our largest
annual ESG assessment to date.
The intention of this report is to inform our investors of this
year’s results, and to stimulate further integration of ESG
analysis in the investment process of the participating PE
funds. Results are based on a participating fund’s responses
to the annual RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible
Entrepreneurship Questionnaire, and these responses are
summarized here across different programs. We shed light
on general ESG trends and market developments, and
highlight three distinct case studies, which makes this report
particularly relevant reading for the less performing funds.
The most important results of the 2013 assessment can be
summarized as follows:
• The average ESG score increased to 64.7% in 2013:
all sub-scores for strategy & policy, as well as
environmental, social and governance performance
have improved.
• One third of the assessed PE funds can be categorized as
ESG leaders in 2013.
• On average, the more mature PE fund programs
demonstrate better ESG performance than recently
introduced programs and funds of older vintage have
higher ESG scores.
• Large buyout funds show the best ESG performance
among the four fund segments.
• The highest scores are not exclusively attained by the
largest funds. Small funds can also become top ESG
performers.
• European funds attained the highest total ESG score and
sub-scores in 2013.
• United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment
(UN PRI) signatories perform better than non-signatories.
By assessing the funds across different programs, and
analyzing the relationship between ESG performance and the
different characteristics of PE funds, examples of interesting
and distinguishing ESG practices come to light. Generally, PE
funds in our assessment universe show many exemplary ESG
practices: of particular note in this report are the case studies
of clean tech funds, which demonstrate that it is also possible
to implement a successful ESG strategy when investing in
smaller, less mature companies.
Despite the in-depth insights we can already glean from a
study of this nature, we are constantly evaluating different
options in order to make our approach more efficient,
fund-friendly and valuable to the PE funds we engage with.
As the diversity of ESG issues continues to expand, this kind
of knowledge sharing will prove ever more vital, especially
given that the proportion of assets managed with reference
to ESG considerations worldwide is expected to grow.
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 3
In general, it is expected that the proportion of assets
managed with reference to ESG considerations worldwide
will continue to rise as more and more investors realize the
importance of ESG management for long-term performance,
and as the diversity of ESG issues continues to expand2.
Furthermore, investors are realizing that there is opportunity
for value protection and value creation through ESG
management for the private equity industry3.
These trends are reflected in the number of PE fund programs
with an ESG engagement overlay that RobecoSAM Private
Equity is managing. From one fund in 2004 to ten funds
in 2014, RobecoSAM Private Equity now manages the
following fund programs4: Robeco Sustainable Private Equity
(RSPE), Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), The
Environment Agency Active Fund (EAA 17), RobecoSAM
Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT), RobecoSAM Funds of Funds
lll (RSFoF III), RobecoSAM Secondary Fund lll (RSSec) and
MarbleHouse.
Every PE fund is evaluated and benchmarked on an annual
basis, and their performance is reported to RobecoSAM
Private Equity’s investors, as well as the participating funds
themselves.
This report summarizes the results across different programs,
and is created with the intention of stimulating further
integration of ESG analysis in the investment approach of
the participating PE funds. The report also serves to inform
RobecoSAM Private Equity’s investors about the results of its
own ESG efforts, which are carried out in cooperation with
Rabobank Sustainability. By summarizing the results across
different programs, and analyzing the relationship between
ESG performance and the different characteristics of PE funds,
examples of interesting and distinguishing ESG practices
come to light.
The report is structured as follows. In section 2 we look back
over the last eight years and comment on the developments
and ESG trends we have observed. Section 3 focuses on the
overall ESG performance of the assessed PE funds in 2013,
and provides the most relevant statistics. In section 4, we
investigate the relationship between the ESG performance
and selected characteristics of the funds. Section 5 reviews
different examples of successful ESG best practices, and
highlights three cases studies. Finally, section 6 concludes
with some thoughts on our future ESG plans.
1. Introduction
This eighth annual Responsible Entrepreneurship Report summarizes the results
of our largest annual Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) assessment to
date, and includes 66 responses1. The report also brings a discussion of the most
important trends that influence the ESG performance of these funds during the
course of 2013.
1 There were 66 questionnaires filled out in 2013. If a fund manager applies the same ESG approach to multiple PE funds, they submit just one questionnaire.
2 GSIA (2012), Global Sustainable Investment Review 2012.3 PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Putting a Price on Value, 2013.
4 In total, there are ten funds in seven fund programs with an ESG overlay. In this report we treat Robeco Sustainable Private Equity, The Environment Agency Active Fund and Robeco SAM Horeca Clean Tech each as one fund program. Formally, each consist of two funds from two distinct vintage years.
4 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
Over the years, RobecoSAM Private Equity’s responsible
investment strategy has been extended through additional
investments and new programs. Currently, there are seven
such programs in place. Whereas in 2006 the combined net
asset value of the 137 portfolio companies was only USD 123
million, this has increased to USD 596 million at the end
of 2013. Spread over 675 companies this has dramatically
increased the potential impact of the Responsible
Entrepreneurship Program (see Figure 1). Indeed, in the
latest assessment cycle a number of funds have reported
that they are entering the harvest phase, which makes this
an opportune moment to look back and see what has been
accomplished over the past eight years.
2. Eight years of fund engagement in perspectiveIt has been eight years and eight annual assessment cycles since 2006, which
is when the Rabobank Sustainability team first began collecting information on
responsible investment from the investee funds in the Robeco Responsible Private
Equity (RSPE) program5. Back in 2006, RSPE was the only private equity program
with an ESG engagement overlay, and the investment universe was restricted to
13 funds, most of them in the investing phase.
2006 2013
137 committed companiesUSD 213 million ofcommitted capital
675 committed companiesUSD 596 million of committed capital
Figure 1: Engagement reach of RobecoSAM Private Equity in 2006 and in 2013
Source: RobecoSAM Private Equity
5 The RSPE program itself was launched in 2004.
Initially, the Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaire
looked very different. The 2006 version consisted of ten
open questions on general fund characteristics (such as size),
monitoring and reporting, as well as questions about the
fund’s representation in the portfolio companies, and the
sustainability performance of the portfolio companies.
It was only in 2007 that the first quantitative ESG scores were
assigned to the participating funds, based on their responses
to the questionnaire. It took another two years before the
assessment methodology took its current form.
If we look back at the responses to the qualitative
questionnaire in the early assessment years, we can see how
PE funds have changed in their attitude towards responsible
investment and towards the incorporation of ESG factors in
their investment process. When funds were asked about how
responsible entrepreneurship was integrated into their overall
investment processes in 2006, almost all of them described
how they wanted to implement good corporate governance
in their portfolio companies. When asked about their
responsible entrepreneurship targets, almost all funds again
reverted to providing more transparency and implementing
the corporate governance codes and procedures. Only one
fund mentioned that it was monitoring some environmental
metrics, and one fund claimed to be looking into some small
environmental improvements.
By the end of 2013, the picture is very different: at least 33
PE funds in the ESG programs indicated that they monitor
some ESG metrics in their portfolio companies. These metrics
include social and governance key performance indicators
(KPIs) as well as environmental KPIs. Some funds have even
developed very sophisticated online platforms that help their
portfolio companies scan for ESG risks they might be exposed
to, given the sector and the region they invest in. Funds have
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 5
also improved on transparency regarding their ESG policies
and their ESG performance over the years. We expect these
positive trends to continue in the future, especially since
new tools and handbooks, such as the recently published
Integrating ESG In Private Equity: A Guide For General Partners
by UN PRI, make relevant knowledge and best practices easily
accessible. We contribute to this knowledge sharing through
our annual report, and the recommendations we make to the
participating PE funds directly.
Back in 2006 RobecoSAM Private Equity was probably one
of the few investors in PE that collected information on ESG
efforts of its investee funds. Eight years later, an average
fund in RobecoSAM’s Responsible Entrepreneurship Program
typically fills out a few ESG questionnaires per year. This
development is a result of different reporting initiatives
that were launched in the last few years, including the new
reporting framework of the United Nations Principles for
Responsible Investment (UN PRI), the Global Reporting
Initiative and the PE ESG Disclosure Initiative. The public
reports made available by the UN PRI are an important
milestone and to ease the reporting burden of the PRI
signatories in our ESG fund programs, we have introduced the
option for them to submit their PRI report instead of filling
out our questionnaire in 2013.
In the past PE funds primarily focused on corporate governance in their portfolio companies
6 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
We begin by describing recent changes in the assessed
portfolio before looking at how the environmental, social
and governance sub-scores have evolved since 2012, and
discussing the changes in the distribution of funds across
different performance categories, i.e. leaders, followers
and laggards. The section concludes with a note on the
performance of PE funds across different programs with an
ESG overlay.
3.1 Overall ESG resultsThe average ESG score of the PE funds in RobecoSAM Private
Equity’s assessment universe has increased from 62.1% in
2012 to 64.7% in 2013. This is in line with the positive trend
of the recent years (see Table 1). The improved score is a
result of several factors, such as new entrants to the ESG
program and the exceptional efforts of some incumbents.
The latter includes some of the last year’s ESG leaders
who have recently introduced on-line ESG platforms for
monitoring and reporting on ESG risks and opportunities
in their portfolio, and on most material ESG metrics. In
addition, a number of funds have formalized their ESG
investment approach and their engagement with the
portfolio companies by preparing company-specific ESG
action plans, hiring a full-time dedicated ESG manager at the
fund level, and integrating ESG information in their quarterly
and annual portfolio reviews for investors.
Given that investors in PE increasingly embrace ESG
integration and support various international initiatives in
this space, one would expect the most recently added PE
funds to complete the ESG assessment with higher scores
3. ESG performance in 2013
In this section we discuss the overall ESG performance of the PE funds included
in the Responsible Entrepreneurship Program at the end of 2013, and highlight
the trends we observe. Funds are evaluated on their ESG policy and strategy
(representing 40% of the total ESG score) and on their environmental, social and
governance performance (each representing 20% of the total score).
Source: Rabobank, Robeco Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013
Table 1: Total ESG scores of funds with ESG engagement overlay, 2010 - 2013
2013 2012 2011 2010
Average 64.7% 62.1% 60.5% 62.3%
Maximum 100.0% 98.9% 98.3% 91.0%
Minimum 13.7% 13.7% 16.1% 17.0%
The average ESG score increased to 64.7% in 2013.
than their peers did a few years ago. The minimum ESG score
does not support this premise, however, the maximum score
attained by a fund in 2013 did increase. For the first time in
our assessment history, we were able to award a perfect score
of 100%. In fact, a total of six PE funds are now ESG leaders
with 100% score.
3.2 Newly added fundsDuring 2013, five funds were added to the assessment
universe across five different fund programs. Two of the funds
were categorized as ESG followers, as they show at least
some integration of ESG into their investment process, both
on the strategy & policy side as well as with respect to their
ESG engagement with portfolio companies.
One of the new entrants has not made any investments
yet. This works as a disadvantage within our assessment
methodology as funds are being scored on their ESG strategy
& policy, as well as on environmental, social and governance
engagement efforts and good practices in their portfolio
companies. As a result, the funds with no investments
only get rewarded for their ESG strategy and policy, which
then results in a relatively low total score. Surprisingly, the
other four new entrants all have a small set of KPIs in place,
something we haven’t seen very often in the past. Overall,
33 out of the 66 funds we follow track ESG metrics at the
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 7
Table 2: ESG sub-scores of funds with ESG engagement overlay, 2010 - 2013
Strategy & Policy scores 2013 2012 2011 2010
Average 69.4% 67.8% 65.2% 65.8%
Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 95.7% 97.1%
Minimum 10.0% 10.0% 12.9% 20.7%
Environmental scores 2013 2012 2011 2010
Average 66.5% 63.0% 64.3% 65.5%
Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.7%
Minimum 3.3% 10.0% 10.0% 6.7%
Social scores 2013 2012 2011 2010
Average 59.2% 55.2% 52.4% 56.3%
Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.3%
Minimum 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%
Governance scores 2013 2012 2011 2010
Average 59.0% 57.0% 55.3% 57.9%
Maximum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.3%
Minimum 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 1.7%
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010 - 2013
portfolio company level. The fact that four of the new funds
perform below average relates to the fact that their ESG
strategy and policy is less advanced, thus they were less
able to demonstrate good ESG practices in their portfolio
companies compared to their peers.
We observe that the inclusion of new funds in the assessment
portfolio negatively affects the average overall ESG score.
Contrary to our expectations, we also see that the new
entrants do not (yet) perform significantly better than their
fellow funds did in the recent years. We will discuss this
phenomenon further in section 4.
3.3 ESG sub-scoresThe total ESG score is comprised of four sub-scores that reflect
the fund’s ESG strategy & policy, and its environmental,
social and governance performance. On average, PE funds
systematically perform the best on strategy & policy (see
Table 2). In addition, the difference between the highest
and the lowest scoring fund tends to be the smallest on
this sub-score. This is not surprising given that all funds
include some ESG aspects either in their mission statement,
corporate strategy, investment policy or process. At the same
time, a number of funds claim not to be able to demonstrate
any results of their environmental, social or governance
engagement with portfolio companies. They seem to have
particular difficulties with respect to social issues.
Over the last four years, average sub-scores have generally
improved. This is despite the fact that new funds were added
to the assessment portfolio each year and new entrants
contribute the zero scores on different sub-sections. It is
particularly surprising that some funds claim they cannot
provide any evidence on the corporate governance efforts of
their portfolio companies, and we believe that there may be
The average sub-score for strategy & policy, environmental, social and governance performance all improved in 2013.
8 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
some misinterpretation of our questionnaire in this section.
Typically, misunderstandings like this are resolved after the
first engagement round with the funds.
Another factor that contributes to the variability in sub-scores
is the requirement to provide examples of best ESG practices
in the portfolio companies each year. Sometimes funds
have a great one-off demonstration of good ESG practices
following the publication of extensive case studies or the
implementation of certain policies, but fail to demonstrate
such efforts on a continual basis.
3.4 ESG leaders, laggards and followersAccording to their total ESG score, we categorize the
assessed PE funds either as ESG leaders (total score > 80%),
ESG followers (total score between 50% and 80%) or ESG
laggards (total score < 50%). A description of their defining
characteristics can be found in Figure 2 below.
The number of laggards and followers in the assessment
universe of 2013 remained the same as in 2012 (see Table
3). However, the number of leaders increased by five, which
is a very positive development. Although the number of
followers and laggards stayed at the 2012 level, this does not
mean no transitions took place between these categories. In
other words, some of the 2012 laggards have moved to the
followers category, while new funds entered as laggards. It is
the laggards category that receives our increased attention
in terms of recommendations and ideas for the design and
implementation of ESG integration in the investment process.
If we look at the distribution of leaders across different fund
programs, we see a similar picture as presented by the overall
ESG performance of fund programs (see Figure 3 and Figure
4). The oldest programs (RSPE and EAA17) hold the largest
proportion of leaders in the portfolio. It does not come as a
surprise that the clean tech focused RSHTC-program contains
the lowest percentage of leaders. The result of the youngest
ESG LeadersESG Leaders recognize the value of ESG
integration in their investment process and
in the portfolio companies. These funds
are forward looking and often pioneer in
the measurement of ESG performance
and the monitoring of ESG metrics.
Leaders typically make use of external ESG
expertise and have a dedicated person or
committee for dealing with ESG issues.
While implementing the specific ESG policy
they continuously manage to show good
results on the performance of their portfolio
companies on environmental, social and
governance issues. Often, these results are
comprehensively disclosed to investors.
ESG FollowersESG followers generally have an ESG
strategy or policy in place at the fund level,
comparable to ESG leaders. The translation
of this policy into demonstrable results
at portfolio companies’ level is where
they lag behind on ESG leaders. Funds
categorized as ESG followers are often in
the implementation stage of their ESG
ambitions into the practices of portfolio
companies. Another type of ESG follower
is an ex-ESG leader that had difficulties in
showing ESG improvements in its portfolio
companies.
ESG LaggardsESG laggards are characterized by a weak
or absent ESG strategy or policy and low
environmental, social and governance
performance. ESG laggards often make
the claim that ESG is at the core of their
organization but they are not able to
show substantial improvements in their
portfolio companies. As stated earlier,
newly added funds typically tend to be
categorized as ESG laggards after the first
assessment. Often, this is due to the lack
of evidence the funds provide and the
misinterpretation of the questionnaire.
Funds in this category are reluctant to
implement our recommendations or they
have been acquired based on economic
merits as secondary fund stakes. These
fund managers are typically less strongly
committed to answering our questionnaire
than the primary investments since we could
could not ask upfront for their collaboration
on ESG. In some cases, funds are simply
not able to show any ESG results due to
that the fact that they have not made any
investments yet.
Figure 2: Characteristics of ESG leaders, followers and laggards
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity
One third of the assessed PE funds can be categorized as ESG leaders in 2013.
RobecoSAM Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 9
program – MarbleHouse – is not really representative as it
only reflects the score of one fund, which happens to be an
ESG laggard.
As programs mature, more and more funds become ESG
leaders. The ultimate objective of our ESG engagement
efforts is that all funds will be ESG leaders when the
programs are terminated. As the current results indicate, we
still have a way to go but we seem to be moving in the right
direction.
3.5 ESG performance across different fund programs PE funds with an ESG engagement overlay can be divided
into seven different fund programs that correspond to the
mandates of different investor groups. The ESG program
Table 3: Number of ESG leaders, laggards and followers across portfolios, 2010-2012
2013 2012 2011 2010
Laggards 20 20 20 13
Followers 24 24 16 12
Leaders 22 17 14 11
Total 66 61 50 36
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010 - 2013.
Figure 3: ESG performance categories across PE fund programs Figure 4: ESG performance of different PE fund programs in 2013
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Leaders Followers Laggards
RSPE2004
EAA 172005
RSFoFlll2010
RSSec2010
RRPE II2009
RSHCT2010
MarbleHouse2013
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
RSPE2004
EAA 172005
RSFoFlll2010
RSSec2010
RRPE II2009
RSHCT2010
MarbleHouse2013
Strategy & Policy Governance Social Environment
Abbreviations used in the graph: Robeco Sustainable Private Equity (RSPE & RSPE C.V.), Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), Robeco SAM Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT & RSHCT II), Robeco SAM Funds of Funds lll (RSFoF lll), Robeco SAM Secondary Fund lll (RSSec). The Environment Agency Active Fund (EAA 17 & EAA 17 II).
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013
began with the Robeco Sustainable Private Equity (RSPE &
RSPE C.V.), and a commitment by the Environment Agency
Active Fund (EAA 17 & EAA 17 II) in 2004. Over the years,
the ESG overlay was extended to five other fund programs,
namely Robeco Responsible Private Equity II (RRPE II), Robeco
SAM Horeca Clean Tech (RSHCT & RSHCT II), Robeco SAM
Funds of Funds lll (RSFoF lll), Robeco SAM Secondary Fund lll
(RSSec) and MarbleHouse. Figure 4 shows the average ESG
scores and sub-scores of different fund programs in 2013.
Figure 4 nicely illustrates the differences in average ESG
performance of different fund programs. These can largely
be explained by the age of the programs and/or the types
of funds they consist of. On the one side of the performance
spectrum are the RSPE and EAA 17 programs that constitute
the initial core of RobecoSAM Private Equity’s engagement
strategy. Amongst other factors, the eight engagement
rounds they’ve taken part in so far have probably had a
positive affect on their ESG performance. The MarbleHouse
program, on the other hand, was just introduced in 2013
and consisted of only one PE fund as of year-end. Next to it
is the RSHCT, the clean tech focused program, which consists
primarily of funds that invest in companies in the early
development stages. As a result, clean tech funds typically
show lower ESG scores than the mainstream, buyout funds.
This is also reflected in the performance of the secondary
program (RSSec), which consists only of clean tech funds.
The more mature PE fund programs have better ESG performance than the recently introduced ones.
10 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
Because the number of funds in our assessment universe is
relatively small, and the time series of ESG scores too short for
a meaningful econometric analysis, we simply use graphs and
descriptive statistics for the purpose of our analysis here.
4.1 Fund sizeSmaller PE funds in our assessment universe often quote
size as one of the obstacles to successful ESG integration.
Specifically, larger funds have potentially more human and
financial resources available to implement a comprehensive
ESG strategy, and to collect relevant ESG data and examples
of good practices in their portfolio. Figure 5 shows a scatter
plot of ESG scores depending on the fund size, measured as
assets under management in millions of USD. Fund size is
plotted on the horizontal axis, which has a logarithmic scale.
The plot illustrates how diverse our assessment universe is in
terms of fund size, ranging between 70 million USD and 15
billion USD.
There seems to be no clear relationship between the fund
size and the ESG score of the assessed PE funds. Figure 5
also suggests that the highest scores are not exclusively
reserved for the largest funds. Small funds can also be top
ESG performers. Crucially, even small funds can develop
a structured ESG approach that can be implemented in
portfolio companies still in their early development stage.
4.2 Fund vintage yearGiven the variety of ESG initiatives for private equity in the
recent years, and alongside eight years of our engagement
with the oldest funds in the ESG program, one would expect
the funds with the oldest vintage to perform better than the
most recent entrants to the program. To ‘test’ this hypothesis
we show the funds’ ESG scores for 2013 and their vintage
year in Figure 6. ESG scores are depicted on the y-axis while
the dots represent PE funds ordered by the year in which they
were added to one of the ESG fund programs.
4. Factors influencing ESG performanceIn this section we investigate the effect of a fund’s size, vintage year, investment
region, PE segment and PRI endorsement on the ESG performance of PE funds in
2013. This analysis can provide new insights for the fund managers that compare
their scores with their most relevant peers. The findings can also help us better
understand the differences in ESG scores of the participating PE funds so that we
can adjust our engagement efforts accordingly.
Figure 5: Fund size (horizontal, logarithmic axis in millions USD) and total ESG score (vertical axis) of PE funds in 2013
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
$10 $100 $1.000 $10.000 $100.000
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013
Figure 6: Vintage year and ESG scores (vertical axis) in 2013
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires, 2006-2013
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 11
Figure 7: Investment region and ESG scores of PE funds in 2013
TotalESG score
Strategy & Policy
Environment Social Governance
North America Global Europe Emerging Markets
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013
Figure 8: ESG performance and PE segment
Infrastructure Development Venture Capital Mid Market Buyouts Large Buyouts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
TotalESG score
Strategy & Policy
Environment Social Governance
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires, 2013
As the participating funds become familiar with our ESG
approach and get used to our questions after a couple
of engagement rounds, they are better able to provide
the relevant information and typically improve their ESG
scores. In this context, Figure 6 also potentially illustrates
the positive effect of our engagement efforts over the
years. Our contribution to the ESG efforts of the funds has
been acknowledged by several participating funds in their
communication with us, and with other investors. However,
it remains no more than potential contribution while it is the
funds and their portfolio companies themselves that have
been investing in ESG integration.
4.3 Investment regionBased on the ESG assessments conducted over the last eight
years, we can observe differences in ESG performance of
PE funds that invest in different geographical regions. This
is illustrated in Figure 7, where we divide the funds that
participated in the 2013 assessment into four categories:
emerging markets (with 9 funds), Europe (21 funds), North
America (25 funds), and global (11 funds). For simplicity,
emerging markets here refers to all regions outside Europe
and North America. The global category includes funds that
invest across different regions.
Figure 7 depicts the average ESG scores and sub scores per
investment region in 2013. Not surprisingly, European PE
funds show the best ESG performance on average, followed
by the global funds, emerging markets funds and North
American funds. European funds are characterized by high
ESG awareness, which is partly driven by critical consumers
and EU legislation. The governance sub-scores suggest that
the North American funds direct their ESG efforts primarily
at corporate governance issues in their portfolio. For dealing
with the environmental and social issues they rely heavily on
the relevant standards and legislation. Relatively good ESG
12 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
performance of the funds investing in emerging markets can
largely be attributed to the high sustainability standards and
requirements of the multilateral banks such as IFC, who are
co-invested in many of the emerging market funds in our ESG
program. These funds exhibit particularly good monitoring
and reporting of their environmental and social impacts.
4.4 PE segmentIn past assessments we have seen a pronounced difference
in the ESG performance of mainstream and clean tech funds.
With the exception of the three infrastructure funds, most
clean tech funds invest in companies that are at an early
development stage. Next to infrastructure development,
we distinguish three additional categories that closely
correspond to the investment segment of the assessed PE
funds, namely large buyout (7 funds), mid-market buyout (33
funds), and early and later stage venture capital (23 funds).
Infrastructure development funds, of which we only have
three in our universe, are seen as a separate category as the
characteristics of their investments do not align well with the
other main categories.
Of the four categories, large buyout funds show the best
ESG performance (see Figure 8). This is not surprising if we
consider the fact that they invest in large, more mature and
more complex organizations. These organizations might have
more exposure to ESG risks and opportunities and face more
pressure from consumers, which could be why large buyout
Figure 9: PRI endorsement5 and ESG performance in 2013
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2013
PRI signatory
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
PRI non-signatory
TotalESG score
Strategy & Policy
Environment Social Governance
funds engage their portfolio companies on ESG issues from
the moment they invest in them. Furthermore, large buyout
funds are also the largest funds in our universe in terms of
assets under management, so our remarks regarding the
fund size also apply here.
The social and governance performance of venture funds is
comparable to that of the infrastructure funds and also the
mid-market funds. Relatively high environmental score of
venture (clean tech) funds reflects their inherent focus on a
positive environmental impact. Given that they typically focus
on portfolio companies that generally have little means to
pursue an active ESG strategy, the social and governance sub
scores of venture funds are relatively low. Nevertheless, we
increasingly see venture funds finding their way in organizing
ESG management as shown in the next section of this report.
For the infrastructure funds, implementing ESG as an
ongoing concern is different from implementing ESG in a
one-off multi-year project, and it comes with different types
of strategies. It also puts a different weight on the necessary
due diligence that comes with infrastructure development.
Note that the last infrastructure fund was added to the ESG
program in 2013, while the other two funds are both ESG
leaders with nearly perfect scores on some of the sub-
sections.
4.5 UN PRI subscriptionThe difference in ESG scores between UN PRI signatories
and non-signatories appears to be much more pronounced
compared to other factors discussed in this section (see
Figure 9). Generally, the endorsement demonstrates a public
commitment to ESG integration, as well as active ownership
and reporting. However, PRI signatories aren’t required to
have an elaborate KPI metric system in place, nor are they
obliged to provide examples of good practice to PRI. The
PRI signatories in our assessment universe do, however,
score very well on each of the subsections of our assessment
methodology, indicating that they do track metrics and
are able to provide examples of good ESG practices on a
continuous basis.
Currently, 22 funds in our investment universe are managed
by PE managers that have endorsed PRI. This number has
grown steadily over time, which is in line with the global 5 Strategy & Policy scores are adjusted to correct for extra points assigned to the UN PRI signatories.
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 13
Figure 10: UN PRI PE signatories, 2006-2014
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: UN PRI
trend for the PE managers demonstrated in Figure 10.6
Overall, more than 1,260 of the world’s largest investment
organizations have signed up to the PRI since its introduction
in 2006. In response to the increased recognition of
PRI globally we now accept the PRI private RI reports
of the participating funds as an alternative to our ESG
questionnaire.
As Figure 9 shows, PRI signatories perform substantially
better than non-signatories on all aspects we evaluate. The
average ESG score of a signatory in 2013 was 80.6% while
the non-signatories scored below 56.5%. In other words, an
average PRI signatory in our universe is an ESG leader.
Since the introduction of the PRI’s new mandatory reporting
framework and the assessment feedback that is being piloted
this year, PRI membership has become much more than a
simple tick-the-box exercise. At the same time, the various
tools that PRI and others have developed since 2006 have
been helping PRI signatories in the implementation of their
ESG approach as well.
6 The most recent data point in Figure 10 includes 150 specialized PE managers. The rest are Limited Partner (LP) members.
UN PRI signatories perform better than the non-signatories
14 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
We present the ESG approach of three clean tech investors,
namely the Angeleno Group, Munich Venture Partners and
Pegasus Capital Advisors, and conclude this section with
a brief summary of the interesting and distinguishing
practices that we have come across during our latest
assessment. In our opinion, these examples can serve
as inspiration for PE funds that are still developing their
approach to ESG integration.
5.1 Good ESG practices by clean tech funds
5.1.1 Angeleno GroupAngeleno Group specializes in clean energy and natural
resources growth equity investing. It has been in our
assessment universe since 2011 and became one of the
ESG leaders soon after. When they participated in the first
assessment cycle, they impressed us with the way they
executed pre-investment research on ESG issues. Since then
they have built a comprehensive method for post-investment
engagement with their portfolio companies. They collect ESG
information via questionnaires and data requests and set
up annual action plans for improvement. It is their policy to
engage with portfolio companies that have reached certain
milestones on revenue, EBITDA and headcount growth. Their
engagement is voluntary in nature, given that Angeleno
Group generally takes minority stakes in their companies.
Below we provide a summary of Angeleno’s pre- and post-
investment questionnaire.
Pre-investment questionnaireAngeleno’s pre-investment questionnaire is a five page
document covering environmental, social and governance
issues. In the introductory part, the companies indicate
whether any stakeholder group (customers, employees,
investors, regulators, media, communities/advocacy groups)
have asked questions on social responsibility or sustainability.
The fund managers choose three topics on which the
company is asked to describe its strengths. The topics
include the mitigation of environmental impacts, employee
treatment and governance structure versus the company’s
objectives, thereby touching upon each of the pillars of ESG.
The first part concludes with an inquiry on the extent to
which data is available, and whether the company complies
with any relevant ESG certifications or standards.
The environmental, social and governance aspects are
equally represented and the company is being asked to
indicate three to five material risks and opportunities.
Furthermore, companies are asked to indicate whether
they have policies in place that are related to a list of
environmental, social and governance issues, and what their
potential risks on these issues are.
Post-investment questionnaire Each portfolio company receives Angeleno’s annual ESG
questionnaire which is longer than the pre-investment
questionnaire and is streamlined to build on the information
from the previous assessment and on the portfolio
company’s action plan. It consists of the following elements:
• Stakeholder engagement: Each portfolio company is
asked to give an update on the stakeholder engagement
efforts, challenges or emerging topics of interests, and
the engagement opportunities for the upcoming year.
• Best practices review: For each of the pillars of
ESG, companies are asked to provide an update
on best practices, and whether any new policies or
accomplishments have been introduced. This is also
the information that Angeleno Group uses in its
communication with the investors (e.g. in its response
to the annual Robeco Responsible Entrepreneurship
Questionnaire).
5. Examples of good ESG practicesIn every annual report we highlight a few PE funds with good or exemplary ESG
practices. As we have seen, clean tech (venture) funds systematically underperform
the mainstream funds in terms of their average ESG score, so we have decided to
put a spotlight on the best ESG practices of a couple of clean tech funds. These funds
demonstrate how ESG factors and responsible investing can be integrated, even
when investing in smaller and less mature companies.
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 15
• Management approach for material ESG topics: Each
portfolio company is asked to provide an update on its
long-term goals, the actions it has taken with respect to
these goals in the past year, and the objectives it has for
the coming year.
• Performance and targets: portfolio companies are asked
to provide information on their performance relative
to the targets which were established in the previous
engagement cycle and to determine a target for the
coming year.
The questionnaire also provides room for feedback by the
portfolio company on the engagement cycle regarding
environment, labor practices, human rights and society,
products and services responsibility and economic and
governance performance. For each of these topics Angeleno
Group makes an assessment of the extent to which the topic
is important for the stakeholders of the portfolio company.
Figure 11 illustrates the structure of Angeleno’s annual
engagement process as described above. The annual
engagement cycle enables Angeleno Group to report on
KPIs and best practices, and shows the progress participating
portfolio companies are making. Given their minority
positions in the companies, and that funds investing in
clean tech companies demonstrate more difficulties in ESG
integration, our analysis confirms that Angeleno Group is a
top-quartile fund with a unique and best-in-class approach
towards the incorporation of ESG factors in its investment
process.
5.1.2 Munich Venture Partners Munich Venture Partners (MVP) is a clean tech venture
capital investor, which was added to our assessment universe
in 2011. While MVP focuses on high tech startups, it has
nevertheless set ambitious ESG plans for the near future,
including the development of company specific KPIs on
environmental, social and governance issues. They also
intend to engage their portfolio companies on their relative
ESG performance and have created a questionnaire in
accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and
the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN). In
our view, this questionnaire is an excellent example of how a
clean tech venture fund can gather relevant information from
its portfolio companies that not only includes environmental
aspects, but also social and governance issues.
The setup of MVP’s ESG questionnaire is broad and portfolio
companies only answer questions that are applicable to
them, and which they are able to answer. The questionnaire
is a tool to collect as much information as possible, and to be
able to identify in which ESG areas crucial information might
be missing.
The environmental part of the questionnaire includes
questions on:
• (recycled) materials used as inputs in the manufacturing
process.
• energy usage and energy intensity ratio: Portfolio
companies report the ratio in a way that suits their
business best.
• water usage and the respective source.
Social performance covers employee turnover, human rights
and discrimination incidents, and whether the company
sells products that are banned in certain markets or subject
to public debate. On governance, the CEOs of the respective
portfolio companies are required to declare that they have
signed up to certain governance principles and are operating
in accordance with them. Additional questions cover the
occurrence of corruption, monetary fines, compliance and
Figure 11: Angeleno Group’s engagement process
Completion of annual ESG
questionnaire by portfolio
company [January]
Angeleno Group
provides support during
questionnaire completion
Angeleno Group and
portfolio company meet and
discuss the questionnnaire
response and ESG action plan
opportunities [February]
Angeleno Group will follow
up with a recommended
ESG action plan for coming
year and issue requests
for subsequent data and
documentation
Portfolio company completes
data and documentation
requests [March]
Angeleno Group provides
support during completion
Portfolio company and
Angeleno Group agree on
action plan and monitor
progress througout the year
Portfolio company escalates
any ESG issues that
present significant risks or
opportunities
16 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
financial assistance from the government.
The broad nature of the questionnaire makes it very suitable
for small companies as they can choose which questions to
answer and how to answer them, depending on their type
of business. The unanswered questions can potentially shed
light on the issues that need to be engaged with in due
course.
5.1.3 Pegasus Capital Advisors Pegasus Capital Advisors (PCA) is a private equity fund
manager that focuses on companies that benefit from the
business implications of global resource scarcity. PCA has
been part of the assessment universe since 2012 and has
shown steady improvement ever since. PCA has designed
an exemplary ESG approach that is built around its ESG
Leadership Plan and its implementation. We highlight it
here because it clearly spells out the fund’s intentions for the
future. The plan consists of the following seven elements:
1. Leading
PCA believes that a true commitment to ESG principles
requires an investment in dedicated in-house expertise,
not just external consultants, in order to firmly integrate
values and deliverables throughout the company, its
funds and portfolio companies. PCA has hosted several
Thought Leadership Summits including one on Zero
Waste and a second one on Healthy Body/Healthy
Planet.
2. Setting Standards & Values
With the help of internal expertise, PCA sets certain
standards and measurable goals with respect to ESG
principles (which may include in the future alignment
with standard-setting entities such as UNPRI).
3. Implementing
PCA’s staff and advisors understand and embrace the
ESG goals of their firm, their funds and their portfolio
companies.
4. Investing
PCA’s investment philosophy is based on the
fundamental principles of their ESG Leadership standards
and values.
5. Managing
Portfolio companies are encouraged to adopt and adapt
ESG standards and measurable goals.
6. Communicating
PCA and its portfolio companies communicate via the
Web, as well as in other forms of communication, on
their ESG values, goals and accomplishments to all
relevant stakeholders to help their industry set new
standards and to differentiate their portfolio companies
to maximize the benefits of their engagement.
7. Improving
Setting and implementing ESG principles requires
ongoing learning from successes and setbacks, so PCA
embraces adaptive management techniques to ensure
constant improvement.
For PCA, this leadership plan constitutes the starting point as
well as a roadmap for their future ESG endeavors. The plan
includes elements that are crucial for a well-functioning ESG
management system (ESG values, goals, accomplishment
communication, thought leadership summits). At the same
time it is also compact and straightforward.
5.2 Other examples of good ESG practices Given that one-third of the PE funds in our ESG engagement
program can be viewed as ESG leaders, our latest review was
able to highlight numerous examples of good and best ESG
practices. Within this, it is important to note that interesting
and distinguishing practices do not necessarily come from
ESG leaders alone. For example, a fund can have a relatively
low total ESG score but still require its investment officers to
complete training on ESG analysis. By combining the most
interesting practices, we’ve been able to design a composite
profile of an ESG leader fund. In Figure 12 we list the
examples of good ESG practices and plot them depending on
where in the investment process they most likely occur.
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 17
Due Diligence Pre-acquisition questionnaire
Extensive and detailed due diligence checklists
List of preferred ESG due diligence suppliers
Investment Decision & Agreement ESG acquisition report prepared
All portfolio companies required to endorse the Global Compact principles
Fund’s subscription to Carbon Disclosure Project
A 180 day post-completion action plan prepared for each portfolio company
Ownership Sustainability information integrated in the portfolio efficiency tracking reports
On-line proprietary KPI toolkit & ESG information platform in place
Guidance notes prepared for investment teams, covering key issues and sectors, with links to case studies,
international norms and standards and additional information on specific markets
The status of the Environmental & Social action plan included in the regular company report
ESG questionnaire sent to portfolio companies on an annual basis
Post-acqusition questionnaire for portfolio companies developed
Annual planning and ESG training workshop for portfolio companies organized by a fund
Workshops on business integrity organized
Annual forum organized for the CEOs of portfolio companies to discuss relevant ESG issues and share
experiences.
Standardized ESG policies for clean tech companies prepared by the fund
Supplier sustainability surveys conducted
Portfolio company scored on proprietary ESG maturity index along five categories and benchmarked against
the public companies
A fund cooperates with local governments and communities to achieve cumulative improvements and foster
positive relationships
A fund actively participates in industry engagement with peer groups, panel discussions and conferences to
strengthen and share ESG expertise
Regular ESG visits of investors to portfolio companies
Reporting ESG incidents integrated in the quarterly portfolio reports
Portfolio company publishes annual ESG report
A Fund level ESG Report
Reporting both in terms of financial and non-financial disclosure of information
Portfolio companies provide monthly ESG updates
A fund mesures indirect environmental benefits and footprint equivalents of its portfolio
A fund publishes a portfolio report including the status, the problem areas in specific companies, the actions to
be taken, objectives and the progress so far
Exit Pre-exit environmental screening of portfolio companies conducted
ESG issues included in pre-exit information
Figure 12: Examples of good ESG practices of PE funds in the ESG program
Figure 7: Investment region and ESG scores of PE funds in 2013
18 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
Over the years, we have added fund profiles,
recommendations and feedback calls, with the purpose
of contributing to the promotion of responsible investing
and ESG integration in private equity. We have actively
participated in different industry initiatives, such as the ESG
disclosure framework and the PRI’s Guide for general partners
on ESG integration in private equity.
We are on the ESG journey, together with the private equity
funds, LPs, industry associations and international initiatives
such as UN PRI with its reporting framework. They have all
contributed to the broader acceptance of ESG integration in
the investment industry in different ways.
6. Concluding remarks
This is the eighth annual ESG assessment and report prepared for RobecoSAM
Private Equity’s fund programs with an ESG engagement overlay. Over the years, we
have improved our questionnaire, the scoring methodology and reporting template.
We began with a short qualitative questionnaire that was sent to 13 funds, and have
just completed a round with 66 assessments.
As the industry moves forward we constantly reevaluate
our approach and the tools that we use as part of our
engagement process. We are currently considering different
options for improving the IT infrastructure of our process, the
standardization of the questionnaire, and the monitoring
of ESG incidents. We are carefully evaluating each option in
order to make our approach more efficient, fund-friendly and
valuable to the private equity funds we engage with.
It remains a challenging journey.
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 19
Appendix
ESG Scores and sub-scores. 2010 - 2013
2013 Total ESG score
E
S
G
S&P
Total
ESG score
2012
2011
2010
1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 96.15% 88.52%
2 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 81.57% 62.33%
3 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 98.29% 90.95%
4 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.86% 86.95% 77.95%
5 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.14% 93.14% 82.90%
6 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.05% 94.68% 89.15%
7 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.14% 98.86% 96.86% 90.00% 84.48%
8 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 96.00% 96.00% 92.00% 79.76%
9 93.33% 96.67% 86.67% 100.00% 95.33% 92.00% 93.43% 83.00%
10 100.00% 93.33% 86.67% 93.57% 93.43% 89.71% 87.05% 83.33%
11 90.00% 83.33% 93.33% 97.14% 92.19% 78.24% 76.90%
12 96.67% 83.33% 80.00% 98.57% 91.43% 91.43% 88.48% 86.67%
13 95.00% 95.00% 91.67% 83.57% 89.76% 87.86% 61.43%
14 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 72.86% 89.14% 88.43% 83.95% 74.14%
15 88.33% 96.67% 70.00% 94.29% 88.71% 88.05% 91.29% 90.52%
16 100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 75.00% 88.67% 62.86% 83.24% 82.57%
17 90.00% 86.67% 66.67% 100.00% 88.67% 74.10% 68.43% 65.00%
18 83.33% 90.00% 86.67% 87.86% 87.14% 81.48% 78.43% 75.95%
19 95.00% 91.67% 93.33% 75.00% 86.00% 81.67%
20 93.33% 93.33% 53.33% 85.71% 82.29% 52.33% 39.86%
21 93.33% 73.33% 70.00% 82.86% 80.48% 81.24% 51.68% 82.85%
22 55.00% 60.00% 90.00% 98.57% 80.43% 76.76% 47.86% 35.57%
23 90.00% 80.00% 60.00% 79.29% 77.71% 73.81% 70.86% 65.48%
24 96.67% 67.33% 55.00% 77.14% 74.66% 64.94% 55.10% 54.95%
25 95.00% 50.00% 60.00% 80.00% 73.00% 75.19% 36.33%
26 40.00% 68.33% 73.33% 84.29% 70.05% 67.57%
27 73.33% 76.67% 60.00% 69.29% 69.71% 62.43% 47.43% 44.38%
28 51.67% 50.00% 58.33% 83.57% 65.43% 28.62% 39.48%
29 71.67% 48.33% 48.33% 76.43% 64.24% 61.90% 44.95% 41.62%
30 55.00% 30.00% 35.00% 97.14% 62.86% 62.86% 72.57% 72.57%
31 66.67% 43.33% 43.33% 80.00% 62.67% 64.38%
32 58.33% 51.67% 51.67% 74.29% 62.05% 76.24% 78.43% 71.90%
33 64.00% 61.67% 47.33% 68.57% 62.03% 72.64% 67.69% 62.22%
34 56.67% 83.33% 85.00% 41.43% 61.57% 57.80% 33.52% 31.19%
35 65.00% 70.00% 85.00% 43.57% 61.43% 60.39% 55.05% 52.24%
Leaders Followers Laggards
20 • Responsible Investing in Private Equity
ESG Scores and sub-scores. 2010 - 2013
2013 Total ESG score
E
S
G
S&P
Total
ESG score
2012
2011
2010
36 21.67% 31.67% 86.67% 82.86% 61.14% 59.29% 58.71%
37 93.33% 53.33% 25.00% 63.57% 59.76% 52.71% 40.90%
38 63.33% 61.67% 66.67% 53.57% 59.76%
39 80.00% 33.33% 56.67% 55.71% 56.29%
40 28.33% 60.00% 46.67% 69.29% 54.71% 47.33% 36.05%
41 71.67% 37.33% 39.00% 61.43% 54.17% 52.56% 32.95%
42 33.33% 71.67% 63.33% 45.71% 51.95% 51.95% 29.43% 16.95%
43 30.00% 48.33% 43.33% 67.86% 51.48% 58.05% 45.00%
44 82.33% 65.67% 46.00% 30.71% 51.09% 43.16% 27.07% 38.76%
45 70.00% 18.33% 28.33% 69.29% 51.05% 28.95%
46 56.67% 28.33% 25.00% 70.00% 50.00% 47.14% 36.48% 26.76%
47 83.33% 50.00% 46.67% 32.86% 49.14% 25.81%
48 70.00% 30.00% 45.00% 48.57% 48.43% 40.80% 43.37% 41.04%
49 48.33% 58.33% 16.67% 56.43% 47.24% 40.95%
50 37.33% 40.67% 45.67% 55.71% 47.02% 42.75%
51 48.33% 28.33% 40.00% 57.86% 46.48% 46.48% 57.52%
52 50.00% 43.33% 36.67% 49.29% 45.71% 34.00% 30.57%
53 20.00% 46.67% 53.33% 47.86% 43.14% 42.19% 44.19% 39.81%
54 48.33% 56.67% 53.33% 28.57% 43.10%
55 50.00% 38.33% 40.67% 42.14% 42.66% 48.94% 52.18% 43.10%
56 53.33% 13.33% 11.67% 66.43% 42.24% 52.14%
57 43.33% 28.33% 55.00% 41.43% 41.90% 33.29%
58 25.00% 58.33% 33.33% 42.14% 40.19% 55.05% 51.24% 49.57%
59 43.33% 25.00% 45.00% 39.29% 38.38% 38.38% 47.43% 35.81%
60 8.33% 3.33% 6.67% 78.57% 35.10% 26.29%
61 13.33% 13.33% 3.33% 67.14% 32.86% 26.86%
62 50.00% 20.00% 6.67% 42.86% 32.48%
63 6.67% 6.67% 56.67% 40.00% 30.00%
64 65.00% 13.33% 0.00% 32.86% 28.81% 22.14%
65 3.33% 3.33% 26.67% 40.71% 22.95% 22.86% 37.14% 37.14%
66 33.33% 3.33% 11.67% 10.00% 13.67% 13.67% 16.14%
Leaders Followers Laggards
Source: Rabobank, RobecoSAM Private Equity Responsible Entrepreneurship Questionnaires 2010-2013
Responsible Investing in Private Equity • 21
AuthorsSilva Deželan, Arend Lakke and Melinda Wouters, Rabobank Sustainability Department
Input byJesse de Klerk, Roland Pfeuti and Gert Wrigge
This report is a joint initiative of RobecoSAM PE and Rabobank Sustainability Department.
RobecoSAM Private EquityRobecoSAM Private Equity has its origins at Robeco in 2000. Today, RobecoSAM Private Equity is based out of both RobecoSAM, the investment specialist
focused exclusively on Sustainability Investing, in Zurich and Robeco, in Rotterdam. RobecoSAM Private Equity offers core and satellite investment
capabilities with a focus on mainstream and resource efficiency to institutional investors. Mainstream strategies target high-quality investments in the
mid market segment with a focus on Europe. Resource efficiency strategies benefit from the research and investment expertise of RobecoSAM, a company
with almost 20 years of experience managing thematic strategies and a focus on identifying opportunities that stem from the growing demand for finite
resources. Through RobecoSAM Private Equity’s diverse offerings, institutional clients can gain exposure to primary private equity funds, secondary private
equity funds, and co-investments in selected private companies. Being one of the first in the industry to launch fund of funds applying an ESG engagement
policy with the launch of RSPE C.V. and Robeco Sustainable Private Equity Fund, L.P in 2004, RobecoSAM Private Equity is a leader in ESG integration and
continues to benefit from RobecoSAM’s long-standing expertise in analyzing and identifying solution driven companies. The first private equity programs
were established in 2001 with Robeco Global Private Equity C.V. and Robeco European Private Equity C.V. RobecoSAM Private Equity has since launched
multiple generations of funds and customized mandates across various strategies and vintage years.
RabobankRabobank is an international financial services provider operating on the basis of cooperative principles. It offers retail banking, wholesale banking, asset
management, leasing, and real estate services. Rabobank Group is comprised of 129 independent local banks plus Rabobank Nederland, their central
organization, and a number of subsidiaries. Overall, Rabobank Group has an employee base of 56,870 employees (in full time equivalents), who serve
about 10 million clients in 41 countries. As of December 31, 2013, total assets were valued at EUR 674.2 billion. Rabobank began as a farmer’s co-operative
bank in 1898, and green issues have been ingrained in the culture from the start. Sustainability remains one of Rabobank’s core values today and the bank
has won many accolades for its sustainability management and reporting. Rabobank aligns its sustainability ambitions with those of its customers, striving
for a healthy balance between wealth and well-being as it spearheads the themes of sustainable agriculture and food production, and vital communities.
“RobecoSAM” is a registered trade mark and trade name of Robeco Groep N.V. (The Netherlands) and hereinafter referred to as the
“RobecoSAM-Brand”. The RobecoSAM-Brand is allowedly being used by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (The Netherlands) as well
as by RobecoSAM AG (Switzerland). Both legal entities are responsible for their own activities or publications related to the RobecoSAM-Brand.
For the sake of clarity we would like to state that the team members of RobecoSAM AG’s “Governance & Active Ownership” department are
based in the Netherlands and employed directly by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.
This brochure has been carefully prepared by Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco). It is intended to provide the reader with
information on Robeco’s specific capabilities, but does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell certain securities or investment products.
The content of this document is based upon sources of information believed to be reliable, but no warranty or declaration, either explicit or
implicit, is given as to their accuracy or completeness. This document is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any
jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation. All copyrights, patents and other property
in the information contained in this document are held by Robeco. No rights whatsoever are licensed or assigned or shall otherwise pass to
persons accessing this information. The information contained in this publication is not intended for users from other countries, such as US
citizens and residents, where the offering of foreign financial services is not permitted, or where Robeco’s services are not available.
Important legal information: The details given on these pages do not constitute an offer. They are given for information purposes only. No
liability is assumed for the correctness and accuracy of the details given. Copyright © 2013 Robeco – all rights reserved. Robeco Institutional
Asset Management B.V. (trade register number: 24123167) has a license of the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) in
Amsterdam. Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (Robeco) · Coolsingel 120 · 3011 AG, Rotterdam · The Netherlands · www.robecosam.
com · [email protected]
DISCLAIMER
Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.Coolsingel 1203011 AG RotterdamThe Netherlands