articles Corporate /en/research-insights/articles/trumps-paris-exit-stokes-mainstream-appeal-of-low-carbon-investing content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform


Looking for more?

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *

* Required

In This List

Trump's Paris Exit Stokes Mainstream Appeal of Low-Carbon Investing

S&P Global Ratings

Next Debt Crisis: Will Liquidity Hold?

S&P Global Platts

Turning Tides: The Future of Fuel Oil After IMO 2020

S&P Global Ratings

Credit Trends: Demystifying China's Domestic Debt Market


These ESG Trends will Shape 2019, Sustainability Experts Say

Trump's Paris Exit Stokes Mainstream Appeal of Low-Carbon Investing

When President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement June 1, he asserted that relaxing federal constraints on U.S. carbon emissions will help break down, "draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country."

But will the president's decision fundamentally alter the asset allocation strategies of marquee investment managers, particularly related to GDP growth, corporate earnings and interest rates?

"The answer is no on all of the above," BNY Mellon Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer Leo Grohowski told S&P Global Market Intelligence of the withdrawal's impact on the outlook of his firm, which oversees approximately $1.6 trillion in assets under management. Instead, Trump's decision has the potential to boost investor interest in low-carbon financial products, adding mainstream appeal to climate and clean energy funds that run counter to the administration's agenda.

Most major asset managers applying environmental, social and governance, or ESG, criteria to their portfolios see the Paris withdrawal as having little impact on their investment outlook. The deluge of headlines following the president's decision could ramp up investor interest particularly in low-carbon exchange traded funds, or ETFs, as one avenue readily available to investors, big and small, seeking to express their opposition to Trump's climate decision.

About $8.72 trillion in U.S. investments under management are oriented broadly toward ESG, representing about one-fifth of all investments under professional management in 2016, according to a report by US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. By contrast, the U.S. real GDP was about $18.6 trillion in 2016, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

According to US SIF, climate change risk remains one of the most pressing factor asset owners and managers consider when managing ESG-oriented portfolios, and that focus is likely to increase in the months following the president's withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

Business as usual

The drivers behind GDP growth appear to be premised less on the recent spate of climate deregulation and instead on sustained improvements in the job and housing markets, as well as increases in business spending, put in motion before Trump's entrance. All told, economic growth could amount to 2% to 2.5% real GDP growth through 2019, according an analysis by S&P Global economists, but below the president's target of 3%.


"Net-net, I think it's business as usual for now with respect to the accord," State Street Global Advisors Managing Director and head of ESG Chris McKnett said in a June 6 interview, noting several economic factors that impact investment decisions beyond policy rhetoric.

State Street is one stalwart in ESG investing, helping lure large institutional investors to its platform, notching its assets under management north of $2.5 trillion as of March 31. The firm manages four ESG focused ETFs, including the SPDR S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Reserves Free ETF and SPDR MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF, which have in recent months tracked upwards with the broader market.

Money in motion

Audrey Choi, Managing Director and head of Morgan Stanley's Global Sustainable Finance Group, noted the growing demand for low-carbon investment platforms, which could stand to benefit from the decision to leave Paris.

"The most significant reaction we have seen is that it matters more than ever for investors to be thinking about these issues," she said in a June 6 interview.

Choi, who heads the bank's Institute for Sustainable Investing, observed that the pricing of environmental externalities, such as carbon emissions, and the associated climate risks posed to a company's fundamental outlook transcends political cycles. In that way, corporations and their shareholders with 20-year investment horizons may feel a renewed conviction to address the financial risks posed by climate change, making a near-term pivot on federal climate policy unlikely to send management teams reversing course on efforts to locate and mitigate climate risks to their businesses.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. represent two companies that have been on the receiving end of large asset management initiatives pushing for climate risk disclosure, emblematic of the growing consciousness of big shareholders to exercise their concerns on the climate in the board room. State Street, alongside BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group Inc., are among the largest shareholders in Exxon and are thought to have voted in favor of a recent resolution for the supermajor to enact financial disclosures related to climate risks. BlackRock, with $5.4 trillion under management, told S&P Global Market Intelligence in April that it would push energy companies to consider their 20- to 30-year Capital Expenditure plans less dependent on carbon-intensive production.


As for the dollars that populate the funds managed by the country's largest advisers, observers believe Trump's decision could resonate deeply with investors, framing the issue as a matter of financial backlash to the administration's policies.

"It could actually galvanize more interest in sustainable investing in general, and investors expressing their concerns around climate risks," Jon Hale, Morningstar Inc.'s head of sustainability research, said.

"I think a lot of families and investors may see this as a catalyst to continue or begin to make a more conscious effort to invest more responsibly when it comes to climate change," BNY's Grohowski observed. "I think it could potentially pick up inflows into climate change ETFs."

Morningstar data shows that major ETFs owned by State Street and BlackRock, reflecting companies with low-carbon and clean energy goals, have experienced large net inflows over the last year, in contrast to the Trump administration's efforts to relax carbon emission regulations. An estimated $204 million of net new cash has flowed into four of the largest ETFs centered on climate and clean energy, representing an increase of about 26% in net assets in the funds, according to data provided by Morningstar. These inflows have largely coincided with share prices tracking upwards with the S&P 500, potentially underscoring that low-carbon ETFs are increasingly viewed by investors as mainstream assets.

Retail awakening

In the wake of Trump's Paris decision, many Fortune 500 CEOs publicly expressed opposition or disappointment. While such reactions may align with corporate philosophy, the message is also intended to ensure customers at the retail level feel their values are aligned with the brands and businesses where they keep their money. One notable example includes Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO and Chairman Lloyd Blankfein in his first tweet characterizing the decision as a "setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world," coming at a time when the bank is seeking to build out its retail banking brand with younger audiences.

"We are in an era now where so much of value of big multinational companies is in intangible assets, as opposed to hard assets," Morningstar's Hale observed. "Hits to corporate reputation are significant, so it's not about just appeasing investors, but it's directed at consumers and their reputations internationally."

That puts the onus on management teams to demonstrate their commitment to issues like climate change and environmental sustainability, not only for large institutional stalwarts with boardroom muscle, but also for individual investors seeking advice from local investment advisers on how to navigate political uncertainty and climate risk. Millennials, in particular, could drive as much as $20 trillion in ESG-related investment inflows over the next three decades, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis from December 2016, potentially doubling the size of the US equity market.

"We want our wealth managers in the field to be prepared for these discussions with clients," BNY's Grohowski said of educating his investment advisers on climate-oriented investing, which could drive demand for additional climate-focused ETF products.

"We think that there is demand for that kind of supply, and we hear it from our intermediary counterparts," State Street's McKnett noted, pointing to the firm's suite of low-carbon ETFs that have helped meet the needs of investment advisers and retail brokerages. "They are telling us that this is a large trend that is affecting their business and how they build out their platforms and deliver a value proposition their clients."

"The signal is definitely coming through," he added.

Next Debt Crisis: Will Liquidity Hold?


Crisis. The next global downturn is unlikely to be as severe as 2008-2009 given that contagion risk from higher government and Chinese corporate leverage is limited (see section 1).

Transmission. We’re watching market movements on U.S. speculative-grade (e.g. “cov-lite”) and Chinese corporates (section 2). Global capital flows could amplify investor reaction in these segments.

Ratings. Notwithstanding a low interest rate environment, higher leverage has seen issuer ratings trend down globally over the past decade (see sections 3, 4 and 5).

Mar. 12 2019 — Will the next financial crisis be as bad as 2008-2009? Global debt is certainly higher and in many cases riskier than a decade ago. Nonetheless, the likelihood of a widespread investor exodus is contained, in S&P Global Ratings’ view. The increased debt is largely driven by advanced-economy sovereign borrowing and domestic-funded Chinese companies, thus mitigating contagion risk.

That’s not to say there is no vulnerability. A perfect storm of realized risks across geographies and asset classes could trigger a systemically damaging downturn. This downside scenario reflects an increased reliance on global capital flows and functioning secondary market liquidity.

It also reflects bottom-up risks, given that many speculative-grade corporate borrowers have obtained financing on reasonably good terms for much of the past decade. In looking at 11,947 corporates, we find the proportion of companies having aggressive or highly leveraged financial risk has risen slightly, to 61%. While defaults in recent years have been low, this could change.

Read The Full Report

Turning Tides: The Future of Fuel Oil After IMO 2020

This report provides a thorough introduction to the IMO's sulfur cap on marine fuel, its impact on markets and what to expect from the new regulatory framework. Aiming to provide market-leading insight and analysis, S&P Global Platts outlines the regulation's impact on refiners and shipowners, analyzes how markets will adapt, and offers birds-eye view on how it could affect the environment.

The IMO’s lower sulfur cap is set to take away the bulk of marine fuel oil demand from the start of next year. Most shipowners and operators will switch to burning new low-sulfur bunker blends, meaning an almost overnight shift of 3 million b/d of demand.

The change poses a tough challenge to fuel oil producers, and prices are  expected to drop dramatically towards the end of 2019. Ships fitted with scrubbers to clean their emissions on board are set to benefit from this drop in their fuel bills, but only a small fraction of the global fleet are expected to invest in the systems by 2020.

LNG producers can expect to see some new demand for their product as an alternative marine fuel. But the IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy may hold back interest in LNG bunkering beyond the 2020s.

The global refining industry is investing in new units aimed at reducing fuel oil output and maximizing middle distillate production. Russian fuel oil exports in particular have fallen dramatically over the past two years.

But new sources of fuel oil demand can be expected to emerge in the coming years, partly offsetting the decline in marine demand. Saudi Arabia has already increased fuel oil consumption for power generation and its water desalinization plants, and Bangladesh is expected to become another key consumer.

2020 will not be the end of the road for fuel oil. A century after its first move to widespread adoption in shipping, fuel oil still has a significant role to play in the oil industry.

Read the Full Report

Credit Trends: Demystifying China's Domestic Debt Market


- China's domestic corporate debt market, with debt outstanding of $6.6 trillion, is the third-largest domestic corporate (financial and nonfinancial) debt market, trailing the nearly $9 trillion U.S. market and Europe's $7.4 trillion (considering intra-European debt issuance as domestic funding).

- The market is split between the larger interbank market and smaller exchange markets (Shanghai and Shenzhen). Local government financing vehicles account for a sizable portion of the interbank market debt outstanding (over 60% by new issue count in 2014).

- As in many other countries, a number of market participants, like insurance companies and asset managers, engage in a buy-and-hold strategy for long-term debt in China, and banks typically match shorter-duration debt with their short-term liabilities, favoring liquidity over higher yields, as do money market funds.

- Looking ahead, China must carefully balance its need for economic growth with its need to manage the significant growth of its debt burden.

Feb. 19 2019 — For the past decade, China has experienced rapid growth in newly issued corporate debt (financial and nonfinancial), at an average rate of nearly 50% year over year. Issuance slowed in 2017 but resumed growth in 2018, with $2.6 trillion of new debt issued as of the end of the third quarter. The majority of this debt was financial debt issuance ($1.9 trillion), while nonfinancial debt issuance totaled $658 billion--the second-highest total in two decades. These figures exclude debt issued with maturities shorter than 31 days.

What is the size of China's domestic debt market? How has it evolved?

Of China's nearly $13 trillion in outstanding domestic debt (that is publicly traded), the financial sector holds the largest piece, at $4.9 trillion, followed by nonfinancial corporations and local governments at $2.7 trillion each. The majority of debt is held in the form of interbank loans and bonds in China's government-backed interbank market, which consists of a wide variety of financial institutions. Through China's Bond Connect, a new mutual market access program that will allow investors from mainland China and overseas to trade in each other's bond markets, the government's long-term aim is to open participation in this interbank market to foreign investors to help meet foreign demand for these securities while simultaneously managing its own risk.


Growth over the past several years in the corporate debt market has stemmed primarily from the financial segment, including policy bank debt, commercial bank debt, insurance debt, etc. Local and national government debt issuance, on the other hand, shrunk in 2018 to $557 billion and $346 billion, respectively (see chart 2).


Despite its size, the Chinese domestic debt market was still opaque to foreign investors just a few years ago. Amid continuous economic growth and more integration in the global markets, more and more investors are trying to understand China's domestic market and are eager to potentially capitalize on its high growth and investment return prospects. Additionally, investors may see the benefit of diversification by investing in the Chinese bond market, given the large and increasing importance of China to the global economy and, especially now, its comparatively higher economic growth prospects relative to other large economies.

To meet demand from these investors as well as sustainably manage its own capital market structure, China is in the process of deploying two major strategies: 1) opening credit markets to foreign investors and 2) bringing integrity and efficiency to the Chinese domestic debt market through standardization. Additional reforms aimed at supporting China's need for economic growth without excessive credit growth include policies to control public investment growth, constrain borrowing for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and curb rapid growth in household debt.

Who are the issuers? Who are the buyers?

Issuers in the interbank market (with tenors greater than 31 days) are typically industrial and commercial banks, as well as nonfinancial corporations seeking bank funding in the form of loans and bonds, though the former are the considerably larger funding source. In the exchange market, nonfinancials dominate the debt outstanding in both the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges.

The buyers in the interbank and exchange markets are typically banks, asset managers, mutual funds, and insurance companies, though their strategies differ greatly depending on their roles. We will detail these differences later.

The majority of debt outstanding in China's domestic debt market is financial debt, which accounts for $4.9 trillion, compared with $2.7 trillion in nonfinancial debt, $2.7 trillion in local government debt, and $2.2 trillion in national government debt (see chart 4). In contrast, the largest share of debt in the U.S. is Treasury securities, which account for $14.8 trillion, or 36%, whereas corporate debt (financial and nonfinancial) accounts for just under $10 trillion (23%), as shown in chart 5. Securitizations are also a considerable part of the debt outstanding in the U.S., with $9.5 trillion in outstanding mortgage securitizations and $1.6 trillion in asset-backed securitizations.

Chart 6 illustrates how a local Chinese investor would view the domestic debt market, using the categorical terminology used in China.


The majority of Chinese debt is held in the interbank market (see chart 7). The alternative, the exchange markets (including both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges), have government debt, both local and national, as their largest holdings, though the exchange markets are smaller in debt volume than the interbank market. Over three-quarters of the country's deposits and commercial loans are controlled by the big five state-owned commercial banks.

Local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) are a special type of debt in China. These are economic entities, established by Chinese governments and their departments and agencies through fiscal appropriation or injection of assets to finance government-invested projects, primarily infrastructure projects, or construction and real estate development projects. According to the State Council, all LGFV borrowings since 2015 are corporate debt, and no level of government is a backstop for these. The Ministry of Finance's annual quota for the issuance of local government bonds falls far short of the infrastructure investments needed to support local GDP growth and improve social welfare. As a result, many local governments have continued to mandate that LGFVs finance a significant level of infrastructure or social projects. This trend has been further fueled by easy credit from banks and "shadow banks" and by the availability of alternative financing (such as financial leases) from mid-2015 to late 2017.

At the end of 2017, China's outstanding government debt on balance sheets amounted to RMB29.95 trillion (or US$4.41 trillion), of which local authorities have raised RMB16.5 trillion (or US$2.43 trillion) through bond issuances since 2015. S&P Global Ratings estimates that the ratio of government debt to GDP was well above 60% in 2017, including hidden debts (like LGFVs). However, the default risk of LGFVs is increasing. China has opened the possibility of insolvent LGFVs filing for bankruptcy, but managing the aftermath of defaults is a formidable task for top leadership (see "China's Hidden Subnational Debts Suggest More LGFV Defaults Are Likely," Oct. 15, 2018).

Note that the figures in chart 7 include debt issues that are issued in both interbank and exchange markets; when this happens, the issues are included only in the primary market of issuance to avoid double-counting.


How liquid is China's domestic debt market?

Liquidity, as measured by traditional government and corporate debt turnover ratios (debt volume traded divided by debt volume outstanding), has declined from the highs of roughly five years ago to 0.34 and 0.09, respectively (see chart 8). The rapid growth of debt volumes has contributed to the fall in these ratios.

Banks participating in the interbank market bring liquidity to an otherwise illiquid debt market through the purchase of government debt securities and lending to other institutions (the coupons and spreads cover operating costs). Commercial banks typically match the durations of the liabilities they have on their own books (both in developed markets as well as in China), and liabilities are relatively short-term; thus, commercial banks tend to favor shorter-duration bonds for higher liquidity.

Mutual funds and insurance companies, however, typically follow a buy-and-hold strategy, resulting in lower active trading for less liquid debt. Foreign participation in the Chinese interbank bond market, while nearly nonexistent at present, will likely increase with Bond Connect.


While small in debt volume as compared with financial and nonfinancial corporate debt, the securitization market in China is growing rapidly. S&P Global Ratings expects that more established market infrastructure, stable asset performance, and a continued need for consumption and mortgage funding will enable the overall market to grow. We believe some economic reforms, like administrative and regulatory streamlining from the 2018 National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference sessions, might encourage investment and support more sustainable long-term economic and credit growth in China.


By comparison, China also had the second-largest securitization issuance volume in the world in 2018, at $260 billion--over double the volume issued in Europe (see chart 10). The largest issuance volume came from the U.S., with $530 billion.


What is the maturity profile? Which industries are most vulnerable?

As of Sept. 28, 2018, a sizable volume of approximately $3 trillion was due to mature by 2019 in the domestic Chinese corporate debt market, reflecting the historical bias toward short-term debt, and another $3.2 trillion is poised to mature by 2023 (see table 1). The majority of the $6.2 trillion in corporate debt maturing by 2023 is financial debt, at $3.7 trillion. Another $3 trillion in government debt (both national and local) is set to mature by 2023. Over these five years, we expect that debt costs will likely rise--though monetary policy has recently eased funding costs--and government reforms and investment in the infrastructure of the domestic capital markets will likely help business sustainability, promoting debt issuance in the process.


Of the Chinese domestic nonfinancial corporate debt maturing by 2023, industrials hold roughly half, at $1 trillion, followed by real estate at $282 billion (see chart 11). Following utilities with $197 billion, materials and energy tie for fourth place at $186 billion. Lower demand for real estate and lower profitability will likely increase the perception of risk for these firms and subsequently push refinancing costs to potentially unsustainable levels to compensate investors for the risk they are taking on. Some issuers in this sector may face increasing default risk as well. The energy sector is also an area of concern, given comparatively low oil prices.


How do the Chinese financial system and credit market differ?

The activities of China's financial system are supervised by the People's Bank of China (PBOC), China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC), and China Securities Regulatory Commission. Additionally, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), a macroeconomic management agency under the State Council, also oversees markets. For example, it plays a role in determining the criteria companies must meet before issuing onshore bonds. The PBOC, which is the central bank, has a mandate to maintain financial stability with monetary policy, while the CBIRC is primarily responsible for supervising the establishment and ongoing business activities of banking and insurance institutions and taking enforcement actions against regulatory violations.

There are three policy banks: China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank of China, and Export & Import Bank of China. China's big five state-owned commercial banks are Industrialand Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and Bank of Communications. Besides state-owned commercial banks, there are also city commercial banks and other commercial banks (see diagram).

The four largest banks in the world are Chinese banks. According to data published by S&P Global Market Intelligence as of April 6, 2018, 18 of the top 100 banks are headquartered in China, and they collectively reported $23.761 trillion in assets. The U.S. had the next-highest number, with 11 banks and $12.196 trillion in assets, followed by Japan with eight banks and $10.534 trillion in assets. The seven largest banks in the world by asset value are Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Corp., Agricultural Bank of China Ltd., Bank of China Ltd., Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and HSBC Holdings PLC (see table 2).


Chinese companies raise funding by issuing debt in China's interbank or exchange markets in a variety of forms. SOEs typically issue debt with a tenor between three and 30 years and are generally traded on the interbank bond market. Due to lower demand, tenors greater than 10 years are rare. Non-SOE companies, on the other hand, typically issue short-term (less than one year) and supershort-term (less than 270 days) commercial paper notes, as well as short-term funding (up to one-year tenors), medium-term notes, and long-term bonds for debt typically three to 30 years in tenor. Note that medium-term notes in China can exceed the typical tenors of three to seven years seen in developed markets. Again, however, market demand for longer tenors is small, making them atypical.

Among long-term bonds (greater than one year in tenor), the majority of debt outstanding is in the financial segment ($3.4 trillion), while corporate bonds account for the second-highest debt outstanding ($1.4 trillion) (see chart 12). The real estate sector holds a sizable concentration (18%) of corporate bonds and may have higher risk than other segments, given signs that property sales are past their peak in China, especially at a time of rapidly rising funding costs for the sector (see "China Property Watch: Which Developers Will Be Dragged Down In A Sliding Sector?" Nov. 6, 2018). Nevertheless, just over half of debt in the corporate segment belongs to industrial companies, many of which are state-owned and have options to help mitigate refinancing risk.

Bank loans make up the major part of the Chinese debt market, while the bond market is relatively small but growing. Although some issuers have defaulted in the domestic bond market in the past few years, the default rate is only roughly 0.6%--low when considering the higher default rates in other markets--due to the market's large increase in debt volume. Increasing defaults are a normal part of the development of capital markets as investors become more selective to be adequately compensated for risk.


What's expected for Chinese domestic credit growth in 2019?

Although deleveraging remains a high priority for the Chinese government, policy measures, including modulating the pace and intensity of the deleveraging process, may be used to minimize disruption to economic growth objectives. S&P Global economists project softened growth for the Chinese economy, to 6.2% in 2019 and 6.0% in 2020, but this slower growth is still quite healthy. We anticipate a softening in the government's growth target and a pause--but not a reversal--in deleveraging efforts, but the focus of the Chinese government will likely be balancing deleveraging policies and the growth of China's economy. Overall, we expect capital spending to remain more disciplined, setting the stage for China to continue the major undertaking of reducing its debt burden (see "China Inc. Will Struggle To Stay On The Deleveraging Path," Oct. 14, 2018).


China faces tension from trading partners' complaints and aspects of the economic road map its leaders have set out since 2015. This tension has put homegrown innovation, rapid development of the new economy, and a transformation of SOEs at the heart of the reform process. The two key aspects of the road map are the "Made in China 2025" program, which aims to quickly ramp up market share for domestic suppliers in a variety of industries, and the priority to make SOEs "stronger, better, and bigger" in order to develop their capacity for innovation and "exercise a greater influence and control over the economy." Meanwhile, the private sector has grown its footprint substantially over the past 10-15 years and now accounts for a very large share of total employment (see chart 16) (see "U.S.-China Economic Friction: Technology More Than Trade," Oct. 17, 2018).


While the timeline is difficult to forecast, China's bond market reforms are consistent with its goal of a more open, market-based economy over the long term. Bringing integrity and efficiency to the Chinese debt market through structural reforms should accelerate foreign participation and sustainable growth.

Listen: These ESG Trends will Shape 2019, Sustainability Experts Say

Progress on corporate disclosures. A looming talent shortage. Climate change mitigation. These are among the top trends that sustainability experts predict will shape the ESG landscape in 2019. In the inaugural episode of ESG Insider, a new podcast from S&P Global, co-hosts Esther Whieldon and Lindsey White speak to several ESG leaders about the key themes they are watching this year, including Rakhi Kumar, State Street Global Advisors’ head of ESG investments and asset stewardship, Mindy Lubber, CEO and president of Ceres, and Libby Bernick, Trucost managing director and global head of corporate business.

"ESG investing is no longer a sideshow," State Street Global Advisors Inc.'s Rakhi Kumar said in the inaugural episode of ESG Insider, which will focus on environmental, social and governance issues.

Kumar, SSGA's head of ESG investments and asset stewardship, also highlighted the importance of leadership teams setting goals around issues like diversity to achieve progress toward building more sustainable businesses in the long term.

Some other takeaways:

Why companies are starting to pay more attention to the physical risks of climate change

Amid an increase in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts and heat waves, companies are beginning to take a closer look at how climate change could threaten their operations and even their bottom line, said Libby Bernick, Trucost managing director and global head of corporate business.

"It's not just 'what's my company's impact on climate,' it's 'what's climate's impact on my company,'" Bernick said.

Trucost is a research group within S&P Global Market Intelligence that assesses business risks related to climate change and other ESG factors.

Companies are responding to investor pressure to tackle sustainability issues

Investor pressure has already prompted a number of companies to step up their environmental efforts, particularly those tied to climate change and water shortages, according to Ceres President and CEO Mindy Lubber. Ceres is an organization that helps coordinate sustainability discussions between major companies and shareholders.

Lubber expects the momentum will continue in 2019 with companies beginning to tackle climate-related issues in a "more concentrated, focused, systemic way."

To read more of S&P Global's coverage of sustainability issues, you can subscribe here to receive our weekly ESG Insider newsletter.

This article was published by S&P Global Market Intelligence and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.