Download (PDF,6 MB) - Antidiskriminierungsstelle

page 172 chapter V
markets like mildew and concealed many differences.
It was only the subprime shock that reminded numerous
market players of many a risk (such as that of the
other party) – although it is described in the offering
prospectus of every investment fund, for example. We
noted a pleasing experience during this time: the
bonds issued by companies that we rate as sustainable
have developed far better than those of non-sustainable
enterprises. What had happened?
I Sustainable businesses tend to have better creditworthiness
in the sense of traditional ratings.
I In most sectors, the bonds of non-sustainable companies
were subject to far greater expansion of the risk
premiums (as gauged by so-called credit default
swaps). This difference can be as much as 150 basis
points. For those of you who don’t trade in bonds every
day, let me just say: that’s worlds apart! We attribute
this to investors fundamentally reassessing
risks that were previously massively underestimated.
I Based on the sustainability approach, a number of
critical business models that are also particularly
hard-hit by the crisis were identified at an early
stage and either avoided or underweighted (such as
automotive manufacturers, airlines, oil and gas,
mining, and building materials).
These facts clearly show that the arguments we have
been propounding for years regarding the consideration
of ecological and social factors have in the meantime
also got through to the share and bond markets.
Allow me to very briefly summarise my pleading: the
only option today is to revive values that are widely ac-